After three successive 55-45 results, the latest fortnightly Newspoll returns the Coalition to its lowest ebb, with Labor leading 58-42. This hasn’t been matched by any seismic shift on the preferred prime minister rating: Kevin Rudd is up two points to 67 per cent, but Malcolm Turnbull is also up one to 18 per cent. If you’re feeling creative, you might interpret the results as a vote of no confidence in the Coalition party room’s hostility to the emissions trading scheme. More details to follow. UPDATE: Labor’s primary vote is up three points to 46 per cent, the Coalition’s is down three to 35 per cent, and Turnbull’s disapproval is down two to a four-month low of 48 per cent. Graphic here; more from Dennis Shanahan.
Meanwhile, the latest weekly Essential Research survey has Labor’s lead up from 59-41 to 60-40. Further questions cover Kevin Rudd’s performance at the G20 summit (good if not great), confidence in his representation of Australia at such events (high), whether respondents agree with Bill Clinton’s kind words about him (they do), confidence in economic conditions over the next 12 months (sharply higher), concern over personal job security (correspondingly lower) and employees’ perception of how their employer is travelling (mixed).
Some big news on the preselection front, as you’re probably aware:
• Peter Dutton appears to have failed in his bid to move from Dickson to McPherson, having lost Saturday’s preselection vote to Karen Andrews. The state executive of Queensland’s Liberal National Party can refuse to ratify the result, but senior figures in the party have reportedly ruled this out. Dutton is said to have come within a handful of votes of victory on the first round, but was defeated on the third after the excluded Minna Knight’s supporters moved en masse to Karen Andrews (although the ABC records Andrews’ win on the final round being a reasonably comfortable 75 to 59). Liberals are telling the media of a “bloc of up to 40 Nationals” accounting for both local branch and state executive delegates voted against Dutton, but Barnaby Joyce (who supported Dutton) gives this the status of “scratching on the back of a public lavatory door”. Jamie Walker of The Australian reports the outcome was influenced by a “boots and all” attack on Dutton at the preselection meeting by Judy Gamin, former Nationals member for the local seat of Burleigh; the role of Currumbin MP Jann Stuckey in shifting Knight’s votes to Andrews; and the absence of the seat’s Dutton-supporting sitting member, Margaret May, who “opted to continue with a scheduled parliamentary visit to Britain”.
• Dutton’s defeat has led to speculation he might instead be accommodated by a retirement announcement from Fisher MP Peter Slipper or Fairfax MP Alex Somlyay, but neither seems to be biting. Scott Prasser of the Australian Catholic University observes: “The trouble is when you are in opposition both federally and state, you can’t offer any existing MPs any positions overseas or posts so it is very hard to sort of lean on someone say could you please go for the good of the party because we’ve got nothing to offer you.” Many have noted there’s a vacant seat next door in newly created Wright, but as Andrew Landeryou of VexNews notes, this is designated Nationals turf under the merger arrangement.
• Stephanie Peatling of the Sydney Morning Herald reports high-profile constitutional lawyer George Williams might challenge Bob McMullan for preselection in his northern Canberra seat of Fraser.
• The ABC reports Tamworth councillor and Winton district farmer Russell Webb will seek preselection for the Nationals in the state seat of Tamworth. The seat has been held by independents for all but two years since 1991: by Tony Windsor until his entry into federal parliament as member for New England in 2001, and by present incumbent Peter Draper since 2003.
[Sure GB.]
Prove me wrong bob.
I got the response I was after anyway. You can dish it out but squeal like a stuck pig when it is given in return.
Over and done for me on this now.
[What a libellious pile of crap.]
It’s not possible to defame a pseudonym. If you want to play that game, you have to post here under your real name, as I do.
(No my name is not Psephos, but Psephos links to my real name.)
[So the Libs are no clean skins either it seems.]
WA. Enough said.
[WA. Enough said.]
Ah? What does that have to do with SA?
[From what I’ve seen there is enough reason to question the science. ]
This means you haven’t seen enough.
[For as long as there are dissenters who appear to be pointing out legitimate problems and asking reasonable questions]
So why don’t these dissenters publish peer reviewed articles in respectable journals? Is it because they ultimately don’t have better explanations than those in the IPCC report perhaps?
[This site might be worth a look. If nothing else, it gives a good idea of the complexity of the issues involved. http://www.climateaudit.org/ ]
Why thank you for this link to a popular climate change denial website. I’ve never heard of it before! NOT.
Andrew must be on something, and so must Bob (albeit to a lesser extent), if they think that knowing someone automatically means you know their spouse (or even ex-spouse). I have worked with people for 10 years who I know for a fact are married and have been to the same person all that time, yet if their spouse was to walk past me in the street, or even maybe attack me with a magazine I would have no fucken idea who they were. Surely that is enough to stop this little “isue” being talked about anymore!
[and that Bob McMullan will be told to rack off for George Williams … ]
I approve of this intervention.
Bob McMullan has a long record of service to the Labor Party going back more than 30 years. He will not be “told to rack off.” But as I said earlier, he would make an excellent diplomat.
[Ah? What does that have to do with SA?]
Hopeless oppositions aren’t necessarily doomed to opposition.
Oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them.
http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-national/federal-liberals-worry-ofarrell-20091006-gkrz.html
[NSW Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell says he’s concerned the behaviour of federal Liberals may hinder his chances of winning the state poll in March 2011.
Mr O’Farrell said the federal Liberals were a “shambles” and the public was “judging them accordingly”.]
State Liberals, lecturing the federal Liberals, on being a rabble?
Oh what a different world we’re in compared to just a couple of years ago!! :d
Is there a betting market on what the Libs will say if interest rates go up?
“Rudd Recession”?
“Interest rate vandals”?
“Addiction to debt, deficits and high interest rates”?
“Rates will always be lower under the Libs”?
“Labor has lost control of the economy”?
Need any further proof Bush was damaging the US’ reputation?
[THE United States is the most admired country globally thanks largely to the star power of President Barack Obama and his administration, according to a new poll.
It climbed from seventh place last year, ahead of France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Japan which completed the top five nations in the Nation Brand Index.
“What’s really remarkable is that in all my years studying national reputation, I have never seen any country experience such a dramatic change in its standing as we see for the United States for 2009,” founder of NBI, Simon Anholt, said.]
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26172752-5005962,00.html
George Williams would make an excellent addition to the Parliamentary Labor Party, but I for one will be sad to see Bob McMullan go whenever and however that happens (by which I mean even if its a time of his choosing). As Psephos has said, he has been a tremendous asset to the Party over the course of his life, and has always been a pleasure to watch in both the Senate and House.
[He will not be “told to rack off.” But as I said earlier, he would make an excellent diplomat.]
Indonesia perhaps?
I still think George Williams would be a greater asset in the Senate. He would be great in the legal and constitutional and scrutiny of bills committees for example.
[For as long as there are dissenters who appear to be pointing out legitimate problems and asking reasonable questions, one shouldn’t be simply accepting the majority view, unless of course you know that the dissenters are wrong.]
Do we apply this rule to Holocaust denialists? No we don’t. Climate denialists are just as wilfully defying the facts, if not in quite so offensive a manner. There will always be people who like to play “dissenter” on any issue. I’ve mentioned Peter Duesberg and HIV/AIDS denialism here before. That man has caused hundreds of thousands of needless deaths (because he persuaded Thabo Mbeki of his views, with awful consequences), and the Murdoch press grubs who publicised his views share the guilt for those deaths. This is an exactly analogous situation. The science on climate change is an settled as science can ever be on anything. On a question this urgent, responsible policy makers have to accept the verdict of the scientific consensus, and not hang their hopes on the 1% who are dissenting from it.
I ask my denialist friends: “You have an acute pain in your stomach. You get opinions from 100 doctors. 99 of them say you have stomach cancer, you need an immediate operation or you will die. One says, it might be stomach cancer, but it might not be, let’s wait a year and see. What do you do?”
Like federal Labor, O’Farrell doesn’t have anything to worry about as far as being tainted by a poor performing state or federal counterpart. People distinguish between state and federal governments when it comes to elections.
The current Ambassador to Indoenesia is Bill Farmer who was head of the immigration department during the Pacific non-Solution and when Australians were being locked in detention and deported to the Philipines.
Get rid of him and install McMullan. Make Williams the #1 candidate on the ACT Senate ticket, and let Kate Lunday have Fraser if she wants it.
zoomster:
[next time you’re ill, can I suggest the local witchdoctor? After all, no modern medicine has been proved conclusively to work.]
“Modern medicine” is a very large field, so it can’t be all lumped together. But for the most part it’s been proven to work to my satisfaction. OTOH, AGW has not been proven true anywhere near to my satisfaction. For one thing, drugs are tested in controlled experiments, and the hypotheis of AGW is exactly the sort of thing that scientists would normally insist on a controlled experiment to test.
Tthis would involve, say, 100 identical solar systems. On half of the Earths fossil fuels would be burnt for energy but left in the ground on the other half, and the environments of each half would be compared after a few hundred years. But we can’t do a controlled experiment, so, IMO, scienttists have to lower their standards as to what they consider is strong evidence. There are many influences on Earth and without the right experiments I am sceptical that scientists can untangle them all and can honestly say with confidence that CO2 is causing global warming.
ShowsOn:
[So why don’t these dissenters publish peer reviewed articles in respectable journals? Is it because they ultimately don’t have better explanations than those in the IPCC report perhaps?]
Well, probably because there aren’t enough peers who’d accept them. When scientists are all peer-reviewing each other’s papers and they all come to the same conclusion it’s easy to get them published.
[Why thank you for this link to a popular climate change denial website. I’ve never heard of it before! NOT.]
So you’ve reviewed it and you know it’s all nonsense? The guy doesn’t come across as a crackpot to me.
You sound like you won’t stand for any criticism of the science no matter what. That’s not a very scientific way to approach it.
Try this site then:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/why-i-am-an-anthropogenic-global-warming-sceptic-michael-hammer/#more-6422
[“Modern medicine” is a very large field,]
I LOVE how you put modern medicine in scare quotes! Nice touch!
[AGW has not been proven true anywhere near to my satisfaction. ]
Which makes us all very lucky that you aren’t part of the government!
[and the hypotheis of AGW is exactly the sort of thing that scientists would normally insist on a controlled experiment to test.]
This is absurd! We have no second planet earth that we can conduct experiments on! We can look at Mars though which was probably a lot more earth like millions of years ago.
[Well, probably because there aren’t enough peers who’d accept them. ]
And the fact that peers don’t except nonsense doesn’t tell you something, maybe that there IS a consensus that climate change is occurring and it is caused by green house gases! Often the simplest explanation is true.
[When scientists are all peer-reviewing each other’s papers and they all come to the same conclusion it’s easy to get them published.]
Oh OK, so it is just a scientific conspiracy, they are all agreeing with each other for the sake of all agreeing with each other. Whatever.
[So you’ve reviewed it and you know it’s all nonsense? The guy doesn’t come across as a crackpot to me.]
I am familiar with that webpage. His argument is that the measuring devices on the land, sea and space are so inaccurate that the earth isn’t actually warming. This completely contradicts ACTUAL PEER REVIEWED analyses of the data.
If he is right, why doesn’t he publish his findings in peer reviewed journals instead of a blog?
Interest rates up 0.25%.
Triton
I presume you are just trying to wind people up but Jennifer Marohasy is not a scientist, and never has been. She is a writer who is skeptical of CC, and her writing has been thoroughly debunked on many Australian science sites.
I don’t intend to get involved in a debate with you however. By this stage I think her writing only appeals to those looking to be comforted in their delusion, or wishing to annoy others. So, have a lovely day, science-expert Triton 🙂
[Interest rates up 0.25%.]
The ABC was right the ABC was right!
Amazingly, most traders changed their minds over the weekend and decided rates would rise: http://www.asx.com.au/sfe/targetratetracker.htm
Bushfire Bill, I’m expecting the Opposition to make much of Heather Ridout’s warning about a ‘precipitous’ interest rate rise.
‘Labor takes economy to precipice.’
[I presume you are just trying to wind people up but Jennifer Marohasy is not a scientist, and never has been. She is a writer who is skeptical of CC, and her writing has been thoroughly debunked on many Australian science sites.]
She MUST be right! After all, SHE HAS A BLOG! They are far more convincing than having a Ph.D. in a climate related field of science, and publishing articles in books or peer reviewed journals.
Triton, so let me ask you the same question: You have an acute pain in your stomach. You get opinions from 100 doctors. 99 of them say you have stomach cancer, you need an immediate operation or you will die. One says, it might be stomach cancer, but it might not be, let’s wait a year and see. What do you do?
Interest rates are now at the second lowest rate in 40 years! Disaster.
I think this was kind of like a forewarning rise, the RBA wanted to remind people that interest rates can’t be left at emergency lows for too long.
Now they have made this rise, I wouldn’t be surprised if the next rise isn’t until February.
It is still quite astonishing that our RBA can increase rates now while every other developed country won’t even consider raising them for another year.
Triton
[There are many influences on Earth and without the right experiments I am sceptical that scientists can untangle them all and can honestly say with confidence that CO2 is causing global warming.]
I just love this kind of line, which seems to be trotted out by climate sceptics quite regularly – “Yes, everyone else might be convinced by the science, including all the top scientists in the respective fields, but until I personally am convinced, then it’s still open to question.”
Climate change science is very like evolution – it crosses several different fields of scientific endeavour, all of which must agree for the theory to be upheld; it can only be proved by such correlation of all the science, as we can’t get into a time machine or run controlled experiments on different universes; it is only truly observable over millenia, which makes coming to conclusions in our own lifespans quite difficult — and all except a few scientists, generally not from any of the impacted fields, accept it.
The ‘well, I’m not convinced, so we shouldn’t do anything’ line is completely irresponsible when applied to governing a country (and I’m afraid many Coalition MPs have fallen into a similar trap). When governing a country, one has to take the best advice possible and act on it. In this case, when 99.9999% of scientists agree (with the kind of convergence which isn’t seen for almost any other theory out there) it would be more than foolish for the government not to act.
[I think this was kind of like a forewarning rise, the RBA wanted to remind people that interest rates can’t be left at emergency lows for too long.]
Um no. The RBA don’t raise rates “to remind people what it is”. They raise them because of various economic indicators.
Spears on Sky wetting himself over interest rate rise, the task politically is now hard for Rudd according to him!
Honeymoon over! The woman announcer asks “will this take the gloss off Rudd’s popularity?”
[I just love this kind of line, which seems to be trotted out by climate sceptics quite regularly ]
It is known as “the argument from personal incredulity”, it can be summarised as “I don’t believe it, therefore it can’t be true.”
Turnbull convenes ETS vent session
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26172823-5013871,00.html
[MALCOLM Turnbull has called a special partyroom meeting to discuss the emissions trading scheme as senior Liberals warned today he must give backbenchers a say.
Mr Turnbull has sent a note to all MPs and senators confirming the meeting on Sunday, October 18.]
ShowsOn:
[This is absurd! We have no second planet earth that we can conduct experiments on!]
Yes, I thought I made that point very clear (I wanted 100 Earths to get some statistical significance, but apparently we only need a second one). But does not being able to do a controlled experiment make the alternative science any more reliable? Controlled experiments are used where they are the most reliable means of proving a hypothesis, and if we _could_ do such an experiment I guarantee you that scientists would be insisting that we do it before they’d commit themselves to a position.
[Oh OK, so it is just a scientific conspiracy, they are all agreeing with each other for the sake of all agreeing with each other. Whatever.]
Not a conspiracy, but scientists are like anyone else. Once they’ve taken a position it’s hard to shift them. They are human, so of course they are more likely to accept a paper that agrees with their own views.
[If he is right, why doesn’t he publish his findings in peer reviewed journals instead of a blog?]
Maybe he doesn’t feel like it. Does that mean that none of what he raised is of any concern? He’s an engineer who has a job and he’s interested in the climate debate.
[Um no. The RBA don’t raise rates “to remind people what it is”. They raise them because of various economic indicators.]
Um no. Are you saying they don’t take into account the impact that higher interest rates will have on the economy, i.e. on the decisions people make? Get real.
triton, exactly why do we have peer review processes for the publishing of academic material? Are you seriously arguing that something posted on a blog by one person is as convincing to you as the collective weight of material published via the regular academic means?
October 18 is a bit bizarre… first, it’s two weeks away, two weeks of damaging divisions. Second, Newspoll will be done Friday to Sunday of that week, with the meeting to be held on the Sunday. I can’t imagine that Newspoll doing much good for the coalition…
[It is known as “the argument from personal incredulity”, it can be summarised as “I don’t believe it, therefore it can’t be true.”]
Yes that is a really dangerous line of thinking. Consider these examples:
Howard: Our popularity in the electorate can’t really be that bad. We will win in 2007!
Turnbull: Rudd can’t really be that much of a cleanskin, so this email must be true!
Madoff Investors: These investment returns can’t be too good to be true, so I’ll give him my money.
Triton: all these PhD scientists can’t really be smarter than the Liberal Party, because they were smart enough to let me in! So I must be smarter than them too.
[October 18 is a bit bizarre]
Not really. It’s the day before Parliament resumes and is far more cost effective than flying everyone to one location just for the purposes of a meeting.
zoomster:
[The ‘well, I’m not convinced, so we shouldn’t do anything’ line is completely irresponsible when applied to governing a country]
That’s not my position, in case you are implying that it is. I’m a sceptic, for purely scientific reasons, not a denier. IMO, it is prudent to cause as little change as possible to the atmosphere because we don’t know what might result (well, many _think_ they know). So, I’m all for reducing carbon emissions. We have a reasonably stable, highly livable planet at the moment, so it is silly to mess with it.
itep, that particular page raises a number of questions. If there are good answers to all of them, then fine, but what if there aren’t? I don’t care who or how few are asking the questions, only whether they appear to be good questions. The AGW scientists aren’t right just because they have the numbers. Science isn’t a democracy.
[But does not being able to do a controlled experiment make the alternative science any more reliable?]
The fact the Earth is warming, and that the only variable that can explain this occurrence is the increasing in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is all the evidence needed.
[Controlled experiments are used where they are the most reliable means of proving a hypothesis]
But you have just said we can’t DO a controlled experiment! Does that mean we just GIVE UP, and don’t bother collecting data in other ways? Come on this is just silly.
[do such an experiment I guarantee you that scientists would be insisting that we do it before they’d commit themselves to a position.]
This makes no sense. Did NASA conduct a “man flying to the moon” experiment before flying men to the moon? Also there IS a control in the climate data, there is BEFORE the industrial revolution, and well AFTER it, and guess what temperatures are higher now than ever before!
[Not a conspiracy, but scientists are like anyone else. Once they’ve taken a position it’s hard to shift them. ]
This is rubbish! Tell that to Einstein who destroyed Newtonian Mechanics. Tell that to Charles Darwin who demolished Creationism. Science progresses so quickly BECAUSE it is one field of human endeavour that bases conclusions on EVIDENCE, not ideology, or what is popular, or what people think is true.
[Maybe he doesn’t feel like it. Does that mean that none of what he raised is of any concern?]
This is absurd! The way scientists receive credibility and acclaim is by publishing in peer reviewed journals! If he doesn’t FEEL like publishing in such journals, that means he will remain a BLOGGER instead of an influential scientist.
For the record, YES the fact he doesn’t publish articles about his findings in peer reviewed journals means the points he raises shouldn’t be taken seriously.
[That’s not my position, in case you are implying that it is. I’m a sceptic, for purely scientific reasons, not a denier.]
You ARE a denier, you just don’t realise it. You are denying the scientific consensus that 1) the Earth is warming and 2) the cause is greenhouse gases trapping additional heat in the atmosphere.
[IMO, it is prudent to cause as little change as possible to the atmosphere because we don’t know what might result]
What are you talking about? The concentration of CO2-e in the atmosphere is higher now than ever before. If we cut green house emissions we will be returning the atmosphere to to way it was 50 or 100 years ago.
[The AGW scientists aren’t right just because they have the numbers. Science isn’t a democracy.]
And climate change deniers are wrong because there are so few of them, they are wrong because their claims are UNSUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.
[And climate change deniers are wrong because there are so few of them]
I meant aren’t.
Just in case Triton is honestly seeking the truth and hasn’t managed to make it past climate audit… here is a very useful page with the answers to most of those questions…
As there are a few economics bods about here, perhaps someone could explain something in this article for me.
‘Gulf Arabs in secret talks to ditch US dollar: report’
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/06/2706148.htm
This is the bit I’m wondering about:
[Fisk said the proposal was for trade in crude oil to move to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar.]
Now, the unified currency bit is clear, but how would a ‘basket of currencies’ work?
Would that mean that there’d be a range of separate valuations by currency?
Or would there be some sort of median currency value applied?
Rewi
I’m not sure but I presume they want to create something equivalent to our “trade weighted index”. This would give them a more stable price than pegging to a single currency; something the US dollar used to offer. I presume that contracts could refer to the index, and oil prices converted back to one of the member currencies via an exchange rate.
There is an obvious risk that the US dollar will be devalued if the US continues to run large debts, and this would also devalue oil exports written in contracts referring to US dollars.
Slightly related to politics and a couple of weeks old but I found it amusing…
Newsletter for the Citizen’s Electoral Council claims “Carbon trading is Hitler-style genocide!”
http://theworstofperth.com/2009/09/15/who-will-pay-for-bad-journalism/
ShowsOn:
[But you have just said we can’t DO a controlled experiment! Does that mean we just GIVE UP, and don’t bother collecting data in other ways? Come on this is just silly.]
No, you are being silly. The reason that controlled experiments are used is that other methods _are not as reliable_. Giving up isn’t the issue. It’s how reliable the science is in the absence of the experiment. It’s just not anywhere near as reliable.
Yor are assuming:
(1) That the Earth is warming,
(2) That if it is warming fossil fuels must be responsible.
I’m not prepared to accept (1) yet, e.g., the controversy over the “hockey stick” graph. On (2), you are being ridiculous, and I’m just grateful that you’re not a scientist (I can tell you’re not). This is exactly what you need a controlled experiment for, because you can’t be sure, out of all the influences on Earth, including possibilitties that no one has even thought of, that CO2 is causing the warming. It might _look_ convincing, but that’s not enough, and that’s why an experiment would be insisted upon if it were possible.
If you call me a denier based on what I’ve posted here, even though I haven’t explicitly _denied_ anything (nowhere have I said that AGW is _not_ happening) , then you must not believe that there’s even such thing as a genuine sceptic. “You’re either with us or against” seems to be your position.
For the information of all interested bludgers,
“Political market shares”
http://www.ozforums.com.au/viewtopic.php?id=6525
Thanks Socrates.
[Mr Dutton, the federal opposition’s health spokesman, said on Tuesday he had yet to decide where he would stand but hoped to continue in federal politics.
However, he ruled out a tilt at the Senate or standing in Wright]
Dickson might be all that’s left, funny if he’s been chasing his tail and ends up back where he started 🙂
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/dutton-wont-stand-for-new-qld-seat-20091006-gkzp.html