Scotty Bluegum: “I’ve always believed in modelling!”

Confidential modelling under­pinning Scott Morrison’s plan to meet a 2050 net-zero target shows gas, resources and agricultural ­exports will continue to grow and exceed current levels by mid-­century, as the Liberals and ­Nationals edge closer to securing a deal on a Glasgow climate change package.

The Australian can reveal ­detailed analysis provided to cabinet projects the nation will remain one of the world’s leading energy exporters in 2050 at the same time as achieving the government’s long-term net-zero emissions-­reduction strategy.

This entry was posted in Economics and the economy, Fake conservatism, Fake news. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Scotty Bluegum: “I’ve always believed in modelling!”

  1. Greg says:

    I went and saw my bank manager and showed him my detailed modeling and analysis of how the bank could give me $100,000,000 now and I could repay it in 5 years after winning 1st division powerball twice and ozlotto 3 times.

  2. Shy Ted says:

    Net zero politicians by the end of the year.

  3. C.L. says:

    We’re meant to believe that Morrison had secret models proving Net Zero is a winner but only decided to give them to News Corp yesterday.

    Note also the vague weasel-word, “resources.”

    No author named, no accompanying assumptions and inputs.
    A total pile of crap.

  4. a reader says:

    What’s been fascinating is how the News Corp papers have been full of this net zero nonsense for weeks and yet somehow some of the opinion writers are getting away with not backing it either in print or on TV. See examples: Credlin, Morrow, Akerman, Dean. There’s probably more. You’d never see that level of contradiction from 9 entertainment.

    Mind you having said that, it is amazing how people will just go along with it. See Paul Murray who once again won’t fight for a point but just rolls over.

  5. C.L. says:

    The only thing Murray believes in his paycheck.

  6. Not Trampis says:

    It would be Treasury modelling that is very similar to three papers put out by the private sector on the topic.

    They all show it is great for the economy and even better for the regions.

    some people might say only a moron would not support it but I could not possibly comment.

  7. Lee says:

    The stuff that Mad Dictator Dan intends banning in Victoria?

  8. C.L. says:

    Strange that the ‘modelling’ hasn’t been released for independent analysis by proper (non-government) economists.

  9. Boambee John says:

    Non Compos Mentis believes in the Tooth Fairy! He probably also believes the climate modelling that assured us the world ended some years ago.

  10. Texas Jack says:

    Scotty Bluegum is clinging to 76 seats with the abolition of Sterling (WA), which leaves him little room for, er, error. But whatever, having already headed off in the Full Metal Leftard direction, he’s going to need a very magical miracle to hold onto Bass (on a knife edge already), Braddon (full of rightly angry QA’s (Quiet Australians)), Boothby (post Flint retirement), Leichardt (Warren Entsch, need I say more), Robertson (chock full of angry QA’s and people who drive Hilux utes to work in coal mines), and Herbert, Dawson, and Flynn (not likely to fall for more “dontcha love Queensland” miracles, QA’s, people who drive Hilux’s to work in coal mines and/or cattle stations, and people who are seething at the Big Betrayal).

    Add to this the reality that there are plenty of other seats where the Liberal margin is just on 4% and where some kind of Zali Steggall candidate might emerge to cause further problems, and whaddayaget? A deserving Morrison loss.

    The question for Barnaby Joyce’s people is – do you want to wipe out most of the QLD contingent in the next parliament is a Coalition loss?

  11. Rex Anger says:

    some people might say only a moron would notsupport it but I could not possibly comment.

    Fixed for the moron….

  12. Not Trampis says:

    so people who clearly do not understand say you cannot believe the modelling but without any modelling or analysis will insist that net zero is bad for the economy or the regions.

    Says it all really.

  13. Boambee John says:

    Non Compos Mentis still doesn’t comprehend that models depend highly on the assumptions upon which they are based. They are, at absolute best, simply a guide to the possible effects of different assumptions.

    His limited ability to understand that simple reality is the basis for all the stupidity that he posts here. Sad, low energy.

  14. Texas Jack says:

    Not Trampis says:
    19 October, 2021 at 3:01 pm
    so people who clearly do not understand say you cannot believe the modelling but without any modelling or analysis will insist that net zero is bad for the economy or the regions.

    I’m okay with net zero, in fact I wish we were there now (not for the reason that some here might howl about). What I am very concerned about is the proposed path to getting there.

    You don’t need to model the impact of randomness on a system, Not Trampis. You just need to think logically, and remember that variability adds to cost. In the case of renewables the cost to get to net zero is being wildly underestimated.

  15. Entropy says:

    The easiest way for us to meet commitments is to try and change the calculation of emissions. Foe example, away from the point of production of the product to where the product is actually consumed.
    So our coal production gets counted where the end product is consumed, so via China to France, for example.

  16. Ed Case says:

    The idea is to screw over domestic beef and lamb production in exchange for continuing boxed meat export and live export.
    Barnaby Joyce + The Nationals = Sellout of Australia’s best interests.

  17. Rex Anger says:

    No, Grigory.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *