Australian Voters Reject 'Climate Change' Politicians

Quoting the Wall Street Journal below, which makes this win against climate change political scaremongering even more delicious:

Australia’s Conservatives Win Surprise Election Victory

SYDNEY—Australia’s conservative government eked out a surprise victory in Saturday’s national elections after voters in resource-rich districts turned against center-left opponents who had put climate change at the heart of their campaign.

...

 

30fq1l.jpg.22ec95340cd33a4a246727d936591bc5.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conservatives Celebrate Stunning Win in Australian Elections 

The Australian election was held today; voting is compulsory as everyone over the age 18 is required to vote; turnout was greater than 95%…  and all the media and pollsters are stunned, shocked, jaws-agape, as the conservative coalition has received a stunning, unexpected, unanticipated victory.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has won the election.  Yes Alice, 2019 media in Australia look identical to media in the U.S. circa November 2016.

The economy, immigration and push-back against the insufferable climate-change nonsense appear to be the top issues that led to Morrison’s surprising win.  None of the pollsters or media saw it coming.  The BBC are stunned ...

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When will they learn how to read the room? I guess when the media act more like a mirror and less like a bullhorn. Oh well. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Rodent said:

When will they learn how to read the room? I guess when the media act more like a mirror and less like a bullhorn. Oh well. 

Related:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bwahahahahaha

Australia Re-Elects Conservative As Prime Minister In 'Shock' Result, Left Predicts Environmental Apocalypse

Australia has "unexpectedly" returned their conservative, Donald Trump-esque Prime Minister to office for a third term in a vote that "shocked" international media and left-leaning Australians.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison's Liberal National coalition government will return to power, despite an election that most pollsters and experts agreed was "unwinnable" for conservatives and "unlosable" for the country's Labor party, according to CNN.
 
"This was the unlosable election for the Labor Party. That's how this was considered," one reporter told international media from an Australian Labor party election celebration Friday evening. 
 
... Australians under-reported their support for their conservative government, and Labor leaders took that as a sign that they were headed for a landslide victory.
 
But, it turns out, the Labor position of "taking action on climate change, improving funding to services, and ending tax cuts for top earners" was more unpopular than initially believed. The consensus among post-mortem analysts seems to be that Labor simply got too greedy, assuming that because Australians are willing to accept small, incremental tax increases for certain projects, that they'd be supportive of tax hikes across the board.
 
... The left quickly predicted a swift and apocalyptic end to the world. Celebrities and television personalities burst into hysterics on social media, over concerns that Australians had just signed their environmental death warrants, according news.com.au.

 

 

 

dada1ee54bab73d16f0b242f1cb66d5cdb8332f4578e5b2a66cb0252bb9bbff0.thumb.jpeg.abfeb1cf94a620eaa277d17c9d3afff9.jpeg

 

c5eb22d11ee4d4f58f01d8adb985a8a8a3de8ab6774b211fc8252bef80d1581e.thumb.png.45dc8e0c5c304e5416b79b9672fabe83.png

 

e694668f6cfcaa2cb053accd93bffe4b4d9c6a38997bff7da94e5b6e93d7aff0.gif.e5ce046a75362e14aa777ff092087826.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People thinking the headline about climate change being an important factor in the Australian election outcome are being fed a line.

As a voter in the State which gave the PM his victory, given the margin was thin, there were only 2 factors that counted.

First, Queensland has the highest proportion of self-funded retirees in the nation and these people were going to lose their refund cheques.  Second, the mining industry's promotion of a proposed massive thermal coal mine in Queensland with an inflated number of jobs was likely to be bumped.  

Polling companies and betting agencies got their projections wrong because they failed to adjust for the above 2 cohorts which they never previously had to capture.

The outcome was an object lesson in what you don't know because you didn't think to ask. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Red said:

People thinking the headline about climate change being an important factor in the Australian election outcome are being fed a line.

As a voter in the State which gave the PM his victory, given the margin was thin, there were only 2 factors that counted.

First, Queensland has the highest proportion of self-funded retirees in the nation and these people were going to lose their refund cheques.  Second, the mining industry's promotion of a proposed massive thermal coal mine in Queensland with an inflated number of jobs was likely to be bumped.  

Polling companies and betting agencies got their projections wrong because they failed to adjust for the above 2 cohorts which they never previously had to capture.

The outcome was an object lesson in what you don't know because you didn't think to ask. 

My comment in a different thread; seems applicable here:

https://community.oilprice.com/topic/6067-canadas-uncivil-oil-war-78-of-voters-cite-energy-as-the-top-issue/?tab=comments#comment-52319

The oil crash in 2016 was a bloodbath, extreme price rollercoastering.

From the 40,000 foot view, 2018 and 2019 have so far been overall pretty good.  Canada is left behind though, by deliberate anti-oil & gas policies by Trudeau and his incompetent, economy-killing ilk.

I can see quite clearly that Trudeau and his Climate Change Cult + Carbon Taxes ilk will get decimated in Canada's October 2019 Federal Elections, in much the same way the Australia voters got rid of the Climate Change Cult politicians in last week's federal elections.

 

● In 2018, Brent averaged $71.  (My ad nauseum predictions last year for 2018 were for $65 Brent.  Better than I predicted.)

● In 2019, Brent so far seems to be averaging in the vicinity of $70 again, although the year is only half over so far. 

● My ad nauseum predictions this year for 2019 are for $70 Brent, and so far oil prices are generally following the price arc I predicted months ago: sub-$70 Brent in the beginning of this year, then oil prices overheating to around $80 Brent by this Summer, and then Brent dropping back down in the Fall, to end up with a net annual average of $70 Brent this year.

 

If my Brent Oil price arc prediction for this year is correct, about the same time that Canada will be having their federal elections in October will be around the same time that overheated oil prices from this Summer ($80+ Brent) will start dropping back down, and Canadians in general will likely be furious that they missed out on this Summer's oil price boom due to Trudeau and his oil & gas hating, Climate Change Scaremongering + Carbon Taxing political ilk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tom Kirkman said:

My comment in a different thread; seems applicable here:

You are welcome to think that.  My view is that it is mostly irrelevant.

The issue in Australia relates to what caused the consensus makers to get it wrong, and get it consistently wrong for years at that.  They even got it wrong at exit polling on election day.  It was wholly due to sampling errors on the polling front.

On the betting front one agency paid out on Labor to win 2 days before the election and lost an estimated AUD$5.3m.  Self funded retirees by and large do not gamble online.  I am in this cohort, and so are most of my friends.  As a result the betting agencies were taking nearly all their money from younger people, rather than a slab of the population which didn't bet, but who did vote.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, most Australians voted against a high-taxing, social engineering, "bring back the boats" style of govt. Whilst true that Adani coalmine was big issue here in QLD and gave Conservatives a Cpl extra seats, they lost the "blue-ribbon" seat of a former PM due to climate issue. Greens party did not lose any support. I am a "hard-core" greenie, but even I put them last on my vote due to their irrational approach to actually fixing the problem and also their toxic anti-Semitism and other far-left policies. I have a degree in Environmental Science but I also have degrees in business and physics so I know precisely how difficult the challenge of reducing greenhouse emissions really is. Ultimately, nuclear is going to have to play a larger role than currently projected, and we will need to build an "international power grid" to allow renewables to achieve max efficiency.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Wombat said:

Actually, most Australians voted against a high-taxing, social engineering, "bring back the boats" style of govt. 

Actually, what you claim was not on the agenda, so I suspect your claims are suspect.   It is apparent you did not know Labor's policies actually gave a greater return to the budget bottom line than the Coalition's.

2 hours ago, Wombat said:

...they lost the "blue-ribbon" seat of a former PM due to climate issue.

No, that was lost by an Independent.  2 strikes so far.

2 hours ago, Wombat said:

I am a "hard-core" greenie, but even I put them last on my vote due to their irrational approach to actually fixing the problem and also their toxic anti-Semitism and other far-left policies.

That's your preference, but your ideas definitely do not align with reality, and you cannot be a Green's voter with the attitude you have.  I make that 3 strikes now.

2 hours ago, Wombat said:

I have a degree in Environmental Science but I also have degrees in business and physics so I know precisely how difficult the challenge of reducing greenhouse emissions really is.

You don't understand basic economics, however, and the problem could have been easily mitigated years ago with a price on carbon.  The real challenge is to get governments to act globally, and this has zero to do with what you claim to know.

Edited by Red
formatting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wombat said:

Actually, most Australians voted against a high-taxing, social engineering, "bring back the boats" style of govt. Whilst true that Adani coalmine was big issue here in QLD and gave Conservatives a Cpl extra seats, they lost the "blue-ribbon" seat of a former PM due to climate issue. Greens party did not lose any support. I am a "hard-core" greenie, but even I put them last on my vote due to their irrational approach to actually fixing the problem and also their toxic anti-Semitism and other far-left policies. I have a degree in Environmental Science but I also have degrees in business and physics so I know precisely how difficult the challenge of reducing greenhouse emissions really is. Ultimately, nuclear is going to have to play a larger role than currently projected, and we will need to build an "international power grid" to allow renewables to achieve max efficiency.

Yes yes, very hard. That's why my CO2 emissions are <3000kg and yours are likely >15000kg. It's hard if you don't try and expect others to do it for you, I'll give you that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 11:53 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

Quoting the Wall Street Journal below, which makes this win against climate change political scaremongering even more delicious

I would avoid quoting the WSJ, since they were purchased by R. Murdoch they have spent a lot of their time with propaganda rather than actual reporting. In case you weren't aware, R. Murdoch is the king of trashy magazines that are designed to engage people emotionally rather than present valid information. His mark is clearly visible everywhere he goes in the media.

Your style of posting above and elsewhere on this forum certainly suggests you're either part of that particular "fraternity" or have become heavily influenced by the targeted garbage being spread far and wide through related media outlets. If you are a victim then I'm sorry for you, my guess is your livelihood depends on fossil fuels which makes you more conformant. I'm sorry about that too but none of the above changes the realities we face this century or the facts about alternatives and especially possible effective risk reduction through energy efficiency efforts. There may be a chance that these realities aren't as severe but this chance seems to be quite minor at this point and expecting this to pan out in our favour without serious action is folly.

Edited by David Jones
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David Jones said:

I would avoid quoting the WSJ, since they were purchased by R. Murdoch they have spent a lot of their time with propaganda rather than actual reporting. In case you weren't aware, R. Murdoch is the king of trashy magazines that are designed to engage people emotionally rather than present valid information. His mark is clearly visible everywhere he goes in the media.

Your style of posting above and elsewhere on this forum certainly suggests you're either part of that particular "fraternity" or have become heavily influenced by the targeted garbage being spread far and wide through related media outlets. If you are a victim then I'm sorry for you, my guess is your livelihood depends on fossil fuels which makes you more conformant. I'm sorry about that too but none of the above changes the realities we face this century or the facts about alternatives and especially possible effective risk reduction through energy efficiency efforts. There may be a chance that these realities aren't as severe but this chance seems to be quite minor at this point and expecting this to pan out in our favour without serious action is folly.

I'm not a fan of mainstream media, and I have repeatedly suggested to others to unplug their TVs.  I typically poke fun at the huge biases and disinformation that come from MSM such as the Washington Post, New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal.

f07727b7b10be189c3e4f7937a273b29c73e1203989e9d25bd707d933ef1353a.jpeg

f102f668b5373ffa256ea74e601b67874e692620a4f23d50bbb9096eb7c054e8.jpeg

1a6a343fb07fc7e25e31e3628335248c66c785fc18bd72c8afb1a5b98a5fc3d9.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Red said:

People thinking the headline about climate change being an important factor in the Australian election outcome are being fed a line.

Deliciously stunned reaction from New York Times.  Apparently NYT is still clueless, and thick as a brick.

It Was Supposed to Be Australia’s Climate Change Election. What Happened?

SYDNEY, Australia — The polls said this would be Australia’s climate change election, when voters confronted harsh reality and elected leaders who would tackle the problem.

And in some districts, it was true: Tony Abbott, the former prime minister who stymied climate policy for years, lost to an independent who campaigned on the issue. A few other new candidates prioritizing climate change also won.

But over all, Australians shrugged off the warming seas killing the Great Barrier Reef and the extreme drought punishing farmers. On Saturday, in a result that stunned most analysts, they re-elected the conservative coalition that has long resisted plans to sharply cut down on carbon emissions and coal. ...

 

New York Times is so tone deaf on this, it is hilarious.  Basket of Deplorables part 2, perhaps?

After ‘Stunning’ Conservative Win, NY Times Compares Australia to ‘American South’

This weekend, another political earthquake hit the establishment. After trailing in every poll and being left for dead by liberals in the media, Prime Minister Scott Morrison and the conservatives in Australia won a shocking victory. But, just like with Brexit, Donald Trump’s win in 2016 and other examples, the New York Times on Sunday responded by sneering. In This case, the paper offered up the worst insult coming from Manhattan liberals: Parts of Australia are now like the “American south.”

In a “news analysis” by Times writer Damien Cave, the Times headline lamented that voters didn’t care for the activist climate agenda of the left-leaning Labor Party: “It Was Supposed to Be Australia’s Climate Change Election. What Happened?”

(NOTE: Australia’s conservative Party is called the Liberal Party. This can be confusing. However, it means classical free market liberalism. Not modern political liberalism.) Cave wrote:

And yet the path to victory for Scott Morrison, the incumbent prime minister, will make agreeing on a response more difficult. He and his Liberal-National coalition won thanks not just to their base of older, suburban economic conservatives, but also to a surge of support in Queensland, the rural, coal-producing, sparsely populated state sometimes compared to the American South.

 

One can probably assume they don't mean this last part as a compliment. 

In a tone that sounded like how the Times reacted to other shock wins, Cave almost sputtered on how this Australian election was supposed to go:

The polls said this would be Australia’s climate change election, when voters confronted harsh reality and elected leaders who would tackle the problem.

But over all, Australians shrugged off the warming seas killing the Great Barrier Reef and the extreme drought punishing farmers. On Saturday, in a result that stunned most analysts, they re-elected the conservative coalition that has long resisted plans to sharply cut down on carbon emissions and coal.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Deliciously stunned reaction from New York Times.  Apparently NYT is still clueless, and thick as a brick.

Your posts suggests a former Prime Minister who rejected climate change was voted out, while Australia voted in a government that rejected climate change.

It is either one or the other if you propose that type of argument as logic dictates it cannot be both.  It is clearly a nonsense argument and various media just like their headlines to be catchy.

What is most telling about the Zali Steggall victory over "Tony" the former PM, despite her climate change stance, was that her campaign was mostly funded by the former PM's rusted on voters who were now sick of his negativity and division.  They created a website and sold merchandise to specifically "vote Tony out".   Steggall herself has always voted Liberal and remains committed to Coalition government policies.

7 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

A few other new candidates prioritizing climate change also won.

That's just a rubbish claim.  Only one other seat changed to Labor - that of Gilmore - and it was due entirely to local issues.   Don't believe me however, as local media published those reasons and not multinational media looking to grab attention.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2019 at 5:17 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Deliciously stunned reaction from New York Times.  Apparently NYT is still clueless, and thick as a brick.

It Was Supposed to Be Australia’s Climate Change Election. What Happened?

SYDNEY, Australia — The polls said this would be Australia’s climate change election, when voters confronted harsh reality and elected leaders who would tackle the problem.

And in some districts, it was true: Tony Abbott, the former prime minister who stymied climate policy for years, lost to an independent who campaigned on the issue. A few other new candidates prioritizing climate change also won.

But over all, Australians shrugged off the warming seas killing the Great Barrier Reef and the extreme drought punishing farmers. On Saturday, in a result that stunned most analysts, they re-elected the conservative coalition that has long resisted plans to sharply cut down on carbon emissions and coal. ...

 

New York Times is so tone deaf on this, it is hilarious.  Basket of Deplorables part 2, perhaps?

After ‘Stunning’ Conservative Win, NY Times Compares Australia to ‘American South’

This weekend, another political earthquake hit the establishment. After trailing in every poll and being left for dead by liberals in the media, Prime Minister Scott Morrison and the conservatives in Australia won a shocking victory. But, just like with Brexit, Donald Trump’s win in 2016 and other examples, the New York Times on Sunday responded by sneering. In This case, the paper offered up the worst insult coming from Manhattan liberals: Parts of Australia are now like the “American south.”

In a “news analysis” by Times writer Damien Cave, the Times headline lamented that voters didn’t care for the activist climate agenda of the left-leaning Labor Party: “It Was Supposed to Be Australia’s Climate Change Election. What Happened?”

(NOTE: Australia’s conservative Party is called the Liberal Party. This can be confusing. However, it means classical free market liberalism. Not modern political liberalism.) Cave wrote:

And yet the path to victory for Scott Morrison, the incumbent prime minister, will make agreeing on a response more difficult. He and his Liberal-National coalition won thanks not just to their base of older, suburban economic conservatives, but also to a surge of support in Queensland, the rural, coal-producing, sparsely populated state sometimes compared to the American South.

 

One can probably assume they don't mean this last part as a compliment. 

In a tone that sounded like how the Times reacted to other shock wins, Cave almost sputtered on how this Australian election was supposed to go:

The polls said this would be Australia’s climate change election, when voters confronted harsh reality and elected leaders who would tackle the problem.

But over all, Australians shrugged off the warming seas killing the Great Barrier Reef and the extreme drought punishing farmers. On Saturday, in a result that stunned most analysts, they re-elected the conservative coalition that has long resisted plans to sharply cut down on carbon emissions and coal.

 

 

I wish "politics" were never invented.  But they reflect human nature.  Politicians try to sway others one way or the other.  It is useful to listen to other folks points of view such as in these blogs.  I am in Canada (dual US citizen), so I need to listen to those who are in the know Down Under.  As an engineer, I always had to do research and be open to new facts and adjust my recommendations accordingly.

As a retiree, I finally found time last year to read about Global Warming and Climate Change (I didn't even know they weren't the same thing).  I read most of the related articles on Wikipedia.  That was a good start.  Then I read some of their references and links.

So I believe the earth is warming.  Next ice age starts in over 40,000 years away, too late to help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age. Only 10,000 years ago there were Saber Tooth Tigers and Mammoths in what is now downtown Los Angeles! The Little Ice Age that caused the year with no summer in Europe has been receding in Canada and elsewhere since the late 1800's.  The Athabasca Glacier's tip is staked out yearly to mark its recession due to the Little Ice Age ending. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age.

Back to the subject.  I can see that the access to information on the web is making it more difficult for politicians (who are often swayed by political donors), to sway us to their biased points of view.  Better for the voter who has and takes the time to research.  We couldn't do that as easily in the past.

One article I recommend for this topic is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_global_warming

In summary, our global political institutions are so cumbersome (and/or biased) they will never solve any global warming issue.  I like the solutions people found on the Netflix series "Islands of the Future".  Beautifully filmed.  Smaller islands that worked to solve their unique situations. (They were able to go green for economic reasons.)   Each island had a different situation and a unique solution.  While politicians talked and taxed elsewhere, these islands have solutions that were implemented beginning decades ago.  Now they are "green".

My opinion is that Australian and other voters now have access to information that allows them to displace those politicians that just "talk green".  Australians can work out their solutions to their specific problems.  Screw the global institutions influence over individual countries. "One size does not fit all." (But use the globally accumulated and vetted research.)

I am not a "green".  I believe we need to adjust our economies with minimal job disruptions to whatever new technologies become technically and economically viable.

But 12 years until we burn to death you can forget !  I think the higher priority is to worry about our future sources of drinking water and population growth.  Maybe those issues should be on the politicians platforms.  Also the competition from China for resources.  Tell them.  I wrote my MLA yesterday.

India needs resources too.  However, unlike China, they play fair by the world's standards.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just waiting for the conservative climatologist to chime in..?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2019 at 10:18 PM, Red said:

It was wholly due to sampling errors on the polling front.

Purposeful errors, or accidental, do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rodent said:

Purposeful errors, or accidental, do you think?

Pure sampling error, with the error issue relating to question selection and weighting.

Several years of consecutive polls had a Labor victory with a near similar winning margin.  The error margin for polls varies depending on sample size, but a low margin would 2 percentage points, and often this was the difference between the two parties.  The chance of so many consecutive polls getting similar outcomes, given the margin of error, are tens of thousands to one.  In other words, it was statistically flawed to trust the polls.

The other issue that polling did not pick up was income level differentiation, as all polls attempt to correct for sampling bias and in this instance they did a very poor job.  Analysis of post election voting trends shows that many electorates were internally polarised.  I was apparently "randomly" selected 5 times by polling companies, but chose only to participate 3 times over 5 weeks.  The chances of our household being randomly selected that many times is astronomical and I should have bought a lottery ticket.

The above points aside, Queensland determined the fate of the election.  This State has a tradition of electoral polarisation as trends in country regions are often strongly counter prevailing trends elsewhere.  Analysts have labelled this outcome the "Adani factor."  It's a factor predicated on voter ignorance fed by clever advertising, and will work on country Queenslanders every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites