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 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 19 » Show All
Andos, GP, Adam et al
My opinions on what to do about CC are probably politically naive, ill-considered and unfeasible but I would have been happier if Rudd said he’d reduce our tax cut from $30B to $20B and keep the $10B for a CC fund. Industry, environmental groups, researchers etc would be able to tender for the $10B in the same way the NHMRC works.
The money could be allocated based on how much carbon emissions would be reduced by the project, it’s exportability, it’s potential and feasibility. Pilot projects that worked would get more funding in the next round etc etc.
Darwin demonstrated to the satisfaction of all intelligent people that species change over time and that the current species, including H sapiens, evolved from other species. It obviously followed, although I don’t think Darwin actually said so, that all species ultimately evolved from unicellular life and thence from the primaeval ooze. This proved the biblical account of the origins of life and of man in particular FALSE, setting in train the greatest intellectual revolution of modern times.
Someone once said that the modern world was created by three German Jews and an Englishman. With due respect to Marx, Freud and Einstein, I think Darwin was the greatest of them all.
Dio, a tax encourages business to change their act more
No 301
Actually Diogenes, we can do the same without even reducing the tax cuts. It’s my preferred option if we must proceed with this climate change abatement strategy. And it will produce results faster than the distorted, artificial ETS scheme. It will also be simpler.
#302, i would add Mr. Isaac Newton to your list.
174
Howard ignored the advice he received from our own agencies (much of which was received from US agencies – advice that was contrary to the advice given by the hawks on capitol hill) and instead went 100% with Bush who let’s face it was super keen to be a ‘wartime president’.
Howard sent this country to war for political reasons and will forever be condemned for his actions.
No 303
Dario, explain how a business dependent on coal-produced electricity can become carbon neutral if an ETS was introduced right now? There are practically zero viable alternatives. The ETS will simply drive up energy costs and inflation without any real solutions to excessive carbon emissions.
The large base-load investment in renewables has to come from government, or even through a PPP. We’re talking something of the magnitude of the snowy mountains scheme, or even bigger.
Actually, I’d argue that the Government cancel the broadband network and redirect the funds to solar power plants.
Finns
I’d put Newton as number 1 by a mile. I’d drop Freud, who was wrong about almost everything, and add Pasteur.
Oppenheimer et al probably did more to change the world than anyone after Einstein.
I’d expunge Karl Marx from that list and supplant him with Milton Friedman and Frederich August Von Hayek.
This is the best poll result for Labor since the election. Why?
Because the question has finally been asked! The great hope, in fact the only hope (LOL) for the Fibs, Cossie has had his butt kicked. Rudd 53% to 27% PPM.
Poor Generic P, it’s going to be a long long long time in opposition.
Btw, the big bang theory is considered as a creation. There is no other possible explanation for it at the point of singularity.
They will invest in R&D and take it upon themselves to come up with a solution, aided by the government. As for zero alternatives, the same can be said if an ETS was NOT introduced right now… how would that help exactly?
By the way I don’t personally believe there are zero alternatives
Dario
The is no evidence in any other existing ETS that firms have invested in anything other than BAU solutions to reduce emissions.
Thus not actually reducing emissions.
GP @ 300
Phew, I support several of your views here. The stakes on CC are so high that ad hominem arguments have become part and parcel of the debate. Both sides, broadly defined, have indulged. Both sides could rightly claim injury. It was a regular feature of early phase cc debate for individuals who tended to support CC theory to be attacked in a very personal way. Careers are destroyed. It is more of a feature of late phase CC debate for individuals generally sceptical of CC theory to be attached in a personal way. Careers are destroyed. However, being able to point to personal attacks does not address CC theory in a substantive way.
It is also dangerous for proponents of a theory to claim something along the sense of: ‘the science is settled’. More probably than not, science, like history, will never be ’settled’ in the sense of final, or fixed. The notion that the science is settled encourages dogmatism and therefore ‘heresy’ and ‘martyrdom’. While useful for religious thinking, these is particularly helpful in science. Dogma, heresy and victimhood have become big distractors from substantive discussion. Some folk have somehow got the notion that if you are a victim you must be ‘right’. Nope.
Aitkin’s article was useful in that it contributed some thoughtful and a somewhat dispassionate contribution to CC debate. The fact that he is not a scientist is neither here nor there. The real issue is whether his judgment is generally supported by the available evidence.
There are some general approaches to addressing Aitkin’s article.
The first is to have a look at where the herds are at: Various ‘institutes’ think Aitkin is on the money. Most of the world’s established peak scientific bodies think not. But, still, a single voice may be right and all the herds may be wrong.
The second is to have a look at his assumptions. Does he know what he is talking about?
One assumption is that we have only a century or so of temperature data. Wrong. We have quite powerful data arising from ice cores, tree rings and the like.
Another claim is that Climate science only started with satellites and computers. Wrong. Folks were giving it a great deal of thought well before either.
So, Aitkin is a bit suss on his assumptions.
A third test is the basic question about the science on any issue: Is this the theory that best fits what we know? Aitkin does not make any sort of reasonable case for a coherent comprehensive alternative CC theory. His criticisms are useful to test for robustness of CC modelling, but they do not provide a robust alternative.
So, on three major tests, Aitkin has a way to go before I would say, yes, let’s invest a swag of $ into a Royal Commission.
Rudd should link the LCT and the other tax related bits of the budget to the rise in pensions. That money to go straight to pensioners. Let’s see the Libs block them then.
Boerwar, all i can say is hear, hear, as the war widow of a digger who fought in everyone of those wars, from going into Korea as a teenager to Vietnam, he was a proud digger till Vietnam, perhaps if Howard hadnt managed to dodge the conscription he might have then known that war isnt a toy soldiers game, it’s a fools game, it’s so easy to strutt on the international stage, being lauded by an American president, puff your chest out and send our young out to a war to seal a friendship with the said president–in the meantime making sure that your own sons are safely well away from danger, PSHAW! even the monarchy sends their princes into the services AND into the war zone, maybe Howard’s folks wouldnt buy him toy soldiers as a kid and so he spent a good part of his tenure dressing up in combat uniform and trying to address the troops as one of them, remember the acted out play of racing out of a smoky plane–again in full combat gear, BUT of course making sure the cameraman got out first to film the dramatic moment, it’s a pity for him few of us swallowed it, i wonder if he ever realised what those troops said behind his back especially after being ordered to cheer for him.
ok rant finished.
No 315
Aitkin, I believe, is not arguing for an alternative CC theory – he is simply criticising the methods used to support the current theory. At the end of the day, he didn’t discount the possibility of AGW, he just wants to ensure that public policy makers are making the decisions for the “right reasons” based on rigorous unbiased research.
I’m all for a Royal Commission into it – the policies related to climate change are being dubbed the biggest structural change to the economy in decades. If that is the case, then we must ensure that the information upon which we base those changes is as accurate as possible.
No 316
If Rudd was smart he’d abolish the tax altogether, or re-engineer the tax to be based on fuel economy and emissions standards which is far more logical.
With respect to pensioners: I would argue that it is not designed to subsidise lives of luxury. The days of spending your entire life away and then expecting the government to pick up the tab in retirement are long gone.
Generic Person
Your views are valid and you have the right to express them.
Can I just point out that these views are not politically palatable, hence the 56-44 polls that are becoming so ho-hum in recent times.
In a political sense it may be time to change?
Tory governments in the past didn’t believe in superannuation for all workers, that is the major problem in underfunded retirements today. The same as they don’t believe in a decent education for all or universal health protection for all – just the priveleged upper crust.
Generic Person @ 220 -
..[A]nything Australia does unilaterally will not achieve anything. It is a global problem and unless there is a fruitful and binding global agreement that includes the USA, China and India; we may as well kiss our economy and living standards goodbye.
Perhaps, but unless “the USA, China and India” (and everyone else) acts then our economy will be down the gurgler anyway if the predictions on global warming are right. Most of our major tourist attractions will be cactus therefore so will that major industry, the Murray-Darling system which produces most of our food and food exports won’t anymore, most of our cities will be reliant on expensive desal plants for water which will severely impact a whole range of industries. Given the loss of most of our non mining sector economy what will people be doing? How many people will be required to keep the mines working? Will the rest of the world still want our minerals when they are battling the same problems?
But it is probably going to be even worse than that because the climate models almost certainly understate what will happen. All assume a linear progression, but the most likely outcome is that at some point the climate crosses one (or more) tripping point/s and flips into a new, far worse state. Unfortunately, no one knows what that will be which is why the models don’t reflect this.
It also needs to be said that the common perception that the U.S., China and India aren’t doing anything is wrong. Garnaut detailed a host of things that China is doing at huge expense during his Press Club speech and while the U.S. federal government is hostile to the concept, many state and local governments are doing a great deal. India may not be as active but they are still relatively modest emitters. Given that we are doing very little they may even be doing more than us.
.
Generic Person @ 250 –
Unless you are an aged villainess like Germaine Greer, I think you’ll find barely anyone would care if money was spent on a Steve Irwin memorial.
Well then I must be an “aged villainess.” It wouldn’t take me much reflection to draw up a very long list of Australians who have contributed at least as much to society as Mr Irwin did and who have received little or no recognition for their efforts. So what makes his memory worth $6.3 million apart from political gain? Makes me wonder how much a future Lib government will spend of their great hero John Winston Howard’s memorial. A billion? Two? LOL!
.
Bob Santamaria 252 -
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.
They shouldn’t be too hard to track down. Quite a few have jumped on the CC denial bandwagon. ExxonMobil even hired many Philip Morris consultants to organise and run its CC disinformation campaign. See for example the Guardian’s ‘The denial industry’
So they power company that is setting up this ‘emissions free’ plant in Germany doesn’t count?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080909/bs_afp/germanywarmingemissions
310 Centre
There are a few interpretations of the Big Bang which do not require creation at the singularity. These include fluctations in ratios of matter to anti-matter and collisions between branes in string theory.
No 321
The Liberal Party was wrong to oppose superannuation in the past. It is a good policy, although the system should encourage more employee contributions.
Steve, we do believe in a decent education. The difference is that we don’t believe that the education should solely come from the public. Julia Gillard has finally recognised that the debate has moved along from the days of public vs private. The reality is that every dollar spent on education is a dollar well spent.
Ideally there should be a voucher system where the funding follows the child.
On health, we believe in an adequate safety net, but if they can afford it individuals and families should take out private health insurance.
GP @318
Well, all right, let’s have a Royal Commission into it. But a couple of points.
1. Delaying concrete responses has arguably been the tactical outcome sought by some industry players once they realized the gig was up on persuading most decision makers and the general public that the science was dross. CC is big enough and serious enough not to delay action. So, as long as the Royal Commission does not delay action, fine by me. The funds for the Royal Commission would probably be donated by multi-national oil and coal companies as they have most to gain from getting it right on CC.
2. I would be curious as to your views on TOR and choice of R. commissioner?
3. I accept your general view that it remains useful, and I would add necessary, to test all aspects of CC theory rigorously. Aitkin does raise issues that need testing but they are mainly about process rather than substance.
4. For Aitkin’s views to be anything other than a useful but minor contribution to CC theory, he would need to provide a robust alternative. He does not, so we should go with the best fit, which, IMHO, is AGW.
Dio 301
In many areas of emissions (transport, govt owned infrastructure) thats not a bad idea. A tax and fund to increase public transport provision would help a lot.
However ultimately the bulk of Australian emissions are from private businesses and activity, not government -via coal fired power (over half) and agriculture/livestock (1/3 of the rest; more than transport). So we need an incentive or penalty to make business change its behaviour. Personally I am skeptical about ETS as being the total solution. I still think we should have one, but I think we will need to go further, with direct regulations on the most harmful activities. Of course, any meaningful carbon tax or ETS with realistic limits will create a carbon price which will put most brown coal power plants out of business (including all but the newest Latrobe valley plants). So some people have a lot to lose and will play this game hard.
“On health, we believe in an adequate safety net… ”
Well why did you fail to provide one? Oh thats right Abbott got rolled by Cabinet after the election.
No 328
Crawl back under your rock mate. The safety net is and was adequate. If we didn’t believe in the safety net of Medicare, we would have abolished it. Instead we increased funding and continued the generous pharmaceutical benefits scheme.
GP
If you want to continue this train of thought please consider your recent errors. This is my area of expertise.
Did Abbott say one thing at the election and later change it? Yes.
Put up or shut up.
Judy Barnes @ 317
Thank you. Good rant.
Generic Person
“I’d expunge Karl Marx from that list and supplant him with Milton Friedman and Frederich August Von Hayek.”
Well at one stage I was part of that list , until revisionists took over
Your argument follows Don Aitkins
“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.”
IPPCC scientific research & Reports updates hav ALREADY been continuous with a collective over 3,000 World’s best scientists for 11 years , spread over 34 Reports EACH consisteent conclusions but worser , th last being 4th IPPCC Report of 000’s of 2007 , so hardly think an ‘oz’ Royal commission can beat that on expertise or research hours
Think more important queston is seeing there 3,700 scientific level of certainty index of 95% , would you hav reasonably accepted there findings if index had of been 100% , or ar you sugesting you take not full notice of that scientific index because you’re uncertain whether th 3,700 top scientist’s methodology is flawed
??
No 326
1. I take your point on the issue of delay. I’d say the lead up to the proposed ETS introduction date should be used for the Royal Commission.
2. The terms of reference would be as broad as possible, but essentially entail that arguments from both sides of the debate be rigorously examined, tested and reported on.
As for the commissioner, a former High Court judge is always a safe choice. They are generally predisposed to objective reviews of evidence and have no identifiable link with either side of protagonists.
3. He does challenge the substance, although admittedly not exhaustively (Aitkin was presenting a speech, don’t forget). The issue he highlighted was that the faulty processes lead to faulty substance. His point on the manipulation of computer models is instructive here.
4. I’m unconvinced on this point.
GP I think you are under the influence of conservative propaganda when you told us further up the thread that taxes will double under an ETS.
According to Robert Merkel at LP. The whole Garnaut process comes with modest cost:
“Firing up the handy-dandy spreadsheet, such a change would mean that by 2020 we would be issuing around about 83,000,000 less permits than we otherwise would. Garnaut estimates that the price of a permit (in 2005 Australian dollars), will be $34.50. The net loss to Australia? Around $2.9 billion annually. Say $3 billion, to take into account the effect on the carbon price. That’s in the context of an Australian economy with an annual GDP that already exceeds $1000 billion, and will probably be around $1400 billion in 2020.
If that’s what it takes to convince the rest of the world we’re serious about wanting a better deal, it’s very, very cheap at the price.”
No 332
Ron, we’re starting to repeat ourselves. I’ve already outlined my arguments.
Bloody hell Boerwar 3326
you’ve just conceded th credibility possibility of th IPCC and 3,700 of World’s best Scientists 11 years of work , 4 Reports , 000’s pages of scientific evidence data & graphgs & visuals polar & stellite proofs …in a 30 second blog , and just when Generic Person was being lulled into a consensus
Got lonely under my rock.
GP
Do you think it is better to give $3 billion a year to private insurance companies or to fund public hospitals?
No 334
I don’t believe I said that taxes would double under an ETS. I certainly remember saying that the value of an ETS is null if:
1. There are no readily accessible alternatives for businesses and individuals to pursue. Therefore, the ETS becomes another tax, increases inflation, but the environment still suffers.
2. The government compensates emitters. That goes against the spirit of an ETS and further distorts the market.
—
As I have said, the Government is better off earmarking billions of dollars for renewable energy projects, perhaps in conjunction with the private sector, rather than waiting for the ETS to produce benefits. The evidence in Europe suggests that the ETS has not achieved anything and emissions are still increasing.
No 337
Both.
No 336
Ron, I was not being lulled at all. The IPCC numbers you quote are impressive but at the end of the day, I’m not going to place faith in an organisation that frowns upon legitimate criticism and whose century long predictions into the future are about as reliable as 100 year weather forecast.
Generic Person
I was simply suggesting a Royal commission to ascertain th ‘truth’ about CC despite IPPCC detailed findings is not appropriate answer Those unconvinced need to submit an EQUIVALENT detailed scientific ‘paper’ of equal size to IPPCC who hav made there case
Unconvinced like Aitkin cann’t call for Royal commissions he needs to intellectualy put up equivalent size data to rebut AND NO ONE in unconvinced group ar prared or able to do so and instead rely on imperfect responses
339 If both then why did the funding of hospitals drop by a billion dollars under the Howard /costello government. Say one thing do another GP.
And who (apart from you) says there are no alternatives to pursue for the big emitters?
GP @ 339
Except that is not what happened, funding for public hospitals was reduced in real terms.
Howard was told 9 years before he lost office that health costs would rise by 8% per year and that this was the amount needed to keep our healthcare system working.
What did he do? Barely 4%.
Phew Generic Person sure has some stamina. I wonder if his AWA pays him per post output.
Brenda had a wierd proposal today – link pensions to a “basket of goods” does this mean pensioner should log on to grocery choice to see if they are being ripped off?
Ron @ 336
I think I have a fair understanding of the IPCC process and the substance of CC theory. I have spent years studying CC theory with a great deal of diligence. While neither here nor there, in terms of substance, I have both friends and former colleagues who are part of the IPCC process or who are cc scientists. I acknowledge that I know no sceptics.
The frightening thing from the inside is that they routinely tell me that they adopt very, very conservative views because they have strong fears about being verballed by the cc skeptic mob and realize that they can only lose their credibility once. Hence, and not surprising, the reality, when it arrives, is generally well ahead of IPCC predictions. That is, things melt faster, things get warmer and so on, faster than IPCC predictions.
A classic example is the extent of summer ice melt in the Arctic. Two years ago, an ice-free North Pole was predicted to occur sometime about the end of this Century. One year ago, that was down to maybe 2030. This year, the prediction is down to a 50:50 bet that we will have an ice-free North Pole this Northern summer. That is one hell of a nasty trajectory.
I therefore have no problems with a Royal Commission. If it comes up with recommendations for improving the IPCC process, so much the better. If, as is most likely, it confirms the IPCC substance and all significant elements of the IPCC process, then so much the better. There is a vanishingly small possibility that a Royal Commission would come up with either (a) we don’t know enough to act now or (b) there is a more robust alternative climate theory.
Good science and sound common sense will rule, or we will rue the day.
Comfy under my rock.
AWB wheat scandal nailed NO poliicans and NO Defat people , despire restricted terms of reference
Public with justifacton do not trust lawyers , CC belongs where it is , with experts , ie. scientists , World scientists from most Countrys
Ron @ 349
lol
Fancy not trusting lawyers!
But deliver us from experts!
Democracy being what it is, the voters will determine whether scientists, and/or, lawyers, are right.
And, if the voters get it wrong, reality will bite them in the arse.
Beautiful.
Pages: « 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 19 » Show All