Is there a scientifically literate politician in the House?

The Government accepts the findings of our scientific institutions on climate change.

ScoMo – Prime Minister’s Reply – 2019-11-26

Federal pollies with skeptical tendencies.

A  list compiled by one of my agents of influence. He posted it in the comments and it is here for the benefit of people who don’t bother with the threads.

Malcolm Roberts,
Craig Kelly,
Barnaby Joyce,
Gerard Rennick,
George Christensen,
Keith Pitt,
Matt Canavan,
Eric Abetz,
Angus Taylor,
Llew O’Brien,
David Littleproud,
Michelle Landry,
Scott Buchholz.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Is there a scientifically literate politician in the House?

  1. C.L.

    I’m afraid the cause of a Liberal Party that actually stands up against climate insanity is lost, Rafe. I thought there was a possibility that Liberals (and especially Nationals) would make an aggressive pitch for coal, reliable electricity etc. But no. They’ve decided to go the Labor-lite route.

  2. Fat Tony

    Start looking for another country

  3. Leo G

    Through our commitment to our Paris Target we are playing our part and doing our bit … in a way that doesn’t endanger jobs or harm the economy.

    Nuclear winter soft landing?

  4. Today’s poll, MSM and Twitter driven spineless politicians don’t need to be scientifically literate or even scientifically curious, they simply get told what to do and timidly accept every order.

  5. John Bayley

    They’ve decided to go the Labor-lite route.

    Which was entirely to be expected by anyone with at least two functioning brain cells.
    The Laboral uni-party will only take notice if we the voters stop giving them our votes.
    If you have no local candidates available, or you for whatever reason can’t bring yourself to voting LDP, then the best alternative is to go on strike and vote for nobody.
    Until that happens, nothing will change.
    Just because “they are (yet) quite as bad as Labor” should not be good enough for giving the Liberals our continuing support.

  6. John Bayley

    Missed the crucial word there…

    “Just because they are not (yet) quite as bad as Labor”

  7. DaveR

    The 4th sentence in Sc0-Mo’s response is exactly why there should have been an inquiry into BOM at the time, when the Coalition had the chance. The BOM and CSIRO are probably the two most senior scientific institutions referred to. Of course that inquiry was scuttled by Turnbull and his willing deputy Fydenberg.

    Any independent inquiry into BOM would have discovered there are fundamental, serious problems in their Acorn-Sat temperature record, namely the mercury-electronic thermometer bias, and the homogenisation adjustments. It would also have discovered the length BOM has gone to to hide these problems.

    Its a pity this is the basic scientific evidence Sco-Mo relies on in his governments’ belief in the scientific institutions on climate change.

  8. So have you all signed the petition?

    No and never would. This is a sure way to get exactly what the warming worriers want, confirmation that catastrophic climate change is real and we must take extreme measures.

    Anyone that thinks otherwise is out of their minds.

  9. DaveR

    I think there is more political hope than some might think.
    Morrison government power in the lower house rests on a few votes.
    The Nationals’ McCormack and his men are on borrowed time.
    I am amazed the Nats have waited until they almost lose all their traditional heartland seats to take action.
    A new Nats leadership, with a rebalancing of policy, will be more conservative
    They will not rubber stamp all of Muddled Morrison’s policies on climate change
    Great opportunity for the Nats to win all the coal and water seats, and sweep Labor aside
    Labor heading further into unwinnable territory anyway, it will lose all its traditional coal seats

  10. Is there a scientifically literate politician in the House?

    May be two.
    But that doesn’t matter, what matters is what they think will get them elected at the next election.

  11. Colonel Crispin Berka

    A bad sign, but still only words, the same as he’s said to the press and in parliament, no new actions.

    The short answer to your question is basically No.
    We’ve had only one MP with a science-based degree who spoke against the alarmism, which was Dennis Jensen (WA). Jensen was top notch, right on the money, can hardly find an imperfection in any of his official comments on the topic. Because of this, Jensen got muzzled by his own Party.

    On the other hand there was Malcolm Roberts in the Senate. Sadly, Roberts said factually incorrect nonsense about CO2 during his Parliamentary role, sometimes even self-contradictory, and had no credibility right from day one until his ejection from Parliament.

    Back in 2009 when we had two Senators with science degrees, one of which was John Hogg from Qld, there was hardly a shred of resistance out of them on the scientific basis of climate change alarm. Being scientifically literate is not enough to ensure someone will volunteer to throw themselves into the Climate tank’s tracks only to slightly impede its taxing rollout by a mere 5 minutes. A bit like little Australia “fighting climate change”. That might explain why it seems in ten years nothing has changed politically.

  12. B.A.Lert

    Last year professor Andy Pittman stated in no uncertain terms that there is no link between AGW drought, no long term drying trend and reason AGW would make the country become more arid . One would have thought an excellent opportunity dial down the climate crazies and inject some common sense but no,Scomo does the opposite and tells us AGW making everything go to hell. Computer models are not climate science. The real science, such as the Greenland ice core study which shows a constant temperature variation of 2-4 degrees C every 30 to 40 years over the last thousand years is ignored. It’s hard to believe so many people in the western world are trying so hard to destroy their own society and way of life to make them selves feel good.

  13. I_am_not_a_robot

    RE enthusiast Paul Garvey at The Australian today reports that Australia’s mining giants are turning to solar power to fuel their ­operations as the cost of renewables reaches a tipping point.

  14. min

    Katie Allen , Higgins , has 28 years as Professor of Paediatrics and author of hundreds of research papers stated the nonsense of computer models but has to follow party line . This is not what she said but my interpretation. Even Finkel who states that even if we shut down all emissions it would not change world temperatures , Science, but then follows this statement with ideology , we have to set an example
    My challenge is do you know a family with good morals values etc who has set a good example for their children , but not all offspring follow the example . Most could think of of this example ,so if this thinking does not work at a micro level why would you think it would work on a macro level? No argument

  15. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    Craig Kelly? At least he’s out there “questioning da science”, a rare feat for a current gliberals MP and former rugby league player and “carpet salesman”, as my brother keeps reminding me about the latter.

  16. Davefromweewaa

    Wish I could share your optimism for the Nats Dave R.
    We need Barnaby for the same reason Abe Lincoln needed Ullyses Grant. Not because he’s a saint but because he fights.
    The so called Surrey Hills Nats, like the Michael Photios Libs are clearly not on our side. I’m very disappointed my local member (Mark Coulton) didn’t vote for Barnaby. Then to top it off we lost the fiesty and sensible Matt Canavan from cabinet.
    We’ll never get good energy , land and water management with this lot.

  17. Nob

    I_am_not_a_robot
    #3331862, posted on February 22, 2020 at 6:45 pm
    RE enthusiast Paul Garvey at The Australian today reports that Australia’s mining giants are turning to solar power to fuel their ­operations as the cost of renewables reaches a tipping point

    Tipping point my arse.

    They’ll have an isolated solar minigrid and will still burn megabuckets of diesel.

  18. Cardimona

    Here is the missive to which the PM was responding…

    G’day ScoMo

    Mate, why are you giving another billion dollars to the climate scam?

    Are you confused about climate science versus climate politics?

    First the science.

    Surface temperature is determined by gravity, atmospheric mass and solar heat – not trace gases. Only one changes, solar heat, and it’s looking likely that the next solar cycle will be a dim one.

    The greenhouse effect, such as it is (think dry desert air versus coastal tropical air), is water vapour’s domain. CO2 and methane have no measurable effect outside the laboratory.

    The test of science is accurate prediction. If your predictions fail your hypothesis is faulty. Climatologists have never, ever, anywhere, got even one prediction right. It’s no longer science.

    Now the politics.

    As the “null hypothesis” has beaten “carbon warming” we must accept the reality that this incredibly well-funded scare campaign is driven by a very large organisation.

    So who or what is big enough? It started with some Western billionaire frightbats subverting the UN and funding the hoax from guilt money extracted from Western taxpayers.

    But, as President Trump has noted, the Chinese are very quick to appropriate other people’s intellectual property. So they’ve simply taken over the UN.

    When there’s a slowdown in the supply of Western taxpayers’ money, like now with Trump’s USA turning off the taps, China just kicks in the shortfall.

    Finally – predictions.

    The climate cult have painted themselves into a corner with their “carbon warming” narrative. They can’t back away from it now.

    The sun will dim imperceptibly. The planet will cool noticeably. The alarmists will claim “victory”. But China will continue to burn more coal than the rest of the world combined.

    Electricity, petrol, diesel and gas will be scarce and expensive because we dynamited our power stations and banned oil and gas drilling. The hideously expensive windmills will then wear out.

    China will have ports across our sea-lanes and we will be dependent on them for the reduced income we have. Our best and brightest will find employment overseas.

    Then climate cultists will find their plan has totally failed and they’re not boss of everyone here. China will be.

    I expect outspoken sceptics like me will be second into the gulag, because history tells us the communists will purge the socialists first.

    We didn’t vote for what you’re doing; reverse course, man, before you hit that iceberg.

  19. Colonel C B. You are wrong about Malcolm Roberts. He has qualifications in Mining Engineering (UQ), business (MBA) and has manged mines. He is now the only MP that is qualified to talk about energy, the use of energy, energy effects on the environment and the costs of energy.
    The points in your link are valid. I did know that he put in a complaint against Prof Ove Hough-Gulberg who gave evidence for Green activists in an environment court against Adani (which they lost) Prof O H-G is a Marine scientist with no qualifications in the engineering subjects of thermodynamics and heat transfer. His evidence in court was just hearsay from political reports of the IPPC (which he had some association). It is possible that the complaint was too general. O H-G could have been charged with a criminal offense under the Professional Engineers Act Qld. He also could have been charged with a breach of the Public Sector Ethics Act Qld. It is also possible that O H-G could have been charged with perjury as he held himself out to be an expert when in fact he has no qualification in the area on which he gave evidence. Further, people have questioned his knowledge and activism in the marine science area particularly about the GBR.
    Roberts may have a few supporters in the senate but technically he is only 1 in 80. Turnbull and his Lib-Nat supporters, the greens and the ALP set out to destroy him when he was first elected. He came in 4th out of 6 in the last election. I suggest he will be there for at least 12 years (2 terms) and the Greens will be gone in Qld after the next senate election.

  20. Rayvic

    The only one that I know of, is Senator Malcolm Roberts

  21. Rayvic

    Re our “spineless politicians don’t need to be scientifically literate or even scientifically curious, they simply get told what to do and timidly accept every order” :

    Sadly, that is the case. They capitulate to bureaucratic groupthink that is aligned with the corrupt IPCC.

    The politicians are the puppets, the bureaucrats are the puppet masters.

  22. Turtle

    So if the findings of government scientific institutions told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?

    I think I’ve summed that one up.

  23. Turtle

    Malcolm Roberts
    Matt Canavan
    Craig Kelly

    3

  24. Turtle

    There are probably a few more who lack the guts to speak. The rest could probably write less than a paragraph comprised of popular slogans on climate science. And be unable two answer the two most basic questions, How much warming? and How much CO2?

  25. Cardimona

    For lurkers – here’s a good list of short but difficult questions to ask alarmists.
    (The list evolved from a discussion on the open forum.)

    Has the climate always changed or is this the first time?

    There’s been six major ice ages in the past so why did it warm up between each one?

    If CO2 causes warming, why were CO2 levels higher during past ice ages?

    BoM’s temperature records now show warming for decades so why haven’t the seas risen?

    Barack Obama believes seas are rising so why did he spend $15 million on a beachfront mansion?

    Did the Great Barrier Reef exist 15,000 years ago?

    How did aboriginals originally get to Tasmania?

    How much of the CO2 in the air is man-made and how much is natural?

    If we must reduce CO2 to fight warming, why can China keep increasing its CO2 output?

    If we blow up more coal-fired power stations will China stop building them?

    Are there any benefits to a warmer world?

    Will increased atmospheric CO2 increase food production?

    We’re told “renewables are cheaper” so why do they still get enormous subsidies?

    How many windmills will we need to power Australia on a calm night?

    97% of scientists say the science is settled, so how many scientists are there?

    Can you link me to the paper that proves man-made CO2 causes dangerous global warming?

    Atmospheric CO2 is around 410 parts per million, can you express that as a percentage?

    If global warming causes more cyclones why do BoM’s records show less cyclones?

  26. Cardimona

    This is the sadly-short list of federal pollies my famous daughter and I believe to be moderately to reasonably sceptical…

    Malcolm Roberts,
    Craig Kelly,
    Barnaby Joyce,
    Gerard Rennick,
    George Christensen,
    Keith Pitt,
    Matt Canavan,
    Eric Abetz,
    Angus Taylor,
    Llew O’Brien,
    David Littleproud,
    Michelle Landry,
    Scott Buchholz.

  27. Iampeter

    Is there a scientifically literate politician in the House?

    There’s certainly no politically literate position in the House, or anywhere else it seems, which is the actual issue.

    But I do wonder where you were with these questions when Howard was PM and it would’ve made a real difference to be pushing back at the time?

  28. Cynic of Ayr

    David Littleproud?
    ???????????????
    And a few more ????????????

Comments are closed.