This fortnight’s Newspoll shows Labor’s two-party lead unchanged on 56-44. Kevin Rudd’s approval rating is down three points to 62 per cent, while Brendan Nelson’s is up two to 16 per cent.
The weekly Essential Research survey has Labor retaining its 59-41 lead. Peter Costello is rated best person to lead the Liberals by 26 per cent against 13 per cent for Malcolm Turnbull, 8 per cent for Julie Bishop and 7 per cent for Brendan Nelson. However, Kevin Rudd is preferred to Peter Costello head-to-head 53 per cent to 27 per cent.
916 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 19 » Show All
Clean coal! So soon?
Its one of the more depressing aspects of the political debate in Australia, but people on both sides seem to think that its a bit like going to the Footy and just shouting abuse and clever lines at the opposition and the umpire.
This is fine when it doesn’t matter but when we are dealing with an issue like climate change the futility of this approach is shown up. The worlds climatic systems don’t give a fig what some idiot on a blog in Australia thinks.
When I read the level of debate currently in Australia its really pathetic. Some of the people involved on the side of the sceptics should be personally shamed.
We are to generous with some of these imbeciles. It reminds me of the Tobacco scientists, (The evidence is not conclusive etc, my grandfather lived to be 120 therefore etc. ) These tobacco scientists should be tracked down and charged with criminal offences of causing harm etc.
The same should be done with these fraudsters who cliam to be deniers. They should be charged with fraud.
What a convenient generalisation in defence of Honest John
No 2
do yu do this for love or money
just interested
No 253
Well Ms Greer, the untamed beast that she is, was the only Australian that I recall which vocally rejoiced Mr Irwin’s untimely death.
dovif Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Did Labor vote Yes to go to war in Iraq
if I get all my news from in here, they didn’t
Absolutely correct, dovif.
There was no vote to go to war.
Dear so called Generic Person,
Just because the polls are showing a consistent lead for the Federal Labor Government is no reason to use up William’s perfectly good bandwidth to bring up redundant opinions on a subject completely unrelated to the author’s field of expertise, let alone the actual discussion forum on which you are making your statements.
If you want to compare and contrast Professor of Australian Political History Don Aitkin’s opinions on Global Warming and Climate Change with the international research undertaken by thousands of climate scientists, there are plenty of other places to do so.
Name calling will get you no where. You are the one who would seem to be overheating.
No 252
Mr Santamaria, I reject your unsubtle attempts to liken me to a Tobacco scientist. You’d be wrong anyway – the evidence relating to health problems as a result of smoking is broad and reasonably conclusive. This contrasts starkly to the Global Warming debate which is being promulgated like religious sermon.
No 254
I enjoy political discourse.
Hey Generic person (146) is the science settled yet on the whole flat earth/spherical earth thing? Or do we have to expand the science curriculum futher?
Hey Generic person (146) is the science settled yet on the whole flat earth/spherical earth thing? Or do we have to expand the science curriculum futher?
No 257
The psephological discussion has already been had. Unless you are privy to additional polling information, such discussion can really only go so far.
The fact that others have engaged in this discussion shows that there really isn’t any more to say other than Rudd is still doing well and Nelson should resign.
If William makes a direction that all extraneous discussion should cease in this thread, then I’m happy to oblige by his rules.
And how exactly do rejoicing in his death and forking out all that tax payers money against official guidelines become one and the same?
Decisions about spending taxpayers’ money shouldn’t come down to matters of sentiment.
The quote makes it clear that Turnbull was told to cut other programs in order to find the funding – so, in other words, projects which had gone through the correct channels and been found to be worthy were sidelined to fund a decision made in the heat of the moment.
Knowing what I do about these types of funds, this means that people had spent a lot of time, effort and money, probably over some years, to get a project up to approval stage – only to have funding suddenly withdrawn on very short notice.
By definition, having gained the funding according to the rules, these projects were better than the Steve Irwin one.
So, for sentimental reasons alone, good projects were sacrificed for one less good.
Dario,
In GP’s world all things are possible as long as they fit the Liberal narrative.
No 260
Darcy do you have anything worthy to contribute apart from lame put-downs?
Why is it that people fear contrarian opinion? I’m not making a value judgment that one is better than the other, but why is it that you hacks fear people making up their own minds on the evidence that is available?
My science course at school did mention previously held principles, such as the flat earth, but this was complemented with a thorough explanation of why previous thought was wrong. What is wrong with that? So long as kids learn that the earth is round, is it necessarily bad to expose them to alternative opinions that exist?
So very true
Well then, why don’t we take the discussion back to something related to this post: Essential Research’s question on Kevin Rudd vs Peter Costello.
With such a poor response, 27% preferring PC compared with 53% preferring KR, do you think the recent Costello-mania in the Australian media is justified? Do you also think PC is prolonging this hysteria by remaining silent on the issue and using it to sell more books, before finally announcing his retirement before Xmas?
No 264
We don’t know what programs were cut as a result of the funding. Yes it is not within the guidelines, but the truth is no-one with good sense will find it heinously objectionable unless you’re a dyed-in-the-wool anti-Liberal.
GP -”Darcy do you have anything worthy to contribute apart from lame put-downs?”
Pot meet kettle.
That bloody CC. It’s affecting us PERSONALLY now. Just saw a report that CC is causing the plants to produce more pollens and for longer. Thus causing people with allergy problem or hay fever to suffer sooner and longer, eg: me.
The Finnigans: On the other hand, it means that shortly my apartment in North Melbourne will have water-side views! That should definitely increase the resale value.
268 Andos – I think the narrative (don’t you hate that word) is changing. From the OO.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24317502-601,00.html
GP, I know how funding like this works.
Programs were cut which had been approved. That meant:-
(i) that these programs met the criteria;
(ii) that people had put time and effort into making sure that these projects met the criteria;
(iii) that a project which obviously did fill the criteria gazumped others which did.
ergo and hence
- the project that got the money was less good than those that didn’t.
- public money went into a project purely on the basis of sentiment.
- public money could (by definition) have been better spent on other projects.
As I said, sentiment has no place in decisions to do with public money. If the public felt very strongly about supporting the project, there are other avenues they could use to do this.
I am not making a judgment call on anything to do with whether the sentiment was justified.
272 Andos – as long as the buyer owns a boat.
GP et al
Scorpio’s article at 249 is a good example of why the CC debate is all wrong in Australia. Someone mentioned this a few weeks ago (BB I think).
Rudd should not be making all these moaning, “woe is us” noises. He is being purely negative about CC and couches everything in pain and harm minimisation terms. He should be pointing out that Australia is the nation best placed to develop most of these technologies. Carbon capture and storage, geothermal, wind, tidal and solar are all options for us. We’ve got the wealth and scientists to develop these technologies and export them. We should be smart and look at the opportunities that can be maximised by reducing emissions, rather than being relentlessly downbeat.
No 274
I agree, mostly. Although it just smacks of Labor digging dirt up to embarrass the Coalition. It has Albanese written all over it.
The Australian is definitely “King of the Political Narrative”.
I did notice that piece before, and I was wondering what happened to the Costello backers previously so vocal at that bastion of journalistic rigour.
Now I see that “begging Mr Costello to reclaim a leadership role” wasn’t even enough! I wonder who the “senior Liberal” source is…
Possum’s got some good editorialisin’ on this topic too:
“How long will the Libs continue to dither – especially over a bloke that is only popular in the minds of a few hack journos and delusioned party apparatchik’s ?”
http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/newspoll-tuesday-very-bad-things-for-the-libs-edition/
276 Diogenes – all polling on this is showing that Rudd’s approach is not a negative surely. It’s not hurting him, the government or putting people off the idea of introducing an ETS. If Rudd didn’t talk about the negatives the bloody media would and they’d couch it in terms of “Rudd is gilding the lily.” you know how those a..holes operate.
No 276
I think Rudd should abandon the ETS for now and simply invest billions in the technologies to reduce emissions. A market mechanism can only work when viable alternatives exist which can be readily and easily accessed.
277 Generic Person – and the coalition would never do anything like that. Of course such a motive doesn’t make it untrue.
No 266
Generic Person, its Brendan actually!
Why so sensitive? What I wrote was not a put down I just wondered whether there was a limit to your contrariness!
My attitude to creationism is the same as your attitude to the flat earth theory:
I would be happy for kids to be taught about it as long as they are given a thorough eplanation of why it is wrong.
BTW, so far the only put downs, lame or otherwise, are by you.
No 279
It’s not perceived as a negative because people don’t have enough information to make a proper value judgment. Once people attune to the fact that everything will go up substantially in cost, things will start to change. Whilst people have expressed no negative feeling toward paying more for energy, it will not be until they start paying the additional cost that they realise the significance of what is occurring and the impact it will have on daily living expenses.
If anthropogenic climate change is the real deal, then I think the government is the best placed entity to act in terms of getting large investment rolling. The ETS is putting the cart before the horse. Invest in the technologies, invent whatever is necessary then introduce an ETS when the world is finally agrees to collectively reduce emissions.
Diogenes,
You are quite correct there.
This country is being fast left behind in the back-wash of other countries scrambling to get to the head of the que in alternative energy sources.
We may very well end up as a net purchaser of these technologies and totally miss the boat in regard to being able to capitalise on what is going to be a mad scramble to reduce green house gas emissions as the rest of the world quickly wakes up to the realisation that immediate reductions are necessary for survival.
That’s not how markets work, GP.
You can’t spend billions of dollars inventing something that doesn’t have a market, and expect it to succeed. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is about skewing pre-existing market forces to make low-carbon technologies more economically feasible, thereby fuelling innovation and investment in carbon reduction technology.
Surely a good neo-con like yourself knows that it’s more efficient to make the market work for you than to try and direct it yourself.
In fact, your idea of “Invest in the technologies, invent whatever is necessary” seems an awful lot like you’re advocating a “command economy”… Communist!
No 282
Creationism can only be proved wrong to the same extent that evolution theory can be proved right. They are opinions. Let children make up their own minds so long as balanced information of both arguments is given.
{Although it just smacks of Labor digging dirt up to embarrass the Coalition. It has Albanese written all over it.}
Sorry GP, you are dead wrong. Don’t you ever read linked articles.
The issue was discovered in a foi application by the mining company which was trying to get approval to mine bauxite on the property.
No, Creationism CAN’T be proved wrong. That is why it is not a scientific theory. Stop being disingenuous.
56-44?
The narrowing! The narrowing!
{Whilst people have expressed no negative feeling toward paying more for energy, it will not be until they start paying the additional cost that they realise the significance of what is occurring and the impact it will have on daily living expenses.}
GP,
This is typical of the current Liberal Party thought processes.
It is treating the people of this country as being stupid and not being able to think for themselves and able to analysise the information that is being provided by a multitude of sources.
Mate, until you and your colle3gues wake up to this, the conservatives are going to become irrelevant to the extent that they will be totally ignored.
No 285
Firstly, define neo-con. You don’t even know what it means or entails. I am not a neo-conservative.
Secondly, Andos, the whole market for emissions is an artificial construct of governments. Either way, whether the technology is ultimately underwritten by government or by a government-created market, the fact is that this is already a massive distortion of the market and is a communist principle anyway. I’m a realist, I can’t change the communist government we have right now, so I’m working with what we have until I can vote them out in 2010.
Furthermore, the problem with introducing an ETS without any equivalent technologies for people to switch to is that it becomes a de facto tax. Alternatives have to exist for the ETS to actually work otherwise people will be paying a whole lot more for energy but the environmental consequences will still be dire. That is why I’m advocating that if the government truly wants to act, it should get the ball rolling on investment into renewables.
In addition, carbon is not pollution and it is totally inaccurate to call the ETS a “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”. Without Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect, the earth would be stuck in an ice-age.
Finally, what is even more problematic is the fact that the government intends to compensate certain groups and corporations which totally distorts the already artificial market.
No 286
OK, GP we can teach creationism as long as we can also teach pastafariianism (http://www.venganza.org/), for which there is equally strong empirical evidence.
Of course creationism can be proved wrong. Darwin proved it wrong over a century ago, much to the horror of Mrs Darwin.
GP @174
Your view that Rudd supported the war has been adequately addressed by Adam @ 178
As for not criticising Howard because he was misled by the CIA… I had not heard that line as being a reasonable explanation for Howard’s innocence on Iraq.
Howard had a thing about war. It is a great tragedy for Australia that he did not get a chance to have a personal go in WW2, the Korean War, Konfrontasi or the Vietnam War. A bit of a wound (say his balls shot off?), a bit of carrying wounded or dead mates out of the battle area, a bit of psychological trauma, a bit of agent Orange, a bit of friendly fire, a bit of an insight on the difference between the shit, the mud and the blood and the glorious ‘histories’, the sight of a few villages destroyed and a few villagers slaughtered might just have cured Howard of the obsessive militarism that he brought to Australia for a decade. His legacies include participation in two active wars, a lot of the ‘Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie OI OI OI’ style of brainless nationalism, and the fact that we are still in the world’s top 15 or so spenders, in absolute terms, on military paraphenalia.
Anyone who knew anything at all about remote sensing knew straight away that the ‘intelligence’ material provided to the UN by a certain ex Secretary of State did not make any sort of a case at all for the existence of WMD, let alone a case for going to war. It was rubbish. On the other hand, Blix was vilified for speaking the truth; Howard was part of the chorus.
Howard wanted to go to war and he did. Not because of the CIA’s incompetence, not because of George Bush, but because of Howard. He had so bullied the Australian intelligence community that they knew it was end of career, and full public vilification if they spoke out against what Howard wanted to think. The ones who did speak out, knowing what was coming, are some of Australia’s real heroes and I trust that their reputations will be rehabilitated and their careers resurrected under Rudd. I am not sanguine about that.
Howard was excellent at dodging, spinning and weaving. He had more narratives than the OO could point a stick at. He still has his apologists. But history is not going to let him hide from his culpability for the Iraqi civilian dead and injured.
No 290
Let’s just wait and see how everything goes when people start paying substantially more for their energy. When people can barely pay their mortgages and loans now, as Labor like to argue, they reward you with 50% higher electricity, gas and petrol costs.
No 294
Sorry but your assessment of Howard is just an opinion based on your own predispositions against military spending and wars in general.
#293, I thought Mr. Darwin only described the origin of species plus the associated processes and mechanics, but NOT the origin of life. If i am not wrong you were there Mr. Adam, so do tell us about the origin of life.
Generic Person
You quoted Author: Professor Don Aitkin AO, which i did not dismmiss but read before replying , and he does mount a ‘case’ You will recall in my long post of #232 that I acknowledged there were indeed a small minority of scientists who didn’t accept th 3700 IPPC scientists 000’s pages of evidence
Don Aitkin has a research background but as he himself acknowledges is a “historian and political scientist” so whilst am unsure if he fits apple with apple equivalent of specific CC expertise , more importantly his 18 page addres hardly matchs 000’s of pages of graphs & scientific data supplied by 3,700 vs 1
In any event Don aitkin reading his seech is hardly likely to change his mind nor will a science minoritey , but none of them will put up a scientific matching Report rebuting th evidence totality , rather they cherry pick whereas IPPCC data is inter related hence 000’s of volume
And it is this specific abstance of such a ‘full scientific paper’ that those who may be unconvinced , rather than outright CC deniers , ar let down by such 18 page ‘papers’ notwithstanding its general ‘case’
But will leave you with a few thoughts
Firstly , and this is NOT directed at you by way This CC bit originated from a small group in ‘left’ , gradually built up some ‘left’ support , and then big figures like Howard in th ‘right’ labelled CC as a ‘left’ fantasy thing , but those ‘right’ figures having burned there bridges as CC deniers hav been left behind committed anti CC just as science has demonstatrated CC I not fantasy but realitiys many on ‘right’ correctly didn’t dismiss CC originally or if they did didn’t absolutely and hav therefore been happy to see CC as a reality and as a non partisan problem…can assure you most young Libs believe in CC , th ‘young’ ar smart these days , Labor & Libs young supporters & access internet & find out CC is reality
Secondley , Professor Don Aitkins historian and political scientist quote: “A second reason for the lack of good data is that we only have decent and systematic measurements of any consequence for the last hundred or so years” Ron’s response is , Don Aitkin do not make such vague ‘last hundred or so years’ statements , if being scientific be accurate , world scientific temperature measurements actually started in 1850
Thirdly , scientific methodology uses a scale to 100% of likelihood to a scientific finding, the term used reflects a specific range of certainty as defined by a chart As such many IPPCC findings were 75% to 80% , somwe 85% , but th key ones I quoted in #232 were 95%…so it is 3,700 scientists reel reflecton of there scientific certainty using a scientific index , andd that is worthy of your reconsideration in time so you contribute to th solution/action plans as that’s where there’s debate
GP @ 295
1. You have jumped to a false conclusion. Not surprising, considering that you are keeping quite a few bloggers on the hop. I am on the record elsewhere in these blogs as being a supporter for strong spending on a strong military. I have personally experienced the wrong side of the equation. I would prefer something like the Swedish model. Speak softly and politely, carry a big stick, but never use it. It is the reverse approach that I loathe for its counter-productive outcomes and its stupid and senseless waste of lives and treasure.
2. I appreciate your sally using the term ‘opinion’ but it is worth reflecting a bit futher on the term. Your opinion is that Howard was stupid enough to be tricked by the CIA into going to war. My opinion is that he wanted to be tricked. Neither opinion is flattering: a good leader stays out of wars unless forced to do so. Howard was not forced. He wanted war. He got it. History will rightly condemn Howard, despite the best efforts of his acolytes to hide the truth.
Ron, Aitkin’s suppositions are fully referenced. The reason he has become suspicious of the IPCC is precisely as I stated earlier: sceptics are consistently treated with contempt and labelled immoral. That is not reflective good science, it is tantamount to religious persecution. The last part of his article is particularly important: he calls for a Royal Commission of some sort that canvasses as much of the science as possible, headed by someone altogether neutral to the scientific discourse that is currently occurring. He doesn’t abjectly reject the possibility of AGW – he is simply demanding a more rigorous, rather than dogmatic, approach. Can’t say I disagree.
Also, the fact that Aitkin does not present a thousand page argument is beside the point. You can have all the pages in the world but if the data contained therein has been manipulated so haphazardly to be made congruent with the hypothetical consensus, it is a wonder how such data can be trusted.
The point I’m making is that having a contrary opinion does not mean you are immoral, it does not mean you are subhuman and it does not mean you are environmentally careless. If public policy for the next few decades is going to be formulated on this research, it is not inappropriate to ensure that the most rigorous standards are demanded.
Pages: « 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 19 » Show All