Tony Abbott doesn’t believe in climate change, his business advisor says

Print Friendly

Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s exact position on climate change has been the source of some conjecture ever since his infamous “climate science is crap” comments, made to a regional Victorian audience back in September 2009.


Abbott was at a community gathering in the Victorian town of Beaufort when he was quoted by a local journalist as describing the climate science argument as “absolute crap” in September 2009.

The government – despite its scrapping of the carbon tax, its refusal to send a minister to the Warsaw climate talks, its continued efforts to slash the renewable energy target, its closure of the Climate Council, its attempts to close the Climate Change Authority, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, its initial refusal to invest in the Green Climate Fund, the virtual eradication of the words “climate change” from the Intergenerational Report, the effective banning of the words “cleantech” and the cutting back of climate research  – insists it does accept the science of climate change.


Abbott’s key business advisor, Maurice Newman

But not the PM, according to the now notoriously conspiratorial Maurice Newman; former head of the ASX and the ABC who now chairs Abbott’s business advisory council.

In his latest piece in The Australian, blaming the left for seeking to have Abbott removed from power (whoever would have thought?!), Newman lists many of the things that the Left dislike about Abbott.

These include his views on private education, private health, fiscal policy, migration, welfare, and taxes. “He’s a monarchist, a Catholic and, worse, not of the global warming faith,” Newman writes.

Abbott, remember, was thrust to leadership of the Liberal Party by the hard-right wing of the party, led by former Senator and avowed climate denier Nick Minchin who, with others, was appalled by Malcolm Turnbull’s striking of a deal with the then Labor government on carbon pricing.

Since his election in 2013, Abbott has been keen to reward the climate denier community – he knows them as “practical environmentalists” – with key positions.

Apart from Newman, who continues to write extraordinary tirades about climate science in The Australian, Abbott appointed climate denier Dick Warburton to head the review of the renewable energy target, and put those with similar views in charge of reviews of the banking industry (David Murray), and the commission of audit (Tony Shepherd).  

RenewEconomy Free Daily Newsletter

Share this:

  • Farmer Dave

    I’m astounded by the arrogance of these men. Climate change is not a matter or belief, it’s a matter of evidence, and scientific evidence to boot. Perhaps they should all try not believing in prostrate cancer or heart disease – go on, I dare them. Do they reject a cancer diagnosis because they don’t like it? Do they call a plumber when there is an issue with their house wiring, and a podiatrist when there is an issue with their house plumbing? If Australia were facing a military threat would they ignore our military experts and talk to the local war gaming club’s gun player instead?

    How many of them have science degrees? How many of even passed high school physics? And yet they suddenly know more about atmospheric physics than people who have been studying it all their lives and who have strings of peer reviewed publications to their names. What blind arrogance! What hubris!

    • Les

      Farmer Dave – Sadly you have put it very well. There isn’t much more that needs to be said to show these people as the fools that they are.

      • Peter

        I too am constantly astounded by the arrogance of these men. I haven’t heard much of their ‘direct action’ policy lately. With the government half way through their term ‘direct action’ may not actually get to see the light of day.

        To me ‘direct action’ is as credible as the aptly named Democratic People’s Republic of Korea – the opposite of reality just as direct action represents a true reflection of the government’s denialism.

        • Melissa Jayne

          Do some research, the United Nations have spent HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars brainwashing to all to believe this utter crap about global warming.

    • wideEyedPupil

      Yes it’s a absolute national disgrace and history will not look kindly on it. Up there with massacring, raping and culturally degrading the Aboriginal nations in terms of shameful and negative impacts for centuries to come.

    • phred01

      most of members of parliament are FAILED LAWYERS who in act laws that are full of loop holes for their mates to exploite

      • Michael

        Most of them, like Pyne and Abbott, went from student politics to staffers to parliamentarians. Basically haven’t worked a day in their lives and only discovered volunteer work late in life when aiming for the Prime Ministership (bit like Howard with cricket).

        • Colin

          “Most of them, like Pyne and Abbott, went from student politics to staffers to parliamentarians.”

          Yes, I agree this is bad news for Oz. They lack the work and life experiences to represent us properly.

          Not sure how you can stop it though.

      • Colin


        “in act”?

        I hope you mean “enact”

        verb: enact · third person present: enacts · past tense: enacted · past participle: enacted · present participle: enacting

        make (a bill or other proposal) law:

        “legislation was enacted to attract international companies”

        synonyms: make law · pass · approve · ratify · validate · sanction

        However, you are correct; most politicians have a legal background and yes, they are often very arrogant.

    • Melissa Jayne

      There has NOT BEEN ANY global change in 27yrs, TWENTY SEVEN YEAR’S, 20+7 years, Twenty Seven Year’s, 27 YEARS….


  • Chris Fraser

    Yes, unfortunately we know of this pattern. Readers are all too familiar with the payment of lip service regarding climate and renewable energy in the lead up to the election, seeking to harden support from the right while encouraging vacillating support from the left. Let them all be judged on their actions.

  • wideEyedPupil

    Who actually buys the Oz any more? It reads worse than a private school old boys magazine.

  • Nick Thiwerspoon

    We dislike Captain Clownshoes because he is a liar, a hypocrite and a bully. We dislike him because he blames gays, aborigines, the poor, and women for being what they are. We dislike him because he is partisan, spiteful, vengeful, and thick. Oh, and we dislike him because he is so dementedly obscurantist and blind about global warming. Have I left anything out?

    • brickbob

      Yes,he’s a conservative.”’

    • suthnsun

      Yes, he is a schemer and manipulator of the naked blatant and misanthropic kind

    • Melissa Jayne

      People are to gutless to take responsibility for their own actions.
      Billions of United Nations brainwashing money well spent.
      Global Warming is the most successful LIE IN HISTORY & the future.
      Get ready for world government domination, that is the true agenda!!!!!

      For over TWENTY SEVEN YEAR’S there HAS NO BEEN A CHANGE on global warming.
      How do you explain that?

      The mega cost & financial gain for the turbine company WILL FINANCIALLY COLLAPSE AUSTRALIA.

      That is & always has been Turnbull’s & the United Nations agenda!

  • des_reputable

    Well it can’t be all beer and skittles for those of warming persuasion either – where are the balanced arguments? Otherwise it all sounds like lobbying rather than science. Sure the present government is the biggest spinmeister to attempt pulling the wool over our eyes, but how about:
    “In the lateset CSIRO report….39 of the 40 CIMP5 climate models that it relied upon are all in the list of models in the latest IPCC report and about which the IPCC said
    (in the WGI Summary for Policymakers and elsewhere ) …
    – 111 of 114 climate models runs predicted greater warming for the period 1998 to 2012 than the temperature data indicates
    – “some” models “over-estimate” the influence of greenhouse gases
    – the exact reasons for the flawed predictions are unknown.”
    In my book, the science of warming/climate change is far from complete, and ‘Under the Dome’ shows the real reason why renewables are so important.

    • Ronald Brakels

      Des, just in case you are confused about the nature of what has been happening in the world, here is a NASA graph of global temperature anomalies. As you can see there is a clear warming trend and there is absolutely no doubt that global warming has taken place:

    • lin

      Even without the science being “complete” (which by definition it never will be), Australian fish are moving south, winegrowers are changing varieties or moving south, farmers are changing their breeding seasons, and garden pests and diseases are moving south. Spring is arriving earlier, winter is milder and drier. Where I live (Melbourne) is getting weather which used to be found more commonly 500km to the north. Antarctica and Greenland are losing 360Gt of ice per year, and the Arctic ice maximum this year is on track to be the lowest on record. 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have been since the year 2000. 360 consecutive “hotter than the 20th century average” months. Sounds like global warming to me.

      • Chugs 1984

        Whenever I see someone complaining about those unbalanced corrupt greedy climate scientists, crowing that they these scientists are just in it for all the money they make (their oh so rich right) I often wonder why without any evidence it is that they can make such unfounded, vexatious and frankly unimaginative lies.

        Was des_reputable kitten killed by an evil climate scientist. Was he a climate modeller at ANU or UTS and was kicked out by the climate scientists mafia that is making up all these lies about the Earth climate changing in order to make billions?

        In my experience dealing with conservatives (I’m a corporate stooge and work many of them) I find they are incredibly greedy and selfish people. Its always about them and how unfair they get no ever.

        Above all they love a bit of corruption and doing the dodge.

        I believe it is with this prism of belief that they look at everyone else. See they think because they are corrupt that everyone else is. Those climate scientists, they’ve got an angle, a con.

        Those do-gooder refugee helpers they’ve got a con going on (because helping refugees is so profitable) and so on.


        Its for this reason they’ll never be able to believe that most scientists aren’t in science for the money (what a joke to even believe/claim that). My mother was a scientists and I spent many years chilling out with the post-docs and such in the tea room talking about their latest research. These were very modest people earning a pittance for valuable work they were doing to better humanity.

      • Michael

        The ultra conservatives dislike academics with a passion and consider themselves to be self made men. Intuition is more important than facts and research, hence their reliance on purported anecdotal evidence to justify any course of action they wish to undertake. “When I am out in the electorate I hear … “. A different kind of logic.

    • James McKay

      The ‘argument’ doesn’t need to be balanced because it doesn’t exist. there is no scientific debate on the reality of this issue (i’m talking about peer reviewed literature); and there hasn’t been since about 1995. we have a consensus that we are the cause of climate change

      • des_reputable

        I’ll reply to this one, but kindly count it as a reply to all. I’m using the JoNova blog as an example of science asking the questions.

        1. Just because I question something held dear by many and highly publicised, does not mean I fall into some predetermined ‘anti’-everything-you-stand-for camp

        2. Graphs. Like any other data presentation, are to be analysed and queried. Here is an example of graphed trends being questioned:

        and of NASA being equivocal:

        3. I too questioned things like glacier retreat, Goyder Line, habitat change, etc. But ask the question, just because it is changing, does that mean it has to be Warming? Compare to habitat changes in the past (those that we can get some cognisance of), and you may well find it is not linked to increases in CO2. On the other side of the coin, there are places that are affected by rapid changes in CO2, and yet the locals are not unduly affected:


        4. “Scientific Consensus”. I think this one is to easily misunderstood/misused. I thought it was supposed to be a guide to something that had proven to be testable and repeatable; however, it seems to have corrupted into something else: more along the lines of research is only funded for directions that support that status quo, and not for projects that may well challenge it. I believe there are many disciplines affected by this – they can quote so many hundred studies supporting a hypothesis, but thats because where the funding was!

        Or perhaps, where the bullying wasn’t…….:

        5. There are other models and considerations that may well drive climate, a major one being the sun:

        I challenge us to look at the places where things are challenged, and hold your tenets light enough that they do not become articles of faith!

        • Chris Turnbull

          Jo Nova. Ah hah hah hah hah ha. Wow – could you have picked a bigger ideologue? (microbiologist, non-climate scientist, ever researched and published a peer-reviewed article on climate science?) and publisher extraordinaire with Heartland Institute, SPPI (Monckton’s org). Sounds like a pretty trust source of info.

          • des_reputable

            Well neither have I, and for all I know neither have you ever published a peer-reviewed article. Yet we perfectly capable of pointing out seeming anomalies and asking ‘why’.
            Another way of putting it: it seems to me peer-reviewed science is all about verifying research that has been undertaken – it says *nothing* about how which research is to be initially selected, including its terms of reference. As Mark Twain once said, if you carry only a hammer, then pretty soon everything looks like a nail.

            Additionally, we are all qualified to point out discrepancies of ethics and common-sense when we see them, such as data-tweaking, cover-ups, etc

            We are allowed to question! Otherwise we take the path of the lotus-eaters and allow big brother to know best.

        • James McKay

          “lines of research is only funded for directions that support that status quo, and not for projects that may well challenge it.” – this is simply not true. this myth was probably started by a post graduate or scientist that couldn’t get any funding because their application was crap. peer review is really about methodology – not the results and conclusions. anti-immunisation people, creation science people and climate change denialists all complain about the peer review process for one reason – and one reason only: their belief is not supported by scientific evidence. please speak direct to a university or talk directly to a climate scientist (I suggest Michael Mann on facebook).

          • des_reputable

            “myth was probably started by” -> I have another grouping for you: plasma cosmologists. They appear to be shunned by the “mainstream” astrophysicist community, yet consist of people of the likes of Hannes Alfvén, who looks like a good case of what happens when someone goes against the status quo; wiki extract:
            ” His theoretical work on field-aligned electric currents in the aurora (based on earlier work by Kristian Birkeland) was confirmed in 1967,[5] these currents now being known as Birkeland currents.

            Alfvén’s work was disputed for many years by the senior scientist in space physics, the British mathematician and geophysicist Sydney Chapman.[6] Alfvén’s disagreements with Chapman stemmed in large part from trouble with the peer review system. Alfvén rarely benefited from the acceptance generally afforded senior scientists in scientific journals. He once submitted a paper on the theory of magnetic storms and auroras to the American journal Terrestrial Magnetism and Atmospheric Electricity
            only to have his paper rejected on the ground that it did not agree with the theoretical calculations of conventional physics of the time.[7] He was regarded as a person with unorthodox opinions in the field by many physicists,[8]
            R. H. Stuewer noting that “… he remained an embittered outsider, winning little respect from other scientists even after he received the Nobel Prize…”[9] and was often forced to publish his papers in obscure journals. Alfvén recalled:

            When I describe the [plasma phenomena] according to this formulism most referees do not understand what I say and turn down my papers. With the referee system which rules US science today, this means that my papers are rarely accepted by the leading US journals.[10]

            This is one way that the “peer-review status-quo” system impedes scientific knowledge.

          • James McKay

            please speak direct to a university or talk directly to a climate scientist

  • john

    A business adviser who I am sad to report has not much in the way to credit him on this subject.
    A total abject fail is my mark.
    No more to see move on

  • EWorrall

    No global warming for 18 years, and there are still people who believe we are in the midst of a climate “emergency”? I guess climate alarmism is what happens to people who finally learn the truth about Santa Claus late in their teen years…

    • Chris Turnbull

      No credibility in cherry-picking an undersized 18 year period. Conveniently starting with the last really hot El Nino year. Why didn’t you share a graph with the entire 20th Century included? Put aside our ideology and politics and start reading proper science. Do some reading on the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation and you’ll find that when the winds reverse, all that heat folded down into the ocean will begin expelling. The rate of temperature increase will likely be even higher than for the entire 20th Century. Not surprising given the increased population and consumption patterns.

  • Prolduke

    So Abbott doesn’t believe in global warming — and yet it’s obvious his business adviser Maurice Newman does, because otherwise he’d have taken up Brian Schmidt’s $10k bet. Interesting that Shell’s response to climate change is now being labelled “psychopathic”. That word could be applied to a few humans too.

    • Melissa Jayne

      Omg the mega rich psychopath is Turnbull.
      United Nations are staging a worldwide takeover. The treaty in December has NOTHING to do with global warming. It is a complete & utter ruse! United Nations have spent HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS into convincing people it’s real. Nothing has changed for over 27yrs. WORLDWIDE scientists have confirmed the reports of the UN are definitely not correct. Anyone who confirms the actual truth, is publicly shamed & discredited. Look into it, this is about control NOTHING ELSE.
      Every member of the United Nations has shares in renewable energy idea’s. They stand to make trillions. It will cost countries so much money, it will collapse us all financially

  • RobertVincin

    Anthropogenic climate change principally is a result of 300 years+ of man stripping the baseline assets of survival soil, water, vegetation. If Mr. Abbott held the understanding of environmental degradation as he did when we jointly wrote “Direct Action Green Corps (Adelaide Review June 95) he would recognise by repairing such degradation is the greatest business opportunity of all time.

    Unfortunately the direct advice the Prime Ministers currently receiving is that climate change is a hoax by the UN et al. Believe in climate change or not responsible world leaders and corporate leaders seek to offset their CO2e emissions with a responsible signature supplier Nation of offsets.

    PRC and some African nations have the technology along with now the USA to grow soil soil-carbon in deserts sequestering mass volumes of CO2 and re-exciting the rain and other cycles. Well-planned Australia could reverse its global debt and indeed its Kyoto obligations by 2020 if you elected to become the western world sink of CO2e. It USA expand their sink the annual Turnover B$160 annual for the UNFCCC 100 yr rule! Governments of all colours have an obligation to operate on facts, science/historical fact rather than thoughts and prejudice of individuals.

    The Prime Minister forgets that, the historians of tomorrow have their pens poised to report upon the conditions in which “he” handed over the Nation and the Planet to them. Frankly, God help the historians! Without prejudice Robert Vincin