Essential Research has produced its final weekly survey for the year, ahead of a sabbatical that will extend to January 12. It shows Labor’s two-party lead down slightly from 59-41 to 58-42. I might proudly note that they have taken up my suggestion to gauge opinion on the internet filtering plan, and the result gives some insight into the government’s apparent determination to pursue this by all accounts foolish and futile policy. Even accounting for the fact that this is a sample of internet users, the survey shows 49 per cent supporting the plan against 40 per cent opposed. Also featured are questions on the government’s general performance over the year, bonuses to pensions and families, optimism for the coming year (surprisingly high) and the target the government should set for greenhouse emission reductions (only 8 per cent support a cut of less than 5 per cent). Elsewhere:
• The West Australian has published a Westpoll survey of 400 WA respondents showing 60 per cent believe the federal government’s changes in policy on asylum seekers have contributed to a recent upsurge in boat arrivals in the north-west. However, only 34 per cent supported a return to the Pacific solution against 48 per cent opposed. Sixty-nine per cent professed themselves “concerned” about the increased activity, but 54 per cent said they were happy for the arrivals to live on Christmas Island while they were assessed for refugee status. Fifty-one per cent were opposed to them being processed on the mainland. Westpoll also found that 62 per cent of respondents “definitely” supported recreational fishing bans to protect vulnerable species, with “nearly eight out of 10” indicating some support. I suspect The West Australian commissioned monthly polling in advance expectation of a February state election, and has tired of asking redundant questions on support for the new government.
• Imre Salusinszky on Bennelong in The Weekend Australian:
The experience of Labor in 1990, when Bob Hawke was mugged in Victoria by the unpopularity of former Labor premier John Cain, shows there are occasions when a Labor state government can throw an anchor around the neck of its federal counterpart. According to Newspoll figures published in The Australian yesterday, federal Labor’s primary vote in NSW is running at 41 per cent, nearly four points down on its level at last year’s federal election. Although this is still much higher than the 29 per cent primary vote recorded in a Newspoll last month for the state Labor government – which, as it happens, was precisely the party’s primary vote in Ryde – it certainly suggests Rudd has problems in NSW. Given Rees’s recent decision to scrap plans for a metro rail system linking central Sydney to the city’s northwest, some of those problems could manifest in Bennelong. And while Howard was a formidable adversary, it would be possible to argue his presence assisted McKew by encouraging every gibbering Howard-hater in the country – including the activist group GetUp! – to get involved in the battle for Bennelong.
The key, obviously, lies in the calibre of candidate the Liberals manage to put up. Two names that have been mentioned are former state leader Kerry Chikarovski and former rugby union international Brett Papworth. Chikarovski represented Lane Cove, which falls largely within Bennelong, from 1991 to 2003; Papworth is a son of the electorate who began his playing career there. But if there is one candidate who could give McKew a fright, it is Andrew Tink. Tink represented the state seat of Epping, which falls largely within Bennelong, from 1988 until last year’s state election. A true-blue local, Tink would be able to exploit a lingering perception of McKew as a celebrity blow-in. Tink appears to be enjoying his second career as a historian of NSW politics, but there have been approaches from senior Liberals who would like to see him make history of McKew.
• Noting the difficult position of the Canadian Liberals as they pursue power behind an interim leader, Ben Raue at The Tally Room looks at differing methods used overseas for selection of party leaders and offers a critique of Australian practice (part one and part two).
• Possum: “ETS – Why 5% in two charts”. Even shorter version: it all comes down to the Senate.
Oz,
The reason why hysterical claims about global action and climate change are the biggest problem is that there is already a majority supporting climate change action, but a majority that has more potential for downside movement than upside.
There will always be a group who have either a vested interest in delaying action (some resources and energy companies and their lackeys) or have made up there mind and no amount of evidence will ever shift them, just as there will always be a group that wants massive action now because it’s in their interests (The Greens politically, renewable energy companies etc).
But it’s the middle group that is important, and that middle group currently believes that action should be undertaken. But they’re not wedded to that position and that position can and likely will change according to the way those people balance what they see as the long term benefits against short term and immediate costs. At the moment, a majority wants to act on climate change – but how much do they want to act? Will they want to act if it means they’ll be immediately out of pocket by $10 a week? What about $20 a week, what about $50? For each of those values, you’ll get a reduction in support.
So the more hysterical the claims of action become, (AND the more antipathy people have toward the group making the claims) the greater the likelihood that support will fall as they start to balance the immediate costs that such claims would bring against the long term benefits that are beyond the usual thought horizon and uncertain to begin with (uncertain in that we dont know the exact cost)
Dont scare the horses!
Things like this require nuance to keep a large majority, without which there wont be much in the way of action to begin with. It’s a nuance that the ALP understand personally because of their experience bringing in economic reform in the 1980’s. The Libs get it as well (although workchoices is a good example of what happens when you scare the horses and how it can lose you a majority).
The Greens need to learn it.
Bird of Paradise
mathematician ?
reread th ost its a science methodology that th IPPCC scientists say is a ascribing a “likelihood” to a scientific finding , the term used reflects a specific range of scientific certainty based on scientific findings with a chart listing % of scientific certainty based on that scientific findings
so pull your head in mathematican , you’re not a scientist neither is posum wiith his arrogant false asserton
What I sad was what th IPPC scientists say , not I Now yous tink your snmarter than them yous ar fools
Try selling that at an election where people are being fed otherwise.
Just as they will be even at 5%.
Besides if what you say is true then why frighten the horses and start with the high figure?
Because it might actually have achieved something. Both in a direct affect on the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere (I believe the 5% target is so low that any saving will be cancelled by the fudging and downright fraud almost invited by some of the decisions taken in designing the scheme), but especially in persuading other countries to do something significant.
Again, if we who claim we’ll be the most affected by CC aren’t prepared to make more than a token effort, and others have already said they regard even 15% as being grossly inadequate, then what message does that send those who figure they will get off much lighter, or might even be better off?
Whatever, cred the Rudd government got for signing Kyoto has evaporated and replaced by a suspicion we are all talk but when it comes to putting our money where our mouth is we’re non starters.
We cannot save ourselves, we need the rest of the world to act. If they don’t, or don’t in time, then we are in deep poop. So will Rudd be, because you can bet your last dollar that he will cop a far bit of the blame for a failure at Copenhagen, both from major players like China, but also from the Opposition, despite their past antics. Every time there is some adverse climate linked event they will rub his nose in it. Mud sticks.
and ShowsOn
you actualy could hav agreed with my definition , because I believe you know
Correction :
And ShowsOn
you actualy could hav agreed with my definition as stated by th IPPCC scientists, because I believe you know
Mayo Feral
“Again, if we who claim we’ll be the most affected by CC aren’t prepared to make more than a token effort, and others have already said they regard even 15% as being grossly inadequate, then what message does that send those who figure they will get off much lighter, or might even be better off? ”
its not oz that has to be th example …its th richest Country th USA ….they ar dragging there feet and thats th message …and what they do in future is how many Countrys will react….not how oz reacts
And OZ
I don’t hav a problam with yours or th Greens “asperational” % targets , because i’m a convert having read all 4 IPPCC Reports Th problam with your view and th Greens is not that its theoreticaly right , but its a stand alone policy………………there is noting attached to it like th econamic consequences “Modeling” if th 25% unconditional target was implemented by ‘oz’ alone …. nor no politcal majority voter consequences “Modeling” if th 25% unconditional target was implemented by ‘oz’ alone
But BOTH of those “modelling” in reality is in comnflict with th asperartional 25% uncomditional target , as unpalatable as that is knowing th 95% plus scientific likelihood certainty of IPPCC scienctists that we ar making CC and further earth is warming with dire consequenses
Ron et al,
I am a scientist, and I deal in risk.
Don’t confuse statistical certainty as used in hypothesis testing, as in “I am 95% confident that the mean head circumference of poll bludgers is 75 cm” with (un)certainty as it occurs in risk, as in “I am 95% certain that the chance of being a bombastic know it all if head circumference exceeds 70 cm is 1 in 100,000”.
We can test an hypothesis that CO2 concentration which will reach 580 ppm by 2050, for example (numbers of the top of my head, not reading back to check them) and be 95% confident of the result. That’s pretty basic.
But then we have to say that we are 95% certain that 580 ppm CO2 will lead to an temperature increase of 6 degrees in 1 in 10 (again, not gospel figures, just examples).
So I think Ron is talking about one (hypothesis testing) and Possum is talking about the other (risk), or it possible that I’ve misread both of them.
“So I think Ron is talking about one (hypothesis testing) and Possum is talking about the other (risk), or it possible that I’ve misread both of them.”
Ummm Poly,
Poss is comprehensible and follows a logical line of thinking.
Ron requires a a chardy or 16 to begin to comprehend.
Pollysquats
“So I think Ron is talking about one (hypothesis testing) and Possum is talking about the other (risk)..”
Thanks for that Polysqats
Incidently which area do you specialise in as we seem to hav lost alot of expertise overseas in last few years , thinking eg that solar guy to china
#1058 –
[I am a scientist, and I deal in risk]
Pollyanna, you are a comedian. Whose risk? Your own or other’s people. You know, it’s kinda like the Investment Bankers or Financial Planners, they also say they deal with risks but never with their own money. It’s always OPM.
You are giving scientists a bad name.
Amigo FINNS
you asked me yesterday wondering that th man from showy river has reappeared Did thought about and considered , and do reckon you ar right….again
7:30 Report is doing a story on Storm Financial now
There’s a little grub who does news reports for Channel Seven called Alex Hart.
Watch out for this one.
Tonight he turned what should have been a nice feel good story for the families of the troops in Afghanistan into an anti-Rudd attack, claiming Rudd was insensitive and had upset the troops. No-one else reported it in this fashion. In fact everyone I heard reported that the troops welcomed the visit, as they would when their PM visits them.
I’ve seen this worm on the afternoon 4.30 report and he came to my notice when he claimed the Government was planning to remove the cap gains exemption from the family home.
Watch out for him, he’s a real nasty little grub.
“I am a scientist, and I deal in risk”
LOL polyquats, I’ll take you to Randwick on Saturday and you will know everything about risk. 🙂
Seriously though, mathematical probability, scientific probability and market (or wagering) probabilty, are actually different things. 😉
But I’m not in the mood to go there. 😛
Aristotle, for future reference, I no longer allow invective of that severity – see article 9 of comment moderation guidelines.
Agree with you entirely about Alex Hart commercial Television seems to be moving more away from reporting “news” as a factual event , and more about representing or misrepresenting that event only in part or out of context with selective slant I’ve noticed chanel 9 especialy go that way
[You are giving scientists a bad name]
Gee Fins, that’s a bit unfair. Sure financial risk assessors deal in/with other peoples money, but we scientists drink the same water, breath the same air and are exposed to the same pollutants as everyone else. So it’s our risk (i.e. all of us).
Gusface
[Ron requires a a chardy or 16 to begin to comprehend.]
I was being kind, and least acknowledging the source he was trying to quote.
The Greens need to accept political reality, they need to hold the balance of power in there own right after the next election.
How do they achieve this? Win senate seats in NSW, Qld or Vic.
This is highly unlikely at this time and if they endorse “civil disobedience” as suggested by some in their loopy fringe the chance is zero.
[so while we wait forty years for your fusion frenzy
what do you suggest we do??]
NUCLEAR FISSION!
I thought that as pretty clear.
SNIP: Self-indulgent comment deleted. See #1033 – The Management.
Shows
I think Glen,in his indominatable style,smacked that one down
though of course the fact that the Australian public has never rallied around nuclear may also have a bearing BTW
[I think Glen,in his indominatable style,smacked that one down]
Where?
[though of course the fact that the Australian public has never rallied around nuclear may also have a bearing BTW]
Like the GST, or selling Telstra, or lowering tariffs, or floating the dollars, or selling QANTAS and the Commonwealth bank.
ShowsOn
Be fair – if Costello had not sold Telstra and got $50 billion he would have had to crawl out from his hammock. 😉
[Be fair – if Costello had not sold Telstra and got $50 billion he would have had to crawl out from his hammock. ;)]
True, he had to think of stupid things to spend all the money on.
That is what i call a bloody good cricket. M Johnson 5 for 7 runs, effing beauty
In 42 balls
polysquats
that was an unnecessary commet & assists th CC skeptic who was reely my original target with possum in way dismissing th wrong thing th CC denier was asserting …and so your coment seems contrary to your earlier one “So I think Ron is talking about one (hypothesis testing) and Possum is talking about the other (risk)”
scientists used my desciptionn When th IPCC ascribes a likelihood to a scientific finding , the term used reflects a specific range of certainty as defined by a chart , then th chart is listed showing %’s listed from under 5% (extremely unlikely) ….many in between , then ..over 90% (very likely) then..over 95% (extremely likely)…each reflecting specific likihood certainty of a scientific finding
Dovif , a CC skeptic quoted 6 dissenting scientists to IPPCC conclusion of CC is man caused and earth was warming …one examle was “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”
My point rebutal to th Dovif’s CC skeptism was th 95% plus liklihood certainty conclusion of 000’s of IPPCC’s scientists that CC man caused and earth was warming , which was reason for explaing th specific range of certaintys of likelihood of a scientific finding as used by th IPPCC themselves scientist report
“Gusface…in response to ShowsOns comment…
“I wouldnt oppose it, or the option to build them if we ever needed them”
Think of it this way, if we had nukes, we’d save a lot on defence expenditure in the long term lol!”
See shows , you or no one can guarantee that we will not go nuclear,and people of Glens ilk are just waiting to propel us into nuclear arms club.
O.K. Have read all the stuff and get the domestic political. Would Possum care to comment on the international political? I will admit to a position fairly similar to that of Boerwar’s, i.e., that our current political arrangements do not allow the required parameters to negotiate our way out of this morass. The Pine Bark Beetles would undoubtedly applaud.
ShowsOn
I just knew you wouldn’t want to say anyting agreeing th IPPCC bit as corect , just wanted to highlite it…to assist you
Possum @ various posts
Golly the majority in this blog are slowly but surely wearing us Rudd climate change response sceptics down. Diogenes was turned before going on hols, or wherever. That leaves, I think, MayoFeral, Oz and myself v all the practical and balanced peoples! I notice that even Glen has started saying positive things about Rudd. GP and ESJ have been conspicuous by their absence, probably because, like their employers, they don’t know what to say or even think.
I was intrigued by your reference to not ‘frightening the horses’. Of course, from my perspective, the horses need a bit of a bloody good fright. (I thought Gore’s film was a bit of a cheat in many ways, but it did one good thing: it frightened the horses a bit).
Anyway, if horses aren’t frightened, they keep wanting to graze in the happy paddock and then why would anybody do anything about CC? In terms of where to get the horses, you rightly point out that there must be a bit of a tipping point where the real and imagined pains are envisaged to sort of balance themselves out. The aim is to get the horses into a corral, point them in the direction of the tipping point paddock, and herd them gently into the paddock before they really know they are there. The grass mightn’t taste as nice, but at least there will be enough grass to eat. Otherwise they might bolt, and then where would they be? On the way through, you bribe a few assess, mules and donkeys to accept that, while it may not be ideal, the tipping point paddock is the best place to go for all the quadrupeds. All this is based on notions of risk in various risk spheres, confidence limits, probabilities, the range of scale of the consequences, the distribution of consequences within various interest groups and, consequentially, notions of how much it is necessary to frighten the horses, horses being fundamentally stupid animals which require expert stockmen to get them to go the right place. Otherwise they will vote for the Liberals.
Before writing a response, I will admit that I am a bit of a statistical terra nullius. I have the following issues with this scenario and with Australia’s current climate change response.
The first is that it sort of ignores that CC is happening already and that the consequences in some areas are already disastrous. Yes, yes, ‘disastrous’ is a tedious word and could be taken as ‘hysterical’, I know. All those millinarianistical doomsayers are such a bore. The are like flies at a picnic. They are a nuisance to practical people as they go about developing and implementing balanced solutions. My view of the reality is that CC isn’t some future thing that might happen. It is here. (1) the MDB irrigation area is a shattered mess (2) The British Columbia forestry areas are heading for a total disaster. The folk in those areas don’t need hysteria to know that a disaster is occurring. If this sort of thing is happening already, what sorts of things will be happening by 2020 and byond. (3) Arctic Minimum Summer Sea Ice Extent is telescoping at geometric not arithmetic rates (4) summer glacial meltwater rates are also heading for a disastrous crash.
The second issue is that CC is non-linear and that is has thresholds and these thresholds are spectacularly unpredictable. Now, there may be some sort of threshold that brings the whole thing to a stop. Who would have thought that atmospheric methane concentrations would plateau when, as far as was know, methane was still being pumped into the atmosphere? But the thresholds are turning out to have a bit of an unhappy knack of going the wrong way. Who would have thought that Pine Bark Beetles would up and chew their way through tens of millions of acres of forest?
IMHO, this means that the horses need to be badly frightened, not gently herded to an imaginary happy tipping point paddock. The discussions that have not been brought together effectively in this blog and elsewhere are: (a) climate change consequences and (b) the unhappy personal consequences of doing something really effective about it. It is almost as if we have to pretend that one way or another, this stuff is not really going to hurt, because, if we don’t, the horses will not play. Well, if the horses won’t go to the tipping point paddock, that paddock will come to the horses.
My third issue is that the issue is global. Australia really only counts in one way in all this. The sphere is the very, very small window it has to influence the rest of the world. This is what has been thrown away. We have blown our very tiny global bit by opening up lowest common denominator territory. We have been ‘practical’ and ‘balanced’, not aspirational.
Geez, William back at 1066 ( now that’s an interesting number for a William)! What about some guidelines for how we can insult those who desperately require insulting? Is insulting off the menu? What about snark?
“Like the GST, or selling Telstra, or lowering tariffs, or floating the dollars, or selling QANTAS and the Commonwealth bank.”
you forgot Worstchoices,republic etc etc
oops-a bit of a fatal flaw in your argument there Shows
HSO, I think the guideline I linked to is about as clear as these things can be, and the comment in question was obviously in breach of it.
[Think of it this way, if we had nukes, we’d save a lot on defence expenditure in the long term lol!”]
I don’t think Australia should have nuclear weapons; I think Australia should have nuclear power. Those two things are very different.
[See shows , you or no one can guarantee that we will not go nuclear,and people of Glens ilk are just waiting to propel us into nuclear arms club.]
Well, how about this. I think we should have a clause inserted into our constitution that prohibits any government from appropriating money for the purpose of manufacturing nuclear weapons. That’s how strongly opposed I am to nuclear weapons.
Please do yourself a favour and differentiate my arguments from Glens. We certainly both support nuclear power, but he supports nuclear weapons, while I don’t.
[I just knew you wouldn’t want to say anyting agreeing th IPPCC bit as corect , just wanted to highlite it…to assist you]
1) I have absolutely no idea what you are saying about the IPCC report
2) I haven’t said anything about the IPCC report
3) There is no such thing as an IPPCC report
I don’t know how I can be more explicit than that. But I consider your continued reliance on this red herring as further evidence that you don’t understand 1) how nuclear power works 2) the seriousness of climate change.
Sorry, my last paragraph was directed at Gusface, not Ron.
“This is what has been thrown away. We have blown our very tiny global bit by opening up lowest common denominator territory.”
OK , we blew a 10 seconds of sunlite influence on rest of world , on 11th second each Country wuld hav worked out what thet wanted…..except those waiting for USA’s lead….still dragging there feet
Now for that , you wanted Rudd to committ to 25% unconditional target , locked in stone AFTER that Coppenhaggen Kyoto agrees to 10% for everyone else in th world…Then what ?
William, 1066 and all that. I was just having a bit of giggle/ sniggle. I didn’t think you’d take me seriously, really.
Shows
“Please do yourself a favour and differentiate my arguments from Glens. We certainly both support nuclear power, but he supports nuclear weapons, while I don’t.”
point taken 🙂
BUT
if Glens ilk had the oppurtunity they could simply overwrite the constitution or simply ignore it
Nuclear truly deserves the appellation of Pandora’s Box
A piece of paper or good intentions does not cut the mustard in realpolitik
Why is it the Govts. role to solve CC? Surely it is human kind’s role? Do we expect Govts to solve every problem?
Just because Govt. say 5-15% what is to stop the population of this country making it 20% – 30% – 40% ?
Want PV on your roof? Buy one.
Don’t want coal fired power? Switch to a retailer who provides renewable.
Etc Etc
This is the line the Greens should be pushing. But they under-estimate the power of reason and want Govt. to solve all of their percieved problems.
Boerwar @ 1082
“I notice that even Glen has started saying positive things about Rudd”
No, couldn’t be. Where?
[if Glens ilk had the oppurtunity they could simply overwrite the constitution or simply ignore it]
Well, it is pretty hard to just ignore the constitution. There are lots of lawyers and the High Court that would have something to say about that.
[Nuclear truly deserves the appellation of Pandora’s Box]
So does coal, oil and gas. Those fossil fuels completely transformed the economies of what we now call the developed countries. But we had no idea at the time that they were doing so much damage to the environment.
Again, I am not saying nuclear is a no risk solution, but it is just much lower risk than what most people think, and it is way lower risk than catastrophic climate change.
Possum 1051 – I wish I had said that. Spot on again Poss.
hello amigos
wanna releive a bit of stress? try throwing a shoe or 20 at George Dubbaya
http://play.sockandawe.com/
Oh Gawd, I’m going to bed. I would really be interested in what bludgers think about how the Australian gov’t position will play out internationally. I’m still inclined to Boerwar’s exposition that none of the current political structures, either domestic, and possibly, international, can provide for what we need to do, both in terms of legislation and regulation in relation to the ETS.
“Well, it is pretty hard to just ignore the constitution. There are lots of lawyers and the High Court that would have something to say about that.”
Shows
That would rank up there with
“I’ll love you in the morning” and “trust me I’m a doctor”
I don’t recognise the political situation behind the climate change debate in the way it is being described by some here. Some are talking as though there is a reluctant public that is wary of further climate change action.
Yet every poll I see shows the public thinks the government is not doing enough. I can’t think of another issue where the public is unhappy with TOO LITTLE action by the federal government. It is Rudd’s apparent reticence that is unpopular, not the demands for more action. The idea that doing more on climate change is politically difficult is a media myth.
Found it. Well there you go Glen. Not bad for somebody not experienced enough to be PM.
Vera that was fun. First score 2 then 3 then 6.
Hello Shrike, why do you suppose the government has gone this way, if it is so unpopular? Was going to exit stage left, but am really interested.