The Australian reports the latest Newspoll has Labor bouncing from last fortnight’s 52-48 quirk to 56-44. Interesting to note that Kevin Rudd’s personal ratings were unaffected by the upheaval: while the two-party rating went from 59-41 to 52-48 to 56-44, preferred prime minister went from 65-19 to 63-19 to 63-22. More to follow. Also:
Essential Research‘s two-party figure has lurched from 59-41 to 55-45, the lowest lead for Labor in its 18 months of operation. These figures combine two weeks of polling, suggesting a particularly sharp drop was recorded in the most recent survey. Further questions in the survey focus on issues of national importance, party best able to handle various economic issues (Coalition leads Labor on government debt by 24 points), importance of a national broadband network (high) and who should run it (the feds or failing that Telstra), which kinds of organisations are the most influential (media and the banks) and whether emissions trading scheme legislation should be delayed until after Copenhagen (slight lean to yes).
Full results from Saturday’s Newspoll survey of marginal Queensland seats here. Labor holds remarkably consistent 3 to 4 per cent leads across all of them, including three they hold, two they don’t and one (Dickson) which the redistribution has changed from Liberal to notional Labor.
The Greens have published a Galaxy survey on attitudes to climate change, the dubiousness of which is explored by Andrew Norton.
Kirsty Needham of the Sydney Morning Herald reports Werriwa MP Chris Hayes has received support from the state secretaries of the Right faction Transport Workers Union and Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association. A deal at federal level gives Werriwa to the Left in exchange for a clear run for the Right in Fowler, leaving Hayes to contest marginal Macarthur.
Alex Easton of the Northern Star names Tweed mayor Joan van Lieshout as a potential Liberal candidate for (federal) Richmond.
(Back again briefly)
I respect that William has a very appropriate rule against calling people liars, nevertheless I find the argument style inherent in Triton’s recent posts quite dishonest and object to it.
He starts with one position (about fires) which I respond to, pointing out how we have several hundred years of evidence via tree rings. Then he says several hundred years of evidence are not enough, while switching back to climate change, which was not the subject of my data comment, and where we have several thousand years of evidence. So he never admits things he says are provably false, and continually shifts the ground when he is caught. This is just dishonest, and is not a clever trick. Shame on you Triton. Do you really believe your rubbish, or are you just another paid corporate shill? You are not convincing anybody who made it out of high school.
In fact, as Dario said, we have thousands of years of evidence on climate change. Via the Antarctic ice core data we have several hundred thousand years of data. The relationship between CO2 and climate change is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Dio, Annabel needs to move on. Everyone else has.
[Rudd should just a Double Dissolution already.]
Now explain for all of us how he could do that without a double dissolution trigger?
Of course if Annabel says it, it must be true. We all know that.
Soc
hear hear!
ps
the bolta effect and the other scoundrels have really muddied the waters.
🙁
I was a bit sceptical until I started to read all the material available, not just crackpots blogs.
The slow deglaciation of the Himalaya’s is perhaps the most visible and ongoing example of CC.
[So he never admits things he says are provably false, and continually shifts the ground when he is caught. This is just dishonest, and is not a clever trick.]
I wouldn’t take anything he says about science seriously, he has absolutely no idea about how scientists actually accumulate evidence to generate theories.
[The relationship between CO2 and climate change is proven beyond reasonable doubt.]
But this isn’t good enough for people like Andrew Bolt and Triton, they think we should prove things before all doubt before doing anything.
GB
Actually, the Age, SMH, AFR, ABC and all the News papers have all said the same thing.
So the journos certainly haven’t moved on.
Personally, I think the point has been made but the media are going to keep saying it. I still haven’t had a single person talk to me about the AS issue.
[Of course if Annabel says it, it must be true. We all know that.]
She should spend more time concentrating on Turnbull’s complete lack of an immigration policy. As soon as he dared say something, he has a party room meeting where three of his colleagues dissent from the so called opposition policy.
[Actually, the Age, SMH, AFR, ABC and all the News papers have all said the same thing.]
Who cares. If they are so outraged by Rudd’s actions, they should quit their jobs, get preselected for the Liberal party, then move a motion in the house of representatives saying that they think Rudd is wrong.
[Personally, I think the point has been made but the media are going to keep saying it. ]
They can’t handle the fact that Rudd is extremely popular, they have been trying to knock him down all year.
[Actually, the Age, SMH, AFR, ABC and all the News papers have all said the same thing.]
Are you saying they have said that today? Still doesn’t make it so by the way.
Anyway we both agree they should all move on. Been there, done that.
Again Dio attacks Rudd from the right. Seriously dude, make your mind up.
Crabb seems to be obsessed by Rudd. He’s virtually all she ever writes about for the last couple of months, and all negative of course. Ever read anything positive that she has to say about him – I doubt it. She’ll go very well over at the ABC.
Didn’t Crabb write a book or assist in doing so for a senior Lib?
Yeah, she wrote a thing for Turnbull didn’t she? Now she’s over that so she is giving Rudd a seeing to.
[Didn’t Crabb write a book or assist in doing so for a senior Lib?]
So what? Is this an attempted smear? That because someone had a professional relationship with a Liberal politician they couldn’t possibly be impartial?
[Crabb seems to be obsessed by Rudd. He’s virtually all she ever writes about for the last couple of months]
Perhaps because she is a political journalist and he is PM? Bizarre I know!
[So what? Is this an attempted smear?]
I thought this would be levelled at me when I wrote it and was going to put in that it wasn’t, although it does put a question mark over her neutrality surely. Journalists who want to be seen as neutral should avoid such things IMHO.
And that goes for both sides ltep. Get off your high horse.
Scorpio@1572:
[Crikey I’m supposed to be on 1.5 Mgb download speed but am getting 180 to 190 Kbs at the moment with about 2Kbs upload!]
Scorpio, that’s about right.
The 1.5 Mb is 1.5 megabits not mega bytes.
The download is 190 kilo bytes
Now bearing in mind that the normal definition of 1024 Kb = 1 Mb,
Since there are 8 bits to a byte, multiply your 190 by 8 and divide by 1024, and you get 1.48 Megabits, which is what they advertise, near enough accounting for rounding.
It is normal to pretend you are getting more for your hard earned by advertising in bits instead of bytes.
In addition, upload is always at a much lower speed than download, so they advertise download for preference. Annoying when you have a lot of stuff to upload as I do, but most people are using download, so they never know it unless they are uploading lots of images or a video.
Yes it is bizarre when there are actually some other politicians who maybe are doing things that are worth writing about.
I totally agree with you, but I think the obsession stems from the fact that he is basically ignoring the half-baked pundits, coalition propagandists and press release recyclers known as the press gallery.
[Yeah, she wrote a thing for Turnbull didn’t she? Now she’s over that so she is giving Rudd a seeing to.]
She wrote an essay on Turnbull in Quarterly Essay:
http://www.quarterlyessay.com/issue/stop-nothing-life-and-adventures-malcolm-turnbull
It featured this revelation:
[One of the revelations in Crabb’s essay is a previously unreported argument in the Liberal partyroom after the 2004 election.
Senator George Brandis, a moderate Queensland Liberal, asked Howard if the government seriously believed its public rhetoric that a hairdressing certificate was as good as a PhD. As Crabb writes:
Brandis was heckled by some of his colleagues, who jeered that people with degrees weren’t as smart as they thought they were. “He was howled down, of course. It was frightening,” recalls one (university-educated) MP who was present. “They were a mob by that stage. You couldn’t get up and say things like that. It was like the French Revolution.” Howard himself, recalls another Liberal, made it clear where his sympathies lay. “He just gave out this big laugh, and said: ‘Oh, George. At least you have more chance of making some money with a hairdressing degree.“‘ ]
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/meganomics/index.php/theaustralian/comments/the_revenge_of_the_book_club/
She also wrote a book about Labor in Opposition.
Socrates:
[He starts with one position (about fires) which I respond to, pointing out how we have several hundred years of evidence via tree rings. Then he says several hundred years of evidence are not enough, while switching back to climate change, which was not the subject of my data comment, and where we have several thousand years of evidence. So he never admits things he says are provably false, and continually shifts the ground when he is caught. This is just dishonest, and is not a clever trick.]
This is from my first post on the subject of fires:
[The recorded history of Australian fires is far too short to come to any conclusions. If we had 2000 years, rather than 200, of records of fires we’d have a better idea how out of the ordinary they are.]
So, I conceded at the outset that we have hundreds of years of data and I’ve been quite consistent all along that that’s not enough, that we need thousands of years of data to come to any conclusion.
I also said in that post:
[And even if they are out of the ordinary, and even if they are the result of climate change, climate changes on Earth are normal. It wouldn’t say anything about why the climate has changed.]
[Shame on you Triton. Do you really believe your rubbish, or are you just another paid corporate shill?]
Now you are getting shrill. A small fraction of my posts here have been on climate.
Rather than a description in your own words, please provide quotations from my posts today that indicate that I’ve been “shifting the goalposts” or in any way been dishonest.
[It featured this revelation]
As if there was ever any doubt why Universities seemed to get such a raw deal under Howard
Itep @ 1715
Yep. I’ll make that assertion. Why are you trying to maintain the journalistic neutrality nonsense? Everyone has their affiliations and allegiances. If Annabel helped write a book for a senior Liberal, it DOES say a lot about where her sympathies lie.
You’re exposing yourself with your own assertion. The only reason pointing out such an affiliation would be a SMEAR is if you though there was something a bit ‘dirty’ about it.
[So, I conceded at the outset that we have hundreds of years of data and I’ve been quite consistent all along that that’s not enough, that we need thousands of years of data to come to any conclusion.]
You are confusing RECORDS, i.e. actual observations of fires with other forms of DATA that can be deduced using methods other than direct observation.
Just because we only have 100 years of records doesn’t mean we can’t make predictions about fire events BEFORE records were made.
[Rather than a description in your own words, please provide quotations from my posts today that indicate that I’ve been “shifting the goalposts” or in any way been dishonest.]
You do all the time, face it your understanding of science is extremely limited. For example, you don’t even appreciate how Einstein revolutionised physics.
[But this isn’t good enough for people like Andrew Bolt and Triton]
Don’t lump me in with Andrew Bolt. That’s hitting below the belt.
It seems that the AGW proponents here are simply incapable of having a civil discussion on climate.
Annabel Crabb is a humour writer, like Richard Glover, so it doesn’t matter a fig what they write or say.
Whenever either one of them drifts into taking themselves seriously (which they both frequently do on ABC TV/Radio), it is sad to watch them failing to perform so far above their league.
I’ve some empathy for Ms Crabb because it’s going to be very tough for her when the day comes that flipping the long curls back from the side of her face won’t cut it to get a seat on “The Insiders” any more. However much I might disagree or dislike many of the panel member on “Insiders”, they’ve paid their dues.
[Everyone has their affiliations and allegiances. If Annabel helped write a book for a senior Liberal, it DOES say a lot about where her sympathies lie.]
What book are you referring too?
[You do all the time]
That’s not good enough. Provide the quotes or withdraw it.
[You do all the time, face it your understanding of science is extremely limited. For example, you don’t even appreciate how Einstein revolutionised physics.]
What a load of rubbish. You just throw this stuff around with no evidence. You claimed that Newton was wrong and I came to his defence. Where did I not appreciate Einstein’s contribution to physics?
Boerwar@1587:
[I suspect fillabuster would be fillibuster. But don’t really know.]
It’s filibuster.
But do what I do – throw your spelling at google to look for, and if it comes back saying
[Did you mean: filibuster ]
Then click on that. If that comes back as a normal search, you’ve found the correct spelling.
You can also check by typing ‘filibuster dictionary’ and get confirmation that it is in an online dictionary.
I do that all the time with french words, when I use ‘dictionnaire’ as well as a french word which I can’t get an alternative and sensible meaning for from google translate.
Don’t be confused by lots of instances of the wrong spelling in your original search. There’s a lot of it about.
Many highly intelligent, logical people can’t spell worth a damn.
[If they are so outraged by Rudd’s actions, they should quit their jobs, get preselected for the Liberal party, then move a motion in the house of representatives saying that they think Rudd is wrong.]
That has to be a new PB low in standard of argument. And we’ve really scraped the bottom of the barrell quite a few times.
[Don’t lump me in with Andrew Bolt. That’s hitting below the belt.]
Your understanding of science seems to be at about the same level. You ultimately assert that since we can’t be 100% sure about any claim, then we can’t be sure at all.
We can be certain of the fact that such a belief is 100% wrong.
[It seems that the AGW proponents here are simply incapable of having a civil discussion on climate.]
Anything we say you will just say that you have doubt. You have said as much with your repeated claims that the satellite measurements aren’t accurate, which is a standard gambit played by climate change deniers.
[She also wrote a book about Labor in Opposition.]
That would have been thrilling…
Nick@1588:
[Tony Abbott did not have any good answers on global warming when questioned by Tony Jones, to-night, on LL. There was a lot of “But Tony, many reputable people do not believe in anthropogenic global warming…”. Jones showed Abbott up as a dishonest amateur.]
Thanks Nick, much appreciated, I’ll see if I can get it online.
Now, you other dissers of our ABC, did Tony forget his script about delivering coalition propaganda, or what?
[Now, you other dissers of our ABC, did Tony forget his script about delivering coalition propaganda, or what?]
When did TJ become the whole ABC?
[That has to be a new PB low in standard of argument. And we’ve really scraped the bottom of the barrell quite a few times.]
I don’t think it’s a new low, although I certainly don’t agree with it. However, the press gallery are there to report the news. When they start trying to make it I become concerned. Lately I have been getting the feeling that they are tired of having had such a one-sided contest for so long, and are trying their best to get the Libs back in the game.
[That has to be a new PB low in standard of argument. And we’ve really scraped the bottom of the barrell quite a few times.]
The person was being misleading and dishonest in the whole Oceanic Viking scenario is Malcolm Turnbull by playing on people’s fears and prejudices without saying what he would do differently. Rudd retained an exceptionally cool head given the gutter tactics that Turnbull and other Liberals have reverted to. So, on balance, media criticism should be directed at Turnbull.
[Now, you other dissers of our ABC, did Tony forget his script about delivering coalition propaganda, or what?]
Yes, Janet and friends were only put on the board to give typing lessons
[Thanks Nick, much appreciated, I’ll see if I can get it online. ]
It’s here:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2748161.htm
Jones runs right over him.
[You have said as much with your repeated claims that the satellite measurements aren’t accurate]
I can’t think of any satellite measurements that I have reason to believe aren’t accurate. I think you are just plucking stuff out of the air now. Unless you can give me a quote then it’s time you went into moderation, as William was threatening to do.
Abbott was simply positioning for the coalition leadership. He must’ve figured out that this whole issue will possibly split the party and result in a leadership spill. He knows that he needs to back the climate deniers position to be in with a chance of winning the leadership.
SO@1622:
[Dear Mr Abbott,
Last night, after trimming my toe nails and drinking a cup of camomile tea, I sat down and watched a situation comedy show on the television called “Lateline”. During last night’s episode you appeared as a very amusing character who pretended to know things about climate change, before saying things that proved that this was wrong.]
Gold, SO, gold!
SO
The person who has been misleading and dishonest has been Rudd.
Journalists have pointed that out, many many of them.
And your argument is that they should not do so and should go into parliament if they want to criticise him.
Of course, the same doesn’t apply to journalists who Liberal pollies.
[I think you are just plucking stuff out of the air now. Unless you can give me a quote then it’s time you went into moderation, as William was threatening to do.]
LOL! Oh deary me! You can’t argue your case so you ask for protection from the moderator!
[The person who has been misleading and dishonest has been Rudd]
So, is this the first time since he became a politician? Must be a record…
[It seems that the AGW proponents here are simply incapable of having a civil discussion on climate.]
That’s because the time for academic discussions, civil or otherwise, about climate is passed. The only people who don’t accept the science on AGW now are those who are too stupid or too blinded by right-wing ideology (usually both). If you’re in that category, there’s not much point arguing with you. If you’re not in that category, it’s time to move on to the real argument, which is what to DO about AGW.
[The person who has been misleading and dishonest has been Rudd. ]
What? And Turnbull hasn’t rolled around in the gutter by attacking the government without saying what he would do differently, just because he KNOWS this is an emotive issue?
Of course journalists can criticise Rudd, but if they don’t also mention the fact the opposition has no policy, then they are pushing an agenda on an issue that everyone knows is divisive.
[LOL! Oh deary me! You can’t argue your case so you ask for protection from the moderator!]
What case? You claimed that I have disputed satellite measurements, along with other claims. Is it now up to me to prove negatives?
[What case? ]
Yes, good point, you have no case.
GB@1735:
[When did TJ become the whole ABC?]
Never, so far as I am aware.
But Tony has been accused of right wing bias by some PBers, and this is an instance where that allegation is at least “not proved”.
And while I am about it, what about Phillip Adams on Late Night Live, steam radio? You’d need an awful lot of right wing propagandists to make up for Philip’s left leanings!
Long may he reign. He gets many hours a week from our ABC to work his magic.