Election 2013 Reps

Note: Senators’ positions here.

In September this year, 2013,  Australians will head to the polls to exercise their democratic right and vote in the federal election, with each eligible voter hoping the party of their choice wins enough seats to govern for the next 3 years. Recently, Australian politics has seemingly become much like American politics with the right shifting to the extreme right and what were formerly centre left shifting slightly to the centre. In the process, the issue of climate change has become highly politicised. The idea of this page, is to highlight where each party and some selected individuals stand on climate change. In particular, I am interested in whether they accept the science or not.

Recent climate change is real, it is happening now, it is caused by humans and it is serious. This is not up for debate because the science is settled. Every major national scientific body in the developed world and the tens of thousands of scientists researching the climate accept this as fact. In my opinion, and many others, it is hands down the most important global issue and challenge facing humanity, and urgent action is required…now.

In order for global initiatives to be implemented to tackle the threat of climate change we must have governments who are prepared to act, and that means we must first have governments that accept the science. So how does our current crop of politicians stack up? To find out, Hansard, party websites, individual websites, press releases, newspaper, radio and television interview transcripts were searched for definitive statements made by our politicians that demonstrate that they either accept the science or not. Where a definitive statement wasn’t apparent, but the Member had mentioned some aspects of climate change, I emailed the Member requesting clarification of their position.  Where no response was provided, the Member was classified as “no data” or “insufficient data”. Two Members made no mention of “climate change” or “global warming” at all in the places searched. They have been placed in the denier category. Retiring politicians (as at February 16, 2013) have been excluded.

An example of a definitive statement accepting the science on climate change is this one from Steve Irons, the Liberal Party Member for Swan, who when rising to speak in parliament on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and associated Bills (CPRS2009), said…

“I accept the premise that climate change exists and that greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to the accelerated rate of climate change. There is evidence to support this and I lend my weight to those arguments.”

The link for that speech is here. An example of a definitive statement or statements rejecting the science is this barrage from Warren Truss, the National Party Member for Wide Bay as reported in the Australian newspaper.

”It’s too simplistic to link a finite spell to climate change.”

”These comments tend to be made on hot days rather than cold days.

”I’m told it’s minus one in Mt Wellington at the present time in Tasmania.

”Hobart’s expecting a maximum of 16.

”Australia’s climate, it’s changing, it’s changeable. We have hot times, we have cold times…

”The reality is that it’s utterly simplistic to suggest that we have these fires because of climate change.”

This is the usual grab bag of inane throw away lines, or variations of, one can find on any climate denial website.  So, just how many of our politicians accept or reject the science of climate change?

Position on the science of climate change of current Australian mambers of the House of representatives n=150

Position on the science of climate change of current Australian members of the House of Representatives. n=150

What is clear from this graph is that the majority of Members accept the scientific consensus on climate change and have made definitive statements to that effect. When we break it down into party affiliations v position, we get an interesting look into the politicisation of the issue.

Position on the science ofclimate change of Members of the House of Representatives by political party affiliation. n=144 (6 retiring)

Position on the science of climate change of Members of the House of Representatives by political party affiliation. n=144 (6 retiring)

The striking thing about this graph that should be immediately apparent, is the fact that nearly every Australian Labor Party Member  has made a definitive statement accepting the science of climate change. For the conservatives, the split is nearly 50/50. This can be broken down further…

Position on the science of climate change by Coalition Members of the House of Representatives by political party affiliation n=59

Position on the science of climate change of Coalition Members of the House of Representatives by political party affiliation n=59

No real surprises here that the Nationals, being the representatives for large areas of “the bush” are climate change deniers. Their constituents tend to be highly conservative. Please note: retiring members and those for which there is no data have been excluded from this graph.

So, who accepts the science and who doesn’t? What is clear is that if you are of the right, there’s a good chance you are in the wrong. Here is a complete breakdown of the results with each member and their position.

Current sitting Members of the House of Representatives and their position on climate change science.

Current sitting Members of the House of Representatives and their position on climate change science.

It’s probably fitting that the leader of the opposition, with a bit of help from alphabetisation, tops the list of deniers. This is the man who wants to lead the country and he refuses to accept the science of climate change. Remember, it is Abbott who claimed that “climate change is crap.” Now I’m sure there are supporters of Mr Abbott who will find quotes about his direct action plan to tackle climate change and hold this up as evidence that he is serious about the climate however, this is the man who will say anything for political expediency.

The thing that really bugs me about the list of deniers, is the presence of those National Party Members. While it isn’t surprising, these 8 people are supposed to represent Australian rural communities and have their best interests at heart. Climate change is likely to have very severe impacts on agricultural production in Australia. The CSIRO State of the Climate 2012 report states…

Australian average temperatures are projected to rise by 0.6 to 1.5 °C by 2030 when compared with the climate of 1980 to 1999. The warming is projected to be in the range of 1.0 to 5.0 °C by 2070 if global greenhouse gas emissions are within the range of projected future emission scenarios considered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These changes will be felt through an increase in the number of hot days and warm nights, and a decline in cool days and cold nights.

Climate models suggest long-term drying over southern areas during winter and over southern and eastern areas during spring. This will be superimposed on large natural variability, so wet years are likely to become less frequent and dry years more frequent. Droughts are expected to become more frequent in southern Australia; however, periods of heavy rainfall are still likely to occur.

These changes will require mitigation and adaptation activities to be undertaken not just by the agricultural producers, but also the communities in which they exist, and without government support, many will go to the wall. One wonders if a government full of climate change deniers will be able to make the important decisions that will secure Australia’s food future? For an insight into the potential challenges faced by agricultural producers in the future, as well as what will be required to adapt and mitigate, it is well worth reading the 2012 paper by Beverly Henry et al titled, Livestock production in a changing climate: adaptation and mitigation research in Australia. From the abstract…

Climate change presents a range of challenges for animal agriculture in Australia. Livestock production will be affected by changes in temperature and water availability through impacts on pasture and forage crop quantity and quality, feed-grain production and price, and disease and pest distributions. This paper provides an overview of these impacts and the broader effects on landscape functionality, with a focus on recent research on effects of increasing temperature, changing rainfall patterns, and increased climate variability on animal health, growth, and reproduction, including through heat stress, and potential adaptation strategies.

Full text available here. It’s not just livestock. It’s across the board. What will wine growers do in the face of earlier springs, increased risk of fungal diseases and changes in the microbiology and chemistry of winemaking? What will apple and stone fruit growers do to cope with a decrease in the efficacy of natural pest predators due to phenological changes in host species? Will wheat farmers be able to rely on a government full of climate change deniers to provide adequate R&D funding to combat lower yields? One need only look to Queensland to see what ideological climate change denial from a government looks like.

So, here are a few examples of the kinds of statements made by the deniers in our parliament. Remember, these people are ignoring the advice of tens of thousands of experts from around the world who are all saying the same thing, and they want to make decisions on your behalf, that won’t just affect you, but your children and grandchildren as well.

“The Prime Minister and her ministers have repeatedly declared that the “science is settled” and there is no need for further debate on how to respond to the environmental challenges from climate change. A Nobel Prize-winning scientist told me recently that “science is never settled” and that scientific assumptions and conclusions must always be challenged. This eminent Noble Laureate pointed that had he accepted the so-called “settled science”, he would not have undertaken his important research, which challenged orthodox scientific propositions and led to new discoveries, which resulted in a Nobel Prize.” Julie Bishop

That was Julie Bishop appealing to authority…the wrong authority.

“We are after all only talking about models and forecasts. Just as an aside, when the weather bureau cannot reliably tell me what the weather is going to be like tomorrow and then tells me that in 100 years there are going to be sea level rises of a metre as a result of climate change, I think I am entitled to exercise a level of caution in deciding whether to accept everything that is put to me about weather, climate and long-term trends.” Darren Chester

Darren Chester, failing to understand the difference between short-term weather forecasts and long-term climate trends. Scarily, he then goes on to discuss how wonderful it would be to dig out and burn all the brown coal in the Latrobe Valley. For the uninitiated, burning any coal is bad, but burning brown coal specifically is very bad. It burns much cooler than anthracite  due to higher water content and less lithification and so you have to burn more of it to produce the same amount of energy.

“As I rise to speak on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and related bills, I do so wondering whether the debate is being driven by alarmists or scientists. Are we debating this subject from a scientific standpoint or are we being caught up in the emotion of the times? We do live in an uncertain world and it is understandable why it can be easier to accept statements at face value rather than questioning what we are being told. I have been reading Professor Ian Plimer’s book on his response to the global warming debate. It makes for very interesting and illuminating reading, and I would recommend it to any member entering the debate on global warming.” Joanna Gash

Joanna Gash basing her uneducated and ill-informed opinion on the writings of a non-expert who has never published a single peer-reviewed paper on the subject of climate change and who is the director of seven mining companies. Can you say “vested interests” Joanna?

“To say that climate change is human induced is to overblow and overstate our role in the scheme of the universe quite completely over a long period of time. I note that the member for Fraser came in here today with a very strong view about how human beings have been the source of all change in the universe at all times. He has joined a long line of Labor backbenchers I have spoken about in this place before—amateur scientists, wannabe weather readers, people who want to read the weather, people who like to come in here and make the most grandiose predictions about all sorts of scientific matters without even a basic understanding of the periodic table, or the elements or where carbon might be placed on the periodic table. So the member for Fraser has joined this esteemed group of people who seem to be great authorities on science.” Alex Hawke

Alex Hawke, also confusing weather with climate but doing so in a spectacularly arrogant way. I love it. He’s not just saying, “I’m an idiot” but rather “I’m really an idiot and you better believe it! So there!” Who wants to ask Mr Hawke where carbon is on the periodic table? I know I do.

“As the only PhD qualified scientist in this parliament, I have watched with dismay as the local and international scientific communities and our elected leaders have taken a seemingly benign scientific theory and turned it into a regulatory monolith designed to solve an environmental misnomer. With a proper understanding of the science, I believe we would not even be entering into this carbon tax debate. To put it simply, the carbon tax, with all its regulatory machinations, is built on quicksand. Take away the dodgy science and the need for a carbon tax becomes void. I do not accept the premise of anthropogenic climate change, I do not accept that we are causing significant global warming and I reject the findings of the IPCC and its local scientific affiliates.” Dennis Jensen

Dennis Jensen, legend in his own lunchtime appealing to his own non-authority and single-handedly dismissing the honest, dispassionate work of tens of thousands of real scientists from around the world. At this point I should point out that Dennis Jensen does indeed have a Phd….in materials engineering on ceramics. Next time it starts raining cups and plates I’ll be sure to look him up. Oh, and he is also tied in with the Lavoisier Group and according to Wikipedia, boycotted parliament the day Kevin Rudd apologised to the Stolen Generation. I know that isn’t relevant to climate change but hey, if he’s a racist arsehole then everyone has the right to know about it. Anyway, I strongly urge my readers to check out the rest of his parliamentary rant. It is a cracker. Every single paragraph is filled with…well….crap. Who voted for this clown?

“Perhaps more concerning is the evidence that suggests climate scientists have engaged in manipulation of data, routine alienation of scientists who dispute the theory of anthropogenic global warming and the overall culture of climate change science that encourages group think and silences dissent.” Don Randall

Don Randall, reflecting on a newspaper article about “Climategate”no less. Obviously 9 independent investigations into “Climategate” all finding no wrong doing isn’t enough for the wilfully ignorant. For a good roundup of the whole saga, skepticalscience is the place to go.

These were just a few of the deniers and their ill-informed statements that I randomly selected. Having read through so many speeches and transcripts and media releases, I can attest that these are representative of the other deniers in the list. For me, the mind boggles when it comes to climate change denial. Presumably, these politicians are meant to be rational people. The appeals to the authority of non-experts really confuse me. It is akin to getting a plumber instead of an electrician to rewire your house. They wouldn’t get a vet to perform the brain surgery some of them clearly need. Why do they think the opinions of non-experts has any weight when it comes to climate science? It is completely irrational.

I guess it may seem to some that I am picking on the conservatives…and that would be correct, but I also have one or two big questions to ask of the ALP. If you all accept the science behind climate change as you claim and see fossil fuel combustion as the primary cause of recent climate change, why do you subsidise the fossil fuel industry to the tune of billions of dollars every year? Why not use that sort of money to develop the renewable energy sector and get us off our dependence on coal quicker?

This year’s election, if recent polling results carry through to September, is going to be won by the conservatives. Their leader, who admits to lying, who is on the record as holding different policy positions based on political expediency, is surrounded by men and women who are irrational in their non-acceptance of the science of climate change, many of them failing to grasp simple concepts such as the difference between weather and climate. Some of them suffer heavily from arrogance and one inparticular the Dunning-Kruger effect. A number of them have links to the mining industry and right-wing think tanks that are funded by mining companies and/or have mining executives on their boards. I wonder where their royalties loyalties lay? Is it with the people who have elected them, or their mining mates? I think I know the answer and it isn’t we the people. But then you’ve got the ALP subsiding the very industries they are claiming are the problem. Decisions decisions. For some, the decision might be about the lesser of two evils. Choose wisely.

Thanks to John Byatt for his valuable assistance with data collection.

If any politicians read this and feel they have been misrepresented, please feel free to contact me at unknowispeaksense@y7mail.com preferably with a definitive statement and I will make the necessary corrections and publish your response.

I have done the same thing for the Senate here.

Check out the National Party’s disconnect here.

113 responses to “Election 2013 Reps

  1. Pingback: New page added | uknowispeaksense

  2. john byatt

    well done mike, this is a top effort and I know how much work that you have put into it , now to get it on to the blogs and into the newspapers

    a few have started such a project, you are the only one to complete it

    highest rgds

  3. Top stuff, and pretty funny too!

  4. john byatt

    Abbott should be fully aware that the direct action plan is not good science

    http://www.csiro.au/resources/Soil-Carbon-Sequestration-Potential-Report

  5. Skeptikal

    Remember, it is Abbott who claimed that “climate change is crap.”

    And he was right!

    Your list is only for sitting members… of which I’m guessing about half of the alp members on this list will lose their seats. You’ll have to update your list afterwards to show us the new breakup.

    The only thing resembling climate change will happen in September… and it will be the political climate that changes.

  6. Oh Skeptical you should come here more often. Always good for a giggle. Tell me, was he right when he said climate change is crap or when he said it’s real? Was he right when he said the carbon tax is toxic or when he advocated it? You never know, however you answer those two questions could determine what he says, if he thinks its politically expedient.

  7. Skeptikal

    You do realise he actually can’t scrap it don’t you? The business has had to adjust to accomodate it, it is entrenched.

    Well, I guess business is just going to have to adjust to an economy without it… and I’m sure I’ll be reading about the end of the world on this site when that toxic tax goes.

    Just ask the tens of thousands of public servants in Queensland who lost their jobs what carnage is.

    Just ask Queenslanders what a AAA credit rating is… we lost it in 2009 under a government intent on spending, spending, and more spending. While job losses are unfortunate, and I personally believe that Newman went in too hard and too fast with his budget cuts, those jobs had to go eventually. Anna Bligh maxed out the state’s credit card and Newman now has the tough job of returning the budget to balance.

    Carnage is what happened at the last Queensland state election. There’s only 7 labor members of parliament in Queensland now. They don’t even qualify for official party status. Newman graciously granted them full rights and resources of an officially recognised party.

    Yes, I also think carnage is a good word… I can’t think of any other word to describe what awaits federal labor.

    • Homo Sapien

      It highlights the psychology of the partisan analysis here, Skeptical, when he reveals his attitude to ‘carnage’: ‘the tens of thousands of public servants … who lost their jobs’. This type of carnage is A Bad Thing, we must deduce, and there lies an insight into uknow’s fundamental fears and motivations. It suggests a primal disturbance, quite possibly in his DNA – no, seriously – that raises his adrenaline whenever he perceives an example of his kind of social injustice. Protection from cradle to grave is his fundamental satisfier, we can reasonably assume, especially when it means we can have more and more public servants shuffling paper, irrespective of the work they achieve. Taking initiative, risks, in the real world of commerce is a prescription for catatonia… Ergo natural climate denial. (And it’s such a good little earner.)
      Maybe this thing is a physiological condition, a medical disease.

      • Partisan analysis? I performed a search of all members regardless of their stripes using the same parameters each time. If you would care to highlight how I have been partisan in my approach, I would be keen to hear it.

        • Homo Sapien

          1. uknowispeaksense
          2. with the right shifting to the extreme right
          3. whether they accept the science or not
          4. the science is settled
          5. to tackle the threat of climate change
          6. a definitive statement accepting the science on climate change
          7. rejecting the science is this barrage from Warren Truss
          8. This is the usual grab bag of inane throw away lines
          9. What is clear is that if you are of the right, there’s a good chance you are in the wrong.
          10. a few examples of the kinds of statements made by the deniers in our parliament
          11. That was Julie Bishop appealing to authority…the wrong authority.
          12. Dennis Jensen, legend in his own lunchtime
          A dozen’s more than enough.
          These examples demonstrate the essence of partisan commentary. Please don’t muck around dissembling with ‘how have I been partisan?’. Your entire contribution presupposes ‘we know you speak (a very particular) sense’, a tidy little prejudice in itself. Natural climate denial.
          Please just accept that you approach your topic from a completely biased point of view, and if that’s your form of rhetoric, then so be it, but for the sake of a skerrick of honesty, don’t pretend that you’re offering any kind of disinterested analysis. Your kind does, but I’m asking, anyway…
          Just to finish, #4 ‘the science is settled’. That’s the most egregious of your propositions. If it’s settled, it ain’t science, ol’ son. Science is never settled, because anything in the discipline must be subject to counter investigation and argument. Similarly, there isn’t ‘proof’ in science. There’s evidence, and there’s evidence, but we can never finally know, scientifically. Sit Newton down, then introduce him to Einstein.
          If you say it’s settled, it’s dogma, rhetoric, faith, religion. See how bad you are? Bye.

          • With all due respect, my approach to the analysis was completely neutral. I am happy to admit I do lean to the left in my commentary but commentary is not methodology. If you like, feel free to highlight exactly how my approach to the methodology was partisan by doing your own search of Hansard and see if you can find the kinds of statements I was looking for from those members I label deniers, that demonstrates that they do accept the scientific consensus that AGW is real and serious.

          • Leon

            There’s a difference between being partisan towards a political party, and being partisan towards the truth. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out that the politicians who are denying climate change are entirely incorrect. That’s the whole point of this exercise.

  8. atoieno

    Surely the questions to be asked of both the incumbents (their views are very well summarised here) and the aspirants (more importantanly) is what their position is on climate change is and then how the issue of climate change will be tackled as policy? If they want my vote then this is the most critical issue.
    Is there a probing proforma questionnaire that can be sent to them to elicit quantifiable responses?

    • If you are talking about asking individual members you would be very lucky to get any sort of response and they would more than likely direct you to a media release anyway. I think though that it becomes pretty obvious what each side wants to do about climate change and that is pretty much nothing. They have both committed to a measly 5% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020 I think.

      • atoieno

        I’m not talking just about the sitting members. No one has a seat when the election is held: they’re all up for grabs. I’m suggesting that in the period leading up to the election that all those who aspire to the seats be questioned by the electorate regardless which flavour: Labour Liberal NP Greens et al. That is what the whole damn process relies upon….vox populi.

  9. Michael Boice

    …hmmm, perhaps they are waiting until we all burn or freeze to death. It may take that kind of face…but then…

  10. Michael Boice

    I hope this link copied correctly. I’ve read about the Koch Brothers for quite some time. Why don’t governments act quickly…part of the answer lay in this link. “…dark money.”

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/donors-trust-climate-denial?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+motherjones%2Fmain+%28MotherJones.com+Main+Article+Feed%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

  11. Michael Boice

    From another large piece I just read about our political animal.
    I thought this was an interest as it can read as analogous to how climate change is perceived.

    “…insisted that deregulated financial markets were doing just fine, and dismissed warnings about a housing bubble as liberal whining. Then the nonexistent bubble burst, and the financial system proved dangerously fragile; only huge government bailouts prevented a total collapse.”

  12. Sou

    Excellent resource. Saves the rest of us a lot of effort. Huge thank you.

  13. Hi Michael
    Unfortunately I think this is human nature and you can draw analogies everywhere. For me, its a bit like the level crossing without boomgates where concerned locals warn that its just a matter of time before someone gets cleaned up. Years of inaction ensue and its only after someone does get hit by a train that the boomgates appear.

  14. Michael Boice

    Did you catch the Motherjones link up above?

  15. Michael Boice

    sorry, I see you caught.

  16. Watching the Deniers

    Well done on this piece Mike – very impressive research conducted by you and John. I suspect if you conducted a similar analysis at the state political level you’d get similar results.

    The incredible thing is the majority of our politicians accept the science, and yet the “debate” being run puts the science into questions.

    I see it is a failure of moral and political leadership. In what is a truly bipartisanship issue, our politicians have torn the country apart and debased the tone of political debate.

    • Thanks Mike. I might leave that to someone else. I’ll probably have a look at the Senate. It would be nice to know who all the candidates will be for the election but that will just be too big a job to do in too short a time because I suspect we won’t know who many of them are until 4 weeks out. I suspect though the current mob of sitting pollies are representative of their parties in general.

      • john byatt

        I have started on the QLD gov, but it is so depressing to read their denier comments, and the fact that they are quite proud of not being taken in by the great hoax from all the world’s scientists.

  17. john byatt

    In case some people doubt Abbott’s position

    ALAN JONES:
    But I suppose I’m asking you that here is a government which has ladled us with a carbon tax, stuck a carbon tax on everything, and yet the report on which it’s based has been found by the leading academic authority in the world which says, and this is what it says of the report, alternative views are not always cited in a chapter if the lead authors don’t agree with them. Authors reported high confidence in some statements for which there’s little evidence. Another, it’s unclear whose judgements are reflected in the ratings that appear in the fourth assessment report or how the judgements were determined. Or scientists should not feel obligated to provide an assessment when no reliable information exists and on the basis of this we’ve got a carbon tax. Shouldn’t there be open and intelligent debate in a science which is not settled?

    TONY ABBOTT:

    Well, Alan, I certainly accept that there’s been far too much theology and not enough proper scientific scepticism in this area, I certainly accept that. But the fact is I oppose a carbon tax. I mean, the Government may or may not have relied on me to come to its position but I oppose its position.

  18. Very good and valuable work! I tried to do something similar a couple of years back and didn’t get very far.

  19. Could the author email me please, giving his name. My email is daveclarkecb@yahoo.com. I have a Net site at ramblingsdc.net.

    • john byatt

      Hope that this is constructive criticism dave but the blue links make the posts hard on the eyes, your site would be enhanced by a much better style, It is good stuff but I could not stay for long, fix it dave

  20. john byatt

    ministers under an Abbott government

    Party Portfolio Shadow Minister House
    Liberal Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott MP
    Liberal Deputy Leader of the Opposition
    Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Shadow Minister for Trade Julie Bishop MP
    National Leader of the Nationals
    Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Warren Truss MP
    Liberal Leader of the Opposition in the Senate
    Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations Eric Abetz Senator
    Liberal Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate
    Shadow Attorney-General
    Shadow Minister for Arts George Brandis Senator
    Liberal Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey MP
    Liberal Manager of Opposition Business in the House
    Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training Christopher Pyne MP
    Country Liberal Deputy Leader of the Nationals
    Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs Nigel Scullion Senator
    National Leader of the Nationals in the Senate
    Shadow Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Water Barnaby Joyce Senator
    Liberal Shadow Minister for Finance, Deregulation and Debt Reduction
    Chairman, Coalition Policy Development Committee Andrew Robb MP
    Liberal National Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources Ian Macfarlane MP
    Liberal Shadow Minister for Defence David Johnston Senator
    Liberal Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband Malcolm Turnbull MP
    Liberal National Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing Peter Dutton MP
    Liberal Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services Kevin Andrews MP
    Liberal Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage Greg Hunt MP
    Liberal Shadow Minister for Productivity and Population, Immigration and Citizenship Scott Morrison MP
    Liberal Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science Sophie Mirabella MP
    National Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security John Cobb MP
    Liberal Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs Bruce Billson MP
    [edit]Other Shadow Ministers

    Party Portfolio

  21. john byatt

    Heard that greg hunt has un friended Monckon on facebook so rewarded him on facebook

    Greg Hunt accepts the science https://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/election-2013/

    Election 2013 Reps
    uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com
    In September this year, 2013, Australians will head to the polls to exercise th…See More
    a few seconds ago · Like · Remove Preview

  22. Dan van Holst Pellekaan, (Liberal) member for Stuart, does not seem to be listed. I have sent him an inquiry via his Net site; will not loose any sleep waiting for a response.

  23. Pingback: Pricing Carbon in Australia: The On-going Political Drama | Climate, People & Organizations

  24. Pingback: The many faces of climate change denial » Precarious Climate

  25. Funny that the Coalition ostensibly plans to spend over a billion dollars per annum on their ‘Direct Inaction’ plan that no credible authority believes will work to address a problem that their leader and half the Coalition team don’t believe exists. I fully expect that ‘Direction Action’ will barely be mentioned in the coming election campaign and will sink without a trace once Abbott is safely ensconced in the Lodge.

  26. Pingback: Journalists should scrutinise Australia’s politicians on their ignorance on climate change science « Antinuclear

  27. Pingback: Let’s end the pseudo debate: ask your politician if they accept the scientific consensus on climate change | Watching the Deniers

  28. cousincat

    Great work Mike!

  29. S

    I dare you to do one based on “Immigration”.

  30. A quick question, is there any chance of releasing the responses? Russell Matheson in my electorate skirts the science but is noisy about the carbon tax. It would be extremely useful to be able to challenge him in public on his views about climate science and I could do so if I had an idea of his statement was.

    • Hi Alvin and welcome. I have Matheson down as a denier. This would be based on comments he has made in parliament or in the general media. I didn’t keep a list of the statements from every member but rather marked them down as accepting or denying and moved on to the next one. Only truly “special” comments were kept for use in the post. He also isn’t one whom I emailed for clarification. Of the members I sent emails to, I received only one reply. I would recommend emailing him. If you use your name and address to verify that you are in his electorate, he isobliged to get back to you fairly quickly. You could also try tweeting at him. Good luck.

      • Leon

        I’m afraid your whole article is completely useless without being able to reference your sources mate. Do it again properly if you want us to be able to share it.

        • Hi Leon and welcome.

          It’s hardly useless. I mentioned my methods which anyone can replicate if they so desire. Also, there is no way I am going to list 200+ URLs. Feel free to direct people here and they can make up there own minds if its useable or not. Cheers, Mike.

  31. Pingback: Your MP won't act on climate change? Ask the tough questions : Renew Economy

  32. john byatt

    sent alvin facebook message

  33. what will the level of carbon dioxide that can be claimed to have been reduced by the year 2020 in australia. The government data suggests it will be higher than in 2013. So what is the purpose of the tax?

    • Hi Trevor and welcome. This post is about which of our politicians accept the consensus and which don’t. Feel free to post your questions in a relevant thread or the open thread. I’m sure one of my regulars will be happy to answer you. I’m enjoying my long weekendeay.

    • Phred E

      I don’t mind replying, Trevor.

      As I said to Trevor, this thread is concerned with where individual Australian politicians stand on climate change. As Trevor hasn’t bothered to post his question in a relevant thread or the open threadhemust have found his answer. One ofmy blog rules is “keep it relevant”. As trevor’s question didn’t conform to the rules of my blog, your answer to Trevor also doesn’t. You will find that once upon a time I used to be fairly liberal in my comments policy, but these days my tolerance levels for rule breakers (see deniers) is very low. Feel free to take offense. I don’t care.

      The purpose of the reaction to alleged AGW is, ostensibly, to lower the ‘average temperature’ of the planet, as influence by homo sapien. The thesis of the deniers – the natural climate deniers – is, of course, that mankind is raising the planet’s nett energy intake to such a point that positive feedback will soon, very soon, lead to a runaway, catastrophic, effect on worldwide climate.

      The fact that global warming is mostly anthropogenic is not up for discussion at my blog. The global consensus of climate experts is that it is. Just as the global consensus of geographers say the Earth isn’t flat and the global consensus of physicists is that gravity exists, I am inclined to defer to their expertise. The rest of your comment has been snipped as it is irrelevant to this thread and referring to those of us who accept the science as irrational is, well, lacking in self awareness. As such, all your comments will go to moderation because quite frankly, I think you’re a certainty to reoffend. Again, feel free to be offended.

  34. Pingback: Your MP won’t act on climate change? Ask the tough questions | Coffs Outlook

  35. Nice work Mike. Hope you don’t mind but I just had to reblog this post and link to the senate one on my own page. http://tysonadams.com/2013/06/10/election-2013-australian-house-of-reps-and-climate-change/

  36. Graeme Alastair McLeay

    When the stakes are so high what really troubles me is that the deniers are prepared to throw caution to the winds…. Let’s dig it up as fast as we can and burn it! Never mind the precautionary principle ‘first do no harm’

    • Indeed, although I think the problem is the ordinary run of the mill denier doesn’t think there is a problem, so there isn’t any caution to throw to the wind, in their minds. When some of them can’t even get their head around the concept of “non-renewable” it’s a real uphill battle educating them. I blame the education system for the lack of critical thinking skills manifest in so many of them.

  37. Alan S

    How many deniers of science are happy to accept the words of wisdom from car mechanics, electricians, doctors and others whose wisdom is based on science?

  38. Pingback: Australian media failures promote climate policy inaction (reprint) | Watching the Deniers

  39. Pingback: Australian media failures promote climate policy inaction | A field of inquiry

  40. Mahn England

    A profiling of the current political landscape with regards to solar energy and renewable energy targets can be found here:
    http://www.solarscorecard.org.au/
    It certainly shows that even if there is an acceptance of AGW by some our elected representatives the strength of their commitment to legislate for substantive action is paper thin.
    And the prospect of having a government whose Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Sophie Mirabella) lives in the scientific dark ages…one could despair.

  41. Pingback: Australia’s mainstream media actively promotes climate change denialism « Antinuclear

  42. Alan S

    Good to see my local Fed Lib listed as a CC believer. However I asked him about his thoughts about a proposed solar thermal storage power plant for Port Augusta to replace two coal fired plants and received a load of waffle in reply – mainly about the carbon tax. Ian MacFarlane refused to commit. Tony’s got ‘em too scared to speak sense.

    • Keep at your local member Alan. You could try asking him point blank how it is he accepts the science underpiniing climate changebut won’t accept the scientific opinions that suggest their direct action plan will achieve nothing at a much higher cost.

  43. Pingback: Australian media promotes climate inaction » ANGFA Queensland

  44. Pingback: Australian media – climate change mischief | Andykidd's Blog

  45. Pingback: Australian media failures promote climate policy inaction

  46. Thank you so much for the list of where our MPs stand on climate change. I have just used it to email all of the deniers with a request that they read http://blogs.law.widener.edu/climate/2013/02/12/ and get back to me with their thoughts and plans on how we should tackle climate change and peak oil.

  47. john byatt

    Clive Hamilton

    The true hypocrisy lies not with Tony Abbott but with Greg Hunt, who accepts the science but promotes a scheme he knows will not work because he yearns more to be a minister than to protect the world his grandchildren will inherit. The same criticism can be levelled at Malcolm Turnbull and Julie Bishop, and long-term handwringers like Mal Washer, who are campaigning for the end of effective climate policy.

    Yet despite all of this, one thing seems certain: Tony Abbott too will be killed off by climate change. His hero, John Howard, found that Australians could not be fobbed off for long with non-policies. And the relentless march of science, not to mention disruption to the world’s weather, will weigh more and more heavily on the conscience of the great Australian voter.

    • Phred E

      There’s too much to read here, John, but I find in the comments, including yours, no recognition of the play of real politik in what we’re experiencing. Yes, I have to acknowledge hypocrisy in the current debate, on all sides, but I’m curious that you find this surprising.
      This is an era of cant and elision, kindled by the immediacy of technology and the foreshortening of attention spans in the voters. You know, I’m sure, that Abbott, Esq., has been told to limit everything he utters, and Hunt has been instructed to say the minimum necessary to provide a ground-base for planet-wide caring that is necessary for basic Western decency. You understand that, surely?
      It’s all about getting into power, and once there, doing the least with regard to an idiotic meme that will allow an acceptable layer of credibility to remain attached to them, one thick enough for the bulk of the electorate to accept. This shouldn’t be news.

      Referring to AGW as an idiotic meme won’t be tolerated here. It is not up for debate. If you want to spout garbage, feel free to go to WUWT or Jo Nova where garbage is the flavour every day.

  48. It appears that denier Sophie Mirrabella opposition spokesperson on Innovation Industry and Science will be declining her position in the newly formed cabinet….that’s the good news. The bad news is that Dennis Jenson has put his hand up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Jensen

    We have some work to do!

  49. Pingback: Australia’s climate-change-denying Cabinet » Precarious Climate

  50. Well that worked John. Not only isn’t Dennis the science minister but we don’t have a minister for science at all!

  51. A wondrous resource. Thank you.
    Will you be providing a list update once all seats are declared by the AEC? I plan to write lots of letters along the lines of “history will not be kind on those…” and “what will you tell your grandchildren…” and “doubt now, regret at leisure…”

  52. Excellent resource, thanks

    Does your collection include Hansard links that could be / have been posted in their own right? Reason for asking will be apparent from http://www.lean.net.au/hall-shame-climate-action

  53. Pingback: Election 2013 Reps | jpratt27

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s