Most of the classic signs are there. Not listening to what voters want, belittling our concerns, refusing to discuss money.

What do voters want? Mr Morrison, if you are listening, we know Australians want action on climate change. You must have seen the polls, surely?

Survey after survey reveals the same result. The Lowy Institute's climate poll in May this year revealed a majority of Australians said global warming was serious and the government's main priority should be reducing carbon emissions. Nearly three-quarters of us said the benefits of taking further action outweighed the costs. And 63 per cent say we should ban new coal mines opening in this country. The YouGov poll in August had even more detail - a majority of Coalition voters wanted greater action on climate change and one-in-five Coalition voters said it was the issue that would most influence their vote. Back in March, Rebecca Colvin and Frank Jotzo from ANU published research which showed even at the time of the last federal election, voters thought action on climate change mattered.

Yet here we are, as the prime minister jet fuels off to the most important climate change conference of our time, COP 26 in Glasgow, and in no way does his response indicate he hears our pleas. He spent more time listening to the junior members of his frail coalition than he does listening to We, The People.

This week, the government finally released its plan, if you can call it that. The response has been a lot cooler than the climate. Organisation after organisation has said it is too little, too late, too lacking in detail. Probably my favourite was Atlassian co-chief executive Mike Cannon-Brookes who tweeted:

"Ok. I read all 129 pages of the pamphlet. It's not worth the paper I didn't print it on. I understand technology damn well. This isn't a "technology driven approach". It's inaction, misdirection & avoiding choices. I'm going to bed. This is just ridiculously embarrassing."

And that analysis, though brief, was pretty much the conclusion of the rest of the world. Most scathing was CNN's three analysts who labelled Australia "the rich world's weakest link at COP26" with hollow net-zero and emissions pledges.

Great. Love being an embarrassment on the world stage. Rebecca Huntley, climate researcher and author of How to Talk About Climate Change in a Way That Makes a Difference, says there is equal embarrassment here at home, embarrassment and frustration from Australians who know we have to act and understand we are behind the rest of the world.

"Except for a very small group of deniers and dismissive people, the rest [of us] are bewildered we can't get this sorted after all this time," she says.

Huntley has spent months in regional communities researching our attitudes to climate change - and she says there is strong support for action. Voters have this view: "If we need to move in the direction of renewables away from fossil fuels, just bloody well get on with it and look after the people and communities that will be most affected."

Morrison's response to the consolidated negative view of the plan is this: We don't understand "the Australian way", whatever the hell that means. If that doesn't belittle Australians, I do not know what does. As if some slogan will ever deal with our concerns in any meaningful way.

So we've dealt with how the prime minister doesn't listen to us and belittles our concerns? Is he honest with us about what this will cost?

You know those people who control the family finances and make decisions without consulting or giving anyone the detail? It turns out that Scott Morrison is just like that. Danielle Wood, chief executive of the Grattan Insitute and president of the Economic Society of Australia, says it is "highly unusual not to have Treasury involved in running the numbers over a plan with major economic implications". Wood says Treasury has previously been closely involved both in the design and costings of previous climate plans.

"The best parallel is the sidelining of Treasury during the drawing up of the Murray Darling Basin plan under the Howard government," she says. And we know how that ended up.

ANU's Rebecca Colvin, whose research I mentioned earlier, was pretty surprised by the discovery the PM's plan had never been costed by Treasury but her own analysis reveals much of the plan is just rebadging what is already in place - and makes us look poor in comparison to other countries.

"Net zero has not been legislated, nothing is costed, a lot of talk and limited action," says Colvin.

As for the Australian way, Colvin laughs.

"Australians don't like perceptions of hypocrisy; all gloss, not much substance," she says.

A big part of having a meaningful useful response should be about getting the costings, legislating the targets and having meaningful short-term commitment, including for reevaluated 2030 goals.

"We have got a whole lot of policy options which have been ruled out, market signals, including a price on carbon," she says.

Oh. My. God. A price on carbon. Imagine that!

As Colvin puts it, that would work as an insurance in case all the other measures didn't work.

Of course the mammoth in the room is the coal industry and Morrison appears married to its huge financial power. Is there any way to separate our politicians from the fierce power coal wields? Why can't we just dump coal the way we dumped cars?

Maybe we should just dump the politicians who ignore us, belittle us and deceive us.