Newspoll shows Labor maintaining its 55-45 two-party lead from last fortnight. Kevin Rudd has gained a point and Brendan Nelson lost one on the question of preferred leader, Rudd now leading 65 per cent to 14 per cent.
UPDATE: The Australian has not published a graphic this time, but you can read all about it at the Newspoll site. The paper also reports on an Essential Research survey on emissions trading, but we are told only that “58 per cent of Coalition voters believe Australia should take action even if other countries do not”, while “only 25 per cent of the 1700 voters polled believed Australia should act only when other major economies agreed to do so”. The West Australian has also published results on the subject from last week’s Westpoll survey of 400 respondents in WA, showing “two-thirds of the poll’s respondents agree that a carbon trading regime should be introduced according to the Prime Minister’s timetable”. However, 69 per cent believe the US, China and India “would need to adopt their own trading schemes if Kevin Rudd’s plan for an Australian ETS by 2010 was to be effective”, and “47 per cent of respondents were not prepared to pay more for petrol”.
UPDATE 2: Full report from Essential Research here. It includes a 59-41 result on federal voting intention based on two weeks of data, with a 3 per cent shift denoting that the week past was quite a lot better for the Coalition than a fortnight ago. There were also questions on the Catholic Church’s response to child abuse by priests and religious affiliation in general. Results were obtained from a targeted online panel of 1013 respondents.
BB – way back @ 774. Just a little defense of Annabelle. She did say to Bolt that she was talking about climate, he was talking about the weather.
797
onimod Says:
Or the fact that we’ve been genetically modifying crops and livestock for a very very long time.
Only within species. Modern genetic engineering (GM) allows us to transpose virtually any genes we want between different species. It is a radically different game from conventional breeding techniques, which very seriously limit what can be done, and hence are inherently much safer.
I ain’t arguing for or against GM, but along with its potential benefits it has very real dangers that conventional breeding never had. To pretend otherwise is just plain foolish.
Careful application of GM may well help a lot, but it is not going to be a magic bullet answer, and knee-jerk blaming of the ‘environmentalists’ for millions starving to death (now or in the future) is nonsense.
Bushy back at 645, I think, I had a very interesting conversation today with our new neighbours, aged 29 and 30. Their view was that most of their contemporaries did not have the first clue about climate change/warming. Their view was that their cohort were very focussed on themselves and their own interests. They, probably quite rightly, regarded themselves as unusual for their generation. Makes a difference as to how you might begin a conversation with the wider population about climate change, about how or if it is understood by significant cohorts
802 Just Me
Thanks. I can’t speak for Show On, but I think we were just making general comment on how people value and understand science. I didn’t intend to get in to a debate about the specifics of any of the examples. The extremes in any example are generally foolish and I agree with your point.
I guess the overarching point is that there are often differences between an educated scientific position and the emotional ideological ones that we live our lives by.
[How about sale and trade of organ transplants? Any views on that?]
I don’t agree with that. I think the answer is to get more people to donate. The only way to get that to happen is to educate more about how organ transplants can save lives. So maybe it should be taught in schools so people are aware from a young age of what sort of procedures can be done.
GM of course has a role to play here too. New liver cells can be made from stem cells already. So this may limit the need for complete organ transplants, and is another reason why there shouldn’t be legislation stopping stem cell research.
Altruism vs self-interest ShowsON.
[Or the fact that we’ve been genetically modifying crops and livestock for a very very long time.
Only within species.]
What about mules and hinnys? They are horses crossed with donkeys.
[Careful application of GM may well help a lot, but it is not going to be a magic bullet answer, and knee-jerk blaming of the ‘environmentalists’ for millions starving to death (now or in the future) is nonsense.]
I wasn’t blaming them, I was just suggesting that something like golden rice is a solution that has been tested for nearly a decade, but currently has to be kept in a bomb shelter. If environmentalists want GM like Golden Rice to remain banned, they should provide an alternate solution that offers the same, or better chance of helping alleviate starvation.
[I guess the overarching point is that there are often differences between an educated scientific position and the emotional ideological ones that we live our lives by.]
Yes, exactly my point. And I see zealotry from sections of the left and right, it is inaccurate to say it only comes from the right.
OK, to be really hard nosed here, do we REALLY want to get rid of starvation?
No, I don’t want children starving to death, obviously. But we are already over populating the earth. Famine is one of the few limiting factors to population growth left, given that we have managed to stamp out or contain most of the really devastating illnesses.
How do we get rid of starvation and keep over population in check at the same time? Is that even possible?
Nature being the self correcting system it is, I’m inclined to think that the more we protect the human species from threats such as starvation and disease, the more likely it is that something comes along we have no answers to.
I suppose the argument is that if we find a way to feed all the starving, we will also have found a solution to over population. At some point, however, there must be a limit to the number of human beings the planet can sustain (and that limit may have already been reached).
[Altruism vs self-interest ShowsON.]
I guess so. But is it really self interest for people to keep their organs after death? Surely at that point there isn’t a complete self left to be interested in. 😛
Obviously if people have religious beliefs that they must be buried or cremated whole then that should be respected. But generally I think young people should be informed about just how much use their organs can be. Donating strictly for medical research is another matter, but also important.
I think a good start would be to make donation of placentas opt out. If parents don’t want it used for medical research then they should be given an opportunity to say so. But otherwise it can be used for extraction of stem cells.
ShowsOn at #796
“I think the biggest problem with nuclear power isn’t its safety…”
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/14/business/sweden.php
“The discovery of serious safety problems at one of Sweden’s three nuclear power plants has thrown the country’s energy model into question.
On Wednesday, it was reported that low-level radiation leaks at a reactor north of Stockholm went undetected for three years, and the leaks were only the latest in a series of mishaps.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/19/japan.justinmccurry
“Japanese nuclear inspectors have identified a new radioactive leak at a power plant that was badly damaged in this week’s earthquake, compounding concerns about the safety of the country’s nuclear reactors.
The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said radioactive iodine had leaked from an exhaust pipe at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant in Niigata prefecture on Japan’s north-west coast following Monday’s magnitude 6.8 earthquake in which 10 people died”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4902282.stm
Different plant.
”
Radioactive water has leaked inside a Japanese nuclear reprocessing plant, according to reports……Nuclear installations, which supply much of Japan’s power, have come under the spotlight in recent years after a string of accidents and mishaps.:
http://www.euronews.net/en/article/11/07/2008/uranium-leak-leads-to-french-nuclear-plant-closure/
“A company responsible for a toxic leak in southwest France on Monday has been told to close part of its nuclear site after inspectors criticised a series of errors. Seventy five kilos of unenriched uranium seeped into the local water supply at the Tricastin plant run by Socatri, a subsidiary of French energy company Areva.”
ShowsOn,
Altruism in the sense of appealing to people to donate organs versus cold hard cash for donating an organ like a kidney.
I’d back the market solution everytime.
ZOOM
“OK, to be really hard nosed here, do we REALLY want to get rid of starvation?”
I think you need to joiin the Bolte clique or skip the coffess & go for th wine Today seems to been dedicated to my Enemy Bolte leader of the flat earth flock Just where are these CC deniers anyway ,
FRED
whats wrong with either nuclar power or a massive solar grid , instead of fossil fuels that are guaranteed to kill the planet in time ? Quoting a few plant problems is an anti nuclar argument woithout suppying a fossil alternatiive
onimod,
‘Of course you’d have to be ‘educated’ enough to realise what science is all about.’ You’re not saying that the Left is more educated than the Right are you?
Ron, ShowsOn said he wasn’t worried about nuclear safety, or something like that.
So I posted 3 recent examples, last year or 2, where undetected leaks and accidents have occurred in multiple nuclear facilities in 3 modern technological counties, Japan, France and Sweden, as part of a series of accidents.
We should worry about nuclear safety.
.What about mules and hinnys? They are horses crossed with donkeys.
True, there are always one or two exceptions. But cross-species breeds are not fertile and so cannot propagate, which is a very important difference.
[I guess the overarching point is that there are often differences between an educated scientific position and the emotional ideological ones that we live our lives by.]
Yes, exactly my point. And I see zealotry from sections of the left and right, it is inaccurate to say it only comes from the right.
Agree with both those comments. Although I would also say it is quite common for an individual to hold an educated scientific position on one subject, and an emotional ideological one on another, and often a mix of the two on the same subject.
Fred 815 Says:
July 20th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Ron, ShowsOn said he wasn’t worried about nuclear safety, or something like that We should worry about nuclear safety.
Well i didn’t realise that he’d said that Fred Of course ShowOn is wrong to make that asertion and I agree with you we should worrry but I’m going further , nuclar plants have successfully IF operated with safety care , with proper construction & apropritare safeguards for 30 years Accept there is a wast problem , but its ‘clean’ vs fossils that will surely kill the planet in time
so I’m asking , if safety is the priority surely nuclar is better than fossils , with a super solar grid better again (the latter which i want ruddy to build
Was on earlier today, just logged back on – amazing the Bolt needed to run back to his blog and put up a please tell me how good I am blog:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hpapy_birthday_insiders/P20/
Here’s my fav comment:
Bazza needs Ann Coulter on for a chat with Marr or Annabelle re …well almost anything US.
Get rid of the waste of time picked punters holding forth in favour more Bolta touching up the comrades.
Yes Ann Coulter would really lift the standard…
I do hope Nelson was listening to Bolt, and decides to take the “the science is wrong!!! line”. Anything that guarantees annihilation of the LNP should always be encourgaged..
818
Grog
Sweet jesuz, that’s funny Grog!
Try putting up a post about what loudmouth Bolt is! (He won’t brook ANY criticism), but you can slag off the other guests, that’s justifiable ‘commentary’.
He’s a petty creep with an imbecile following.
Oh, yeah, Grog, I’ll second that for Horatio Hornet too. Just let him appoint Bolt as mascot…it would be hilarious!
ShowsOn @ 805 –
I don’t agree with that. I think the answer is to get more people to donate. The only way to get that to happen is to educate more about how organ transplants can save lives.
I have a much easier solution. Limit organ transplants to registered donors – under 18s excepted – and deny relatives the right to override their wishes. To minimise costs the AEC could hand out the donor cards when people enrol to vote and maybe maintain the national register.
[“I think the biggest problem with nuclear power isn’t its safety…”
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/14/business/sweden.php%5D
Yes, I note that one of the problems was people turning up for work drunk – which was detected. Of course there are risks operating a nuclear reactor. But there are risks associated with the mildly radioactive ash that comes from coal fired power stations (coal often contains small traces of radioactive uranium, thorium and lead).
At least nuclear reactors are designed to seal the (high level) radioactivity inside a few feet thick lead and concrete containment structure, rather than putting it into the atmosphere. Of course the level is much higher inside a nuclear reactor, but over the life time of a coal fired power station, a lot of low level radiation is emitted that can’t simply be discounted.
For base load power, there are no perfect options, just different bad ones.
I also note that the article reveals that Sweden has cut their total green house emissions by 10% in the last decade! In comparison, from 1990 to 2006, Australia _increased_ its green house emissions by 4.2%. Sweden is light years ahead of us – I wonder why…
[Ron, ShowsOn said he wasn’t worried about nuclear safety, or something like that.
So I posted 3 recent examples, last year or 2, where undetected leaks and accidents have ]
Oh I’m not surprised that leaks are detected – that is what safety mechanisms are for. But none of these examples suggest that the main containment structure of any reactor was compromised – e.g. that a melt down occurred. Most likely it was leaks of mild radioactive water from the cooling loops. Of course when someone hears of a nuclear leak, they think it means Chernobyl but that simply isn’t the case. That was a one off event caused by suicidal stupidity on the part of the plant operators.
[http://www.euronews.net/en/article/11/07/2008/uranium-leak-leads-to-french-nuclear-plant-closure/]
This article refers to a “toxic leak” because what leaked was un-enriched uranium. Which means it was most likely predominantly uranium 238, which is not the 235 isotope used in the fuel rods themselves. Do I think it is good this leaked out? Of course not. But does it mean that everything is going to become radioactive and glow in the dark? No.
[Altruism in the sense of appealing to people to donate organs versus cold hard cash for donating an organ like a kidney I’d back the market solution everytime.]
I see what you mean. But I worry that this would just end up exploiting poor people. Having said that, if a sane adult wants to sell one of their kidneys I can’t see how I (or a government) should tell them what to do with their own body. Just as long as they aren’t coerced into doing it is the only question I have.
Good idea MayoFeral 821.
although where do you draw the line, do you ban cigarette smokers from surgery for example. Doesnt it give medical care to the “deserving”?
Fred
‘if safety is the priority surely nuclar is better than fossils’ The ‘safety’ priority i’m refering to is safety care as the first priority in both construction & ongoing maintanance & operation with govt regulation/oversight
Nuclar is ‘cleaner’ than fossils , so given my safety condition why do we people argue against nuclar & favour fossils instead In CC terms the ‘waste’ issue is a red herrings
Grog
How can anyone , not pratcising witchcraft , argue with the panel of the world’s 400 top scientists accross the politcal spectrums working collectively under the UN’s Kyoto IPCCC who say we do have CC Are you watching witch doctors on the Insiders
820 KR, unfortunately we all know that Bolt would never actually put himself on the line and back up his opinions by advising in the real world. So much easier to carp from the far-right sidelines.
I think this morning Annabel struggled to contain her contempt.
825 Ron,
How can anyone, not pratcising witchcraft , argue with the panel of the world’s 400 top scientists
By doing the SOP of conservatives – look for any exceptions and say it destroys the whole. You know kinda like finding a spelling error in Shalespeare and saying it’s proof he wasn’t much muster as a write.
[although where do you draw the line, do you ban cigarette smokers from surgery for example. Doesnt it give medical care to the “deserving”?]
No. Medicare is, and should always remain, universal. If everyone pays the levy, everyone should get access.
Edward StJohn @ 824 – As someone who’s sacrificed 2/3rds of his left lung to nicotine (or asbestos or exposure to other chemicals known to trigger LC, take your pick) I’m the last person who’d deny folk treatment for a self inflicted disease or injury, whether lung cancer, cardiovascular disease or from DUI.
However, it seems to me that if you expect a donor organ in time of need you should be prepared to donate when you die. It’s not as if it’s going to cost anything, your organs are going to rot or be burnt anyway.
Janet A praises (!) Julia and Penny:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/labor_women_a_formidable_force/
But check this line:
And don’t count on her ties with Labor’s left faction counting against her for much longer. Since November, Gillard has deliberately refashioned herself. Gone is the working class, grating accent. It’s softer and more centrist. And it fits her new, centrist stance.
A centrist accent??
[A centrist accent??]
That’s exactly the comment I left – 4th from the top.
Isn’t it bizarre how (self described) conservative commentators can revert to judging people based on their accents, rather than the words that come out of their mouths?
ShowsOn whoops, sorry excuse the plagiarism!
Praise from Julia’s enemey’s like Janet are not intended to be helpful The only enjoyable article of the Janet I’ve seeen was last Sept APEC , there’s the Polls 62/38 and there’s Janet writing /saying i love you johnnie and i’m your friend but alas think you should resign Can imagine the rodent readig it at breakfast with increasing horror & spilling his rice bubbles
833 Ron, Was that the one where she said Howard made it cool to be conservative?
Mayo@829,
Prefer the opt-out option…..that unless you specify you DON”T want to donate an organ,it is available for transplant.
And,no, family not to override.
Grog , yes there was the ‘cool’ , the love for him , his graet Lib work , his honour for the Party , that she had awlays been his suporter but more his friend , and then the but…then the please go Poor Johnnies Like his whole legacy she was burning right before his eyes
[ShowsOn whoops, sorry excuse the plagiarism!]
No, I didn’t mean to imply that at all. I am glad someone else noticed such a bizarre comment. Sometimes I wonder where she makes this stuff up. Like in her interview in an airport with Alexander Downer how she cited some U.S. writer to the effect that right wingers are more jovial and deploy their senses of humour more often than progressives!
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23948211-28737,00.html
“If the recent assessment of Roger Kimball, editor of The New Criterion, is correct. ‘Conservatives differ from progressives in many ways, but one important way is in the quota of cheerfulness and humour they deploy,’ Kimball wrote”
No empirical evidence offered whatsoever, she just cites a blank assertion, then moves on. Of course she qualifies it that it may be untrue, but if she thought this anecdote was possibly untrue, why did she bother repeating it? This is a good example of media being absolutely full of opinion these days, at the expense of people grappling with ideas to tentatively come to the conclusion on some facts.
My guess is her crap detection meter is switched off when she reads comments she agrees with for ideological reasons. Of course if it is something she disagrees with, she will parse every word in intricate detail, noting of course, the inherent lack of humour in ideas she opposes.
My reply to this assertion was “I’ve never been more cheerful than when reading the hilarity that conservatives are more cheerful than progressives!”
I don’t think I’ve ever heard her speak, but I’d assume that her accent is definitely non-centrist. She probably has a right wing accent – whatever the hell that means.
“Conservatives differ from progressives in many ways, but one important way is in the quota of cheerfulness and humour they deploy,’ Kimball wrote”
ShowsOn “No empirical evidence offered whatsoever”
Clearly being ‘left’ , you ignore the scientific evidense There is Piers , witch doctor Bolte , the Janet , Mr Smirk , Bronnie Bishop , Dolly…which Kimball could have easily quoted , without relyin on the Rodent
[Clearly being ‘left’ , you ignore the scientific evidense There is Piers , witch doctor Bolte , the Janet , Mr Smirk , Bronnie Bishop , Dolly…which Kimball could have easily quoted , without relyin on the Rodent]
Yes, they are all absolute clowns. Point taken 😀
ACNielsen 54/46 2PP
Primaries ALP 43, Coalition 40.
Mr Rudd’s approval rating remains relatively unchanged at 66 per cent compared with 36 per cent for Dr Nelson. Mr Rudd leads Dr Nelson as preferred prime minister by 65 to 20 per cent, a 3-percentage point drop.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/dont-fiddle-as-world-burns/2008/07/20/1216492255398.html
Has anyone posted the latest Nielsen yet?
54-46
http://www.theage.com.au/national/big-tick-for-emissions-cuts-20080720-3i8y.html?page=-1
Nice one James J.
I should have refreshed before I posted. 🙂
“Conservatives differ from progressives in many ways, but one important way is in the quota of cheerfulness and humour they deploy,’ Kimball wrote”
Because, of course, as we all know for an indisputable empirical fact, the vast bulk of comedians are clearly conservative.
[/sarcasm]
Good work yet again, James J. New post up.