Interesting take on the CPRS and the hidden agendas in The Oz last Friday. No, that’s not a reference to the big end of town furiously lobbying behind the scenes, it’s not about the BCA, or even the Liberal backbench determined to bring their leader down over this issue.
Nope, the all powerful cabal in this equation, according to Peter Walsh’s retiring presidential address to the Lavoisier Group and published in The Australian’s opinion pages, is the Greens.
Peter Walsh served as minister for resources and energy from 1983 to 1984 and finance minister from 1984 to 1990 in the Hawke government. His take on the CPRS?
The driving force behind this campaign to decarbonise Australia has been the Greens.
Don’t think there’d be any argument there. But Walsh continues:
Although they are small in terms of numbers they are extraordinarily influential.
Not influential enough to have the controlling vote in the Senate, mind you, but Walsh continues:
Their influence is derived from the support they have in the media – notably the ABC and the Fairfax media – but also because they are well off with secure jobs and they live in the best suburbs.
Malcolm Turnbull’s seat of Wentworth, which is probably the richest seat per capita in all of Australia, is a prime example of this wealth and influence.
Notwithstanding their personal prosperity the Greens seek to reduce the standard of living of other Australians (often in states far from Sydney and Melbourne, such as Western Australia) through measures that will reduce our productivity and progress.
Never mind that the Greens failed to secure the vote there in the last election (key words here: Turnbull’s seat). A mere trifle. There’s more to this conspiracy theory:
The extreme Left realised early on that a regime that controlled emissions of carbon dioxide would enable them to control in great detail the lives of every Australian.
…At the heart of this campaign is the creation of a powerful rent-receiving and rent-seeking alliance of banks and other financial institutions that will make billions from trading the emissions permits and that, once the emissions trading scheme is established, will be able to spend hundred of millions in ensuring, as best they can, that repeal is politically impossible.
…It is an extraordinary thing that the Left has become a willing accomplice in this racket.
The government is facing one of the greatest policy challenges in recent times, so how about some thoughtful, insightful and informed commentary from the national broadsheet instead of stuff straight from the grassy knoll?
Cue the Stonecutters tune …
What rhymes with Bob Brown?
35 Comments
Job drown?
Howard, Downer, Ruddock and now the troglodyte right winger from hell himself. Who disturbed these graves?
It’s hardly generalising when noting that the ideologists who proliferate the Greens invariably come from wealthy familes – often the products of an expensive private school education – and therefore, by definition, call the wealthier suburbs home.
Not a difficult concept to grasp.
Environmental benevolence and affluence are hardly mutually exclusive either.
“…There’s more to this conspiracy theory…”
Do you deny there has been precedence for this rent-seeking behaviour?
I suggest some light reading on the failure of the Carbon Trading Regime in Europe; specifically its cataclysmic failure and prescient outcomes.
There should be lesson in that for all those who advocate and agitate loudly for an Australian ETS under the misguided assumption that “we gotta DO soemthing”.
Sadly, the biggest misanthropes amongst the Greens are those whose deep pockets and significant salaries afford them the ability to moralise to the proletariat about restraint whilst simultaneously gadding about the world on shiny flying objects preaching about the impending apocalypse.
memo to Peter Walsh…John Howard and Kevin Rudd designed the emissions trading scheme, not the greens. Renewable energy creates jobs for workers (but I guess they aren’t the kind of jobs that Pete approves of). Greens do draw support from the (gasp) middle classes, as do libs and labor. In terms of the Greens only drawing support from the meeja. Well, a quick anaylsis of most current affairs programs will show that its nowhere near the coverage that the Nat’s get, despite the Nats vote declining and anyone who can count can tell you that the Greens membership is growing (with their vote, albeit incrementally) while labor and liberal memberships are declining precipitously due to the contempt with which both parties treat their own grassroots. And last time I looked it was the nutty right wing economical philosophy that Pete has at times been known to give a nod to that shafted more workers and their conditions than anything else over recent years (not to mention some of the unions that cheered on John Howard prior to the election after which he introduced Workchoices-I think we all know who that was!).
The ETS is a crock, thanks to John Howard and Kevin Rudd and many of Peter Walsh’s mates…that we can all agree on.
Peter Walsh has always been really ignorant on the subject of all things outside of economic rationalism. More good writing Sophie.
Most perculiar mama, do you understand your inability to understand basic statistics (as evidenced by your repeated claims about global cooling) greatly diminishes your credibility?
I think John Lennon is either rolling in his grave or nodding knowingly about the irony.
Talking of irony, in all the modelling I’ve seen it’s the poor that will suffer first with climate change. And greens or people who share their concerns come from all walks of life. Labelling and generallising them for the purpose of focusing scorn and derision is a low tactic. Lets play the ball, game on.
“…as evidenced by your repeated claims about global cooling…”
Simple question Stephen:
Since 2001 the average global temperature has COOLED. Why do you struggle with this basic observable fact?
During the same period CO2 levels have continued to rise.
Yet you repeatedly claim this as being the critical evidence of ‘global warming’.
Laughably, you also maintain that this is somehow ‘man-made’.
You fail to offer any proof of your ‘beliefs’ – statistical or otherwise – and each time one of these apocalyptic climate quatrains is comprehensively debunked by the evidence your primary response – amongst others – is to label the those involved in uncovering the fraud as deniers, sceptics and flat-earthers.
“…in all the modelling I’ve seen it’s the poor that will suffer first with climate change…”
Spoken like a true statistician.
By all means don’t let little irritants like data and evidence get in the way of the ‘models’.
The already poor – and the new poor – will suffer more profoundly under an ETS, or have you forgotten that already?
Most Peculiar Mama #7
You couldn’t be more incorrect if you tried. There is no evidence for cooling at all. You can read all the gory details over on the climate change cage match thread (and the related climate karaoke wiki), but because the evidence is totally not in your favour, you need to be brave and expect a thorough intellectual thrashing when you try to disagree.
The climate change cage match thread is here: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2009/05/06/the-death-knell-for-bipartisanship-on-climate-change/ — the reading is pretty tedious because the climate change delusionists like yourself get ever more shrill and polemic [1] every time the data shows that their point of view is utterly utterly wrong. There are two ways you can defend your position. Either with lies or stupidity. So you have three choices, lies stupidity or admitting you’re wrong — it’s up to you.
[1] My favourite part is where we get crackpot conspiracy theory like Plimer’s Occam’s razor last sunday, but you are of course welcome not to participate in this.
mpm, global tmperatures have only cooled in the early 2000’s if you start your graph at 1998 .
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html
When you look at the previous 1000 years and not just the last 10 a clear picture emerges that global temps have increased in sync with carbon build up. Mate shake yourself out of it, the entire basis for your position is undermined by objective fact.
An ETS in it’s current form will throw the burden onto ordinary tax payers instead of well heeled industrialists, merchants, etc.
However if climate change does occur as is most likely then we’ll all suffer, but the poor will be the least able to adapt in the short term.
kdkd;- well put!
stephen #9
You can only claim cooling since 1998 if you ignore the statistical significance of the trend (and if you cherry pick your global temperature data set). The trend since 1998 is statistically insignificant, as is every year following this. You either have to go back to 1997, 1994 or 1993 depending on the dataset you use to find a stastically significant trend, and in every case the trend is of warming (about 0.01ºC per year as it happens).
The noise portion of the global warming graph was about three times greater around 1980 than it is today, but nobody in their right mind would claim that we saw global cooling at that time.
And for the pretty moronic claims of whoever it is at #7, with “You fail to offer any proof of your ‘beliefs’ – statistical or otherwise” sorry, I can show my working, answer your questions and utterly demolish your case. It’s up to your attitude as to whether I’m rude to you about it or polite. Your entering foray suggests you need a bit of harsh treatment to start with though.
kdkd#10…. ( oh dear we’re shooting eachother in friendly crossfire) that was my point about cherry picking, the link I posted was to a new scientist article elaborating on the myth of global cooling.
stephen #10
Absolutely. The only reason that I brought it up was that egged on by the delusionals over on the cage match I actually compiled a decent dataset and started analysing it. The more I do it, the more it becomes obvious that the climate delusionals case is based on lies and/or stupidity.
The really amusing bit of that is that in many cases, where you start analysing real data using reasonable methods, the delusionals suddenly claim that normal scientific standards no longer apply.
If you didn’t laugh you’d cry.
Most Peculiar Mama #7
Sorry wrong link in my post #10. The correct link for all your intellectual masochism needs is http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2009/04/08/climate-change-cage-match-a-fight-to-the-death/
No surprises that neither ’stephen’ nor ‘kdkd’ can explain the fall in global average temperatures and the rise in CO2.
“…I can show my working, answer your questions and utterly demolish your case…”
But you didn;t…because you can’t.
Instead you directed me to a self-aggrandising and factless crikey thread (and a wiki FFS!!).
Along with the standard believer default to statistical analysis and modelling you’ve provided much merriment.
Pity those same models – your models – can’t even replicate the predicted trends derived from actual historical data.
Maybe you’d have better luck with Saturday’s lotto numbers.
Of particular jocular satisfaction to me was your shifting climate time scale (”…You either have to go back to 1997, 1994 or 1993…”)…talk about cherry-picking.
Thanks for the laugh, ‘kdkd’.
Next time you should post under your real name.
That way those that read your empirically erroneous and trite missives can decide for themselves how desperately you want to believe in your ‘models’ when they see what a financial stake you have in ‘proving’ the ‘theory’ .
As a scientist you should be embarrassed and ashamed.
Most Peculiar Mama your an ignorant fool.
I am a green voter and I promise you that I never attended a private school and I come from an underprivileged background.
I am also a scientist who works almost exclusively on models. I can tell that you clearly have an infantile grasp of statistics. You expect a model to accurately predict something complex. All models are wrong you moron, its just that they are also useful. Do you understand what a trend is? How about a standard error, or noise?
As for evidence of your mental insufficiency, you claim that the world is cooling.
Yes right, ice does not melt because its getting cooler you fool. Glaciers and artic and antartic ice are all in a massive retreat. If you can explain how world cooling is causing this you might be in for a nobel prize or more likely a trip to the funny farm.
And the increased carbon dioxide dissolved in the ocean is altering its pH spelling a potential disaster for all organisms that depend upon calcium carbonate. This is potentially disastrous for a multitude of organisms that ultimately depend upon these creatures as the base of their food web. I suppose you don’t like fish eh?
And finally what about the potential for positive feedback mechanisms? Understand them do you? I suggest that you look up your solubility rules and find out what happens to dissolved gasses when the liquid they are dissolved in warms up. Ever herd of methane caltrate? Google it, I bet you have an oh shit moment if you can understand it.
If you can get your pea brain around any of what I am talking about I will be amazed though, for it is evident that there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Thanks for your idiot thoughts because venting at your lunacy has made my day and its still only 9:15 am.
MPM #15
Actualy I just explained to you that there is no cooling trend. I have verified this myself on several different data sets. Your understanding of the science is clearly deficient. Happy delusions!
All of the working is available here: http://github.com/singingfish/Climate-Karaoke There is an extensive discussion of the same material at climatekaraoke.pbworks.com as well as at the climate change cage match post I showed you earlier.
However, given the ignorance of your comments, I suspect you do not have the skills and capacity to understand what this data analysis means or its implications. You smell like another ideology driven delusionist.
MPM: #15 (possbly you should change your nickname to most delusional mama!)
To defend your position properly you need to show how you would analyse the data and explain how and why your analysis is robust and reliable. I use standard statistical methods that have become well understood over the past century. Without doing anything terribly clever, I have shown in many different ways that global temperature have a rising trend (interspersed by periods of no rising, but also no cooling – all consistent with the climate models from the scientific work you clearly hold in contempt).
All I see from you is baseless assertion. Prove me otherwise or STFU.
The idea that the greens are intirinsically linked with the wealthy, when historically and currently the vast majority of the wealthy are more likely to be of a politically conservative bent, makes a mockery of the analysis from the start.
And the ETS/CPRS, is already so deeply flawed that we may as well take Turnbull’s compromises and give out unending unlimited carbon pollution credits to every industry who wants them, whenever they ask. At least that seems to me to be an honest policy, and closer to what is actually happening.
The political response has been pathetic. The greens are the only party I would trust in this, and they have no power, none at all.
Of course, what is beyond belief here is all the money Peter Walsh made from the public purse! Years as a minister, no doubt a huge super entitlement, then also there’s his son in law, who’s done very well for himself:
http://www.alp.org.au/people/gray_gary.php
And Peter Walsh lectures the rest of us about living off the public purse!
We really should take Mr Walsh at his word, and simply take back all his public sector earnings, with interest and penalties. Then he can work the land in his pure ‘free market’ style.
I am particularly angry at the 500+ who snuffed themselves from heat stress in the Melbourne late January heatwave this year. These people were obviously unaware of the global cooling trend, and obviously deliberately died to trick the rest of us.
Look the main thing is that in 10 years or, when all the evidence is in,the denialists get the full rich, loving credit they so rightly deserve from the rest of us. Denialists are, in the whole, political conservatives, and come from a long and noble tradition of being responsible for their own actions. Soon, they can be held responsible for the results of climate change, and there sure is going to be some pretty significant feedback to give them!!!
twobob #16
That’s an aggressive post.
First off. While your rise from “underprivileged background” to scientist is commendable, posting such things is dull nobody really cares about your life history.
“All models are wrong you moron” did you type this with a straight face? You do realise these things are being used to possibly reshape our future society. There is now talk in respectable circles (not just the luny extreme) of “managed recession”. We (I should say you) are contemplating resigning the present and future poor (and the rest of us) of this planet to a low/no/negative growth world. I wouldn’t like to support that based on things that are wrong. It’s the wrongness of these things that worries all the “pea brained”, “infantile”, “mental insufficient” “morons” out there.
It shits me that a few individual scientists words have been raised to the level of oracles or gods, not to questioned or denied. This is not my idea of scientific debate. This science is far from complete, that is obvious. Publications are coming out about solar forcing. I’m not going to say which is right, I don’t have the skill for that. But I do have sufficient brain to see that political manipulation and alarmist conservativism are shaping this debate and demanding conformity.
HR @ 22
All models are wrong however some can be useful is a paraphrased quote from the man who invented them. Google it.
My life history and my green leanings is exactly what most delusional mama was questioning, or did you not read the rest of the thread?
And how long can we continue growth on a finite world?
What shits me is that morons like you are ruining the world for your own greed. And thanks for the compliment, aggression was exactly the tone that I wished to convey because you bloody imbeciles don’t, can’t or won’t listen to cautionary scientific language.
HumanityRules #22
twobob is being slightly agressive, probably more slightly agressive than I would have been, but MPM is coming across as an agressive solipsistic idiot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism ).
Anyway, all models *are* wrong. A model of the Sydney Harbour Bridge is not the Sydney Harbour bridge. However a good model of the SHB will give you good quality information about how it was constructed, how long it might last, how often it might need to be painted and so on. It’s much the same with statistical models, they’re all wrong, and the interesting bits are where they predict things correctly, and where they get it wrong.
Everywhere the climate models are getting it wrong at the moment suggest that we’re seeing more warming than we’d expect from the models, not the other way round – contrary to the delusionist case.
If you do actually look at the data (speaking as someone who has done this in some detail) the evidence for frightening consequences of unrestrained co2 emissions is pretty overwhelming. More so, as the last 30 years of policy vacuum has lost us valuable time to deal with the problem, and it may be too late.
Until you look at the data in a scientifically literate way, or use trustworthy expertise to help you develop an informed opinion, basically your view is worthless. Conspiracy theory and “the scientists are just trying to feather their own nest”, or in your case “a few individual scientists who have been raised to the level of oracles” arguments just go to show that the delusionists are unable to argue the case on the scientific merits and have to resort to crackpot conspiracy theories instead.
As I’ve said before climate delusionists either lie about the data, or are stupid, or change their mind. The final choice is to leave it to others for to have a constructive scientifically driven debate and just go away quietly due to lack of interest.
In all the discussions on Crikey, can anyone think of just one example where a climate change “skeptic” changed their mind based on the discussion?
I suggest that it is a waste of time and effort to say any more in reply than “The science says you are wrong.”
If you can’t resist taking it further, instead of defending the science, ask the climate change denier some questions.
If they come up with a “reason” for the science being wrong, just ask them “How has the mainstream science responded to this question?” After all, if they have not bothered to research this they are not really interested in the answer.
Another good question for any denier who speaks of rationality and evidence is to ask them “What further evidence would it take for you to change your mind?”
At the moment we waste far too much time and effort trying to convince the deniers. Their one line of stupidity is like a red cape to a bull, and we are sucked in to write long answers which of course gets nowhere.
Time to change tact. We need say no more than they are wrong.
And if we want to have fun with them, we should ask them one line questions which show them up for what they really are.
Yes, the bloodshed we’re seeing is all just an illusion.
The mounds of corpses dying from heatstress, the shrivelling up of Victoria into a filthy baking desert, the death of the Coorong, its just a natural normal thing.
Perhaps we should tell the corpses from heat stress we dont have a 100% accurate model therefore their deaths aren’t real.
Like I said, lets hope the deniers get the full rich credit they so rightly deserve from the people still around to give it!
Michael #25
I’m not really trying to change the delusionist’s mind. I do however want to point out to people who may be influenced by them that their case is based on lies, and/or ignorance.
Kdkd,
I agree with you that we do need to post to point out that the scientific consensus is that what the denier has said is wrong.
If anyone is genuinely open minded about climate change and wants to investigate, there are many books, articles, and a wealth of material online. We could point them in the right direction if they asked, but if they are computer literate enough to post here, I’m sure they are also able to use google to quickly find some answers.
All we need to say to HumanityRules is that there is no longer any scientific debate about whether or not climate change is man made (it is) and whether or not it is a threat (it is). And ask him what evidence he has that there is any scientific debate about this (ie peer reviewed, published scientific papers which cast doubt on the big picture.
I agree kdkd #27, I personally know people who have been influenced by the debate. It’s crazy to shut down communication. There’re many who aren’t as informed as Michael Wilbur-Ham. Maybe you’ve been caught in a game Michael, but the facts are on science’s side. Let’s keep talking to the vast numbers who are undecided until the need to change quickly is understood.
Just a note. Climate nay-sayers have complained that the term “denial” has political overtones due to its association with holocaust deniers. A much better term is delusionist — as a delusion is “a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception”. It lacks the political overtones of delnial, but describes the point of view very clearly. Question 1 for a delusitonist is ‘have you looked at the data yourself?’
From a philosophical point of view, climate delusionists often use the philosophical technique of solipsism — that “the philosophical idea that one’s own mind is all that exists”. I quite like the term ‘climate solipsist’, but it’s too technical for most of the climate delusionists’ limited intellects to grasp.
Steve Fielding I suspect comes from the philosophical position of stupidity, and the rent-seekers see him as easy meat.
Quotations for the philosophical concepts are from the appropriate wikipedia entry.
My real name is easy to find by the way, but I prefer to use a pseudo-pseudonym on this forum.
kdkd,
I think one problem with the term climate change delusionist is that the “skeptics” would say that it is the supporters of climate change who are delusional.
The term climate change denier has no ambiguity.
I think the term denial does have political overtones with holocaust deniers.
One similarity between the two is that in each case the evidence for the truth is overwhelming.
Those that find the comparison offensive do so, I believe, because they rightly believe that the death of ten million people was one of the great tragedies and crimes of recent history.
But I think that anyone who has fully comprehended the human misery, suffering and death, which are likely to occur due to climate change recognize that the holocaust is fairly minor in comparison.
There is also the aspect that holocaust deniers are only revising history, whilst climate change deniers should share responsibility for the future misery, deaths (plus the economic costs) which result because we fail to take action due to their views holding sway.
All,
Please forgive me for repeating a post from a previous thread, adapted to suit another denier / delusionist….
there are certain key phrases in news Blogs pertaining to climate change, which indicate that the poster is an “astro turfer” in the pay of the big polluters, manufacturing dissent about action on climate change.
When you see any of the following phrases, or arguments along these lines, beware – you are conversing with a PR stooge in the pay of the Oil and Coal vested interests:-
“The Science is not settled”
“Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Religion”
“Climate always changes, it’s arrogant to suggest humans are causing it”
“Unreliable Computer models can’t predict temperature changes”
“Solar activity is responsible for temperature variation, not CO2”
the timeless rules of propoganda as perfected by Joseph Goebbels:-
1. Keep the message simple (AGW is not happening! It’s not!)
2. Ignore the protestations of the intelligentsia (It’s a religion of the latte sipping left!!)
3. Repeat the message over and over and over (hence the repetition of the phrases and arguments listed above, over and over and over with no evidence to back them up, on blog after blog after blog).
You may as well stop it. It’s not working. The vast bulk of the populace has done the sensible thing – and accepted the considered professional opinion of the vast bulk of the professionals in the field.
Over 99 % of scientific professionals with knowledge of relevant disciplines have come to the conclusion that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, and it’s a really big problem. That’s good enough for me, and it’s clearly good enough for the overwhelming majority of the population. If it’s not good enough for you, then either,
1. You know more that some hundreds of thousands of the world’s foremost experts, or
2. You are an idiot, or
3. You are in the pay of those with most to lose from attempting to implement a solution to this problem. Ahhhh, now that sounds most likely.
By the way, 1998 was the hottest year on record, ever. So of course, if you use this as your starting point, the “trend” you have manufactured will show “cooling”. But when you consider that 7 out of the top ten hottest years on record have occurred SINCE 1998, you will see that the overall trend is still…. warming. Duh.
What I find most surprising is the greed of these “Astro turfers”, I ask myself just how much money would it take me to sell out 6 billion people with my own children included?
I suspect they have been promised a place on the star ark but I suggest that they have not read the Ben Elton book STARK yet. They should, I reckon they will have a great oh shit moment when they realise who they have jumped into bed with!
Its interesting to speculate what would make a climate delusionist change his mind. The first thought that comes to mind is if the real world temperature data set just happened to be a really nice smooth curve. Now *that* might be a bit worrying for them
Or maybe they’d insist there is still a bump 
The point that often flies over their heads is that any data set with noise is going to have ups and downs. The issue is not whether the model matches the data at every given instant (it never will) but whether the model is consistent with the data (so far it is) and whether that gives us confidence that the theoretical content of the model has physical truth.
For instance, underneath the models is the assumption that CO2 reflects heat. That’s a pretty well understood effect and very few climate delusionists dispute this (although a few try to fiddle with the constants). Now here’s the interesting bit. Suppose recent data (say 2002-2007) shows a slight cooling. (Yes I know there’s enough uncertainty in the data that you can’t claim that.) But lets suppose physical reality is that the average of global surface temperatures over that period has gone down slightly. Now the interesting question is, what happened to all of the heat.
You see the delusionists never try to outright deny that the warming effect of CO2 is real, nor do they ever try to deny that the concentration of CO2 is increasing, yet they still try to imply in a fairly deceptive but not quite so subtle way that if there is a slight cooling then of course we cannot trust the basic science. In other words without directly saying it they try to cast a doubt on the basic physics.
So for me, all the recent data says is that perhaps there’s more to learn about where the energy goes. Perhaps the extra heat goes into other forms (like the energy required to melt ice). Or it might be transferred into deeper parts of the ocean. Or a dozen other mechanisms.
What I’d like you scientists to do, is to clearly explain these mechanisms, and to make it clear that increasing heat input does not always and at every moment equate to increasing temperature. And like I said, perhaps there’s some interesting science yet to be done on this.
That’s my take on the data anyhow.
As for the politics. One of the things that worries me about Fielding (besides him being an Engineer and he should know better) is that his brain is clearly damaged by his religious indoctrination. In the US there is a lot of cross connection between the loony right and the religious loony right. It seems to me that one big influence on Fielding is the kind of company he keeps. He’s spent too much time socialising with those who are seriously f***ed in the head.
Or, he’s rational enough to know that the snake oil he bought in the states might be past its use by, and the reality is he knows the only way he’s going to get anywhere near a senate quota is if he wins the votes of the climate delusionists.
Oh btw, one comment here has it that most of the population have worked out that there’s something going on and that the scientific consensus is probably about right. I wish you are right. But what you see on the street is a lot of confused people. And it gets worse on a lot of other forums where you see people obviously egged on by the lack of consensus among our politicians.
Speaking of which, even when you take away the need to be a bloody minded oppose for the sake of opposition type opposition, there are a surprising number of these guys who really dont get it. Does it just tell you that in a representative democracy, half of our politicians are going to be below average in intelligence and quite a few are just plain stupid. Or is it conservative politics that exacerbates the brain damage? I dunno..
Peter Walsh is not worth a torn little finger nail on economics editor Ross Gittins.