The national media have been having a field day on the basis of the latest Nielsen poll data. Their excitement revolves around a combination of the existence of a new political configuration (Rudd and Abbott), a new set of poll voting figures and poll data on climate change. A heady combination.

The popular wisdom they offer is that Abbott has started to give Rudd a nudge, that climate change, as a political issue, is losing heat, and that Rudd’s ETS is running into the political sand.

All this may be true, but on the question of climate change it is not demonstrably so.

The Age article stated that support for Labor’s emissions trading scheme (ETS) is down by 10 points since last November.

The basis for this statement is unclear since, on the basis of information from Nielsens about the questions, those on climate change last November were different from the questions in February.

Previous Nielsen questions on this issue canvassed:

  • voters’ satisfaction with the Government’s handling of climate change;
  • whether Australia should act to reduce emissions regardless of what the rest of the world did;
  • voters’ willingness to pay higher prices induced by the cost of reducing emissions, and
  • how well voters understand the concept of an ETS for Australia.

The latest poll asks different questions:

  • whether voters support or oppose an ETS;
  • whether they prefer the “broad approach” of Rudd or Abbott, and
  • whether they prefer an ETS (the Government’s plan) or an emissions reduction fund (the Opposition’s plan).

The findings, as reported, are all over the place:

  • 56% of voters support the Government’s ETS;
  • 45% prefer the Opposition’s emissions reduction fund and 39% prefer the Government’s emissions reduction trading scheme
  • 43% prefer Rudd’s “broad approach” and 30% prefer Abbott’s “broad approach”.

This is confusion on a grand scale.  It is probably caused by a combination of factors.

First, we know these are complicated issues that few ordinary voters really understand. So it is likely that the contradictions in the findings are the product of poor understanding of the subject by the respondents, as the pollster John Stirton has acknowledged.

Second, using Rudd’s and Abbott’s names as labels for the policies is a problem.  It introduces the possibility that this becomes a surrogate question about the standing of the leaders.

We have no quarrel with the voting-intention element of the poll, which showed a boost in the Coalition vote since Abbott took over as leader of the Opposition, but the climate-change element is poorly done and confusingly reported.

Polls in the major newspapers influence the news and political agendas.  Polls such as this one on climate change just create sound and fury signifying nothing.