I held off doing a post on yesterday’s unconvincing Morgan phone poll result in the hope they would give us a face-to-face poll this week, but either they’ve gone on Christmas break or are returning to their old pattern of combining results fortnightly. Yesterday’s effort was a phone poll from a sample of just 493 respondents, conducted on the back of a survey about climate change. The results were not unlike those of last week’s similarly dubious poll: Labor up a point to 42 per cent, the Coalition down 1.5 per cent to 41.5 per cent and the Greens down one to 9.5 per cent, with Labor’s two-party lead steady on 53-47.
Elsewhere:
• Phoebe Stewart of the ABC reports Palmerston deputy mayor Natasha Griggs has been preselected as the Country Liberal Party candidate for Darwin-based Solomon, defeating three other candidates including Darwin City Council alderman Garry Lambert and Tourism Top End head Tony Clementson. Bob Gosford of The Northern Myth further writes that Bess Price, described by the Northern Territory News as an “indigenous domestic violence campaigner”, has nominated for CLP preselection in the territory’s other electorate, Lingiari. Price has the backing of Alison Anderson, Labor-turned-independent member for Macdonnell, and says she has “always voted Labor” in the past.
• VexNews hears the NSW Liberals could dump Chris Spence as candidate for The Entrance early in the New Year. At issue is Spence’s comprehensive resume as a former One Nation activist: research officer to the party’s state upper house MP David Oldfield, federal candidate for Fraser in 1998, state candidate for Barwon in 2003, New South Wales state party secretary, national and state president of the youth wing “Youth Nation”, and ACT branch president and regional council chair.
• Samantha Maiden of The Australian reports possible scenarios for federal intervention into the NSW Labor Party include replacing secretary Matthew Thistlethwaite with an administrator answerable to the federal executive, and stripping Joe Tripodi and Eddie Obeid of their preselection (respectively for Fairfield and the upper house).
• Nick Minchin told ABC Television on Wednesday that it would be “healthy for democracy” if restrictions were placed on television election advertising to reduce the costs of campaigning.
• The Labor national executive has endorsed Rob Mitchell for a second try at McEwen, to be vacated at the next election by retiring Liberal Fran Bailey. The court ruling in Mitchell’s unsuccessful legal challenge against the 2007 result saw his margin of defeat increased from 12 to 27.
• Damien Madigan of the Blue Mountains Gazette reports the the state leadership change has inspired Labor’s national executive to delay its preselection decision for Macquarie, where Blue Mountains mayor Adam Searle is expected to be named successor to the retiring Bob Debus.
• Reader Sacha Blumen points me to a Wentworth Courier article from a month ago (see page 22) naming two potential Labor candidates for Wentworth – “Paddington veterinarian Barry Nielsen and Darlinghurst barrister Phillip Boulten” – in addition to Stephen Lewis, described in last week’s edition as a Slater & Gordon lawyer, anti-high rise activist and members of the Jewish Board of Deputies. Former Australian Medical Association president Kerryn Phelps has also been mentioned in the past. This week the Courier reports the Greens have endorsed Matthew Robertson, a Darlinghurst-based legal researcher for the Refugee Advice and Casework Service.
• Antony Green berates those of us who were “examining the entrails of the booth by booth results to try and divine some patterns” from Saturday’s by-elections, arguing such entrails are only interesting for what they tell us about “how Labor voters react to the Greens as a political party”. The conclusion is that “Labor voters in the ritzier parts of Bradfield seem more likely to view the Greens as a left-wing alternative to Labor than Labor voters in less affluent areas”. Antony has since conducted some entrail examination of his own to conclude that the resulting positive relationship between the two-party Liberal vote in 2007 and the Liberal swing at the by-election is unusual for urban electorates. My own post-mortem was published in Crikey on Monday.
• The NSW Nationals have announced the state seat of Tamworth will be the laboratory for its open primary experiment, in which the party’s candidate will be chosen by a vote open to every person enrolled in the electorate. The naturally conservative seat is held by independent Peter Draper, having been in independent hands for all but two years since Tony Windsor (now the federal member for New England) won it in 1991.
• Robert Taylor of The West Australian has written an action-packed column on Labor federal preselection matters in Western Australia. It commences thus:
On the surface, the WA Labor Party’s powerful state administrative committee looks to have a straightforward job next Monday when it meets to approve candidates in crucial seats for next year’s Federal election. In typical Labor fashion, three of the candidates for the most winnable Liberal seats of Swan, Cowan and Canning are unopposed, the backroom deals having already been done between the factional powerbrokers to obviate the need for a vote and all the inherent dangers that accompany them. In Durack, where there’s an outside chance of Labor rolling incumbent Barry Haase in the redrawn Kalgooorlie-based electorate, former State Geraldton Labor MP Shane Hill is also unopposed, but that’s because he was really the only one who wanted it badly enough. In Stirling, where Labor has a second to none chance of rolling incumbent Michael Keenan, something obviously went wrong because two people decided to nominate against the favourite Louise Durack, but an upset is highly unlikely.
So the administrative committee had very little to worry about until last Thursday when the Corruption and Crime Commission released its long-awaited report on goings-on at the City of Wanneroo, which handed a couple of misconduct findings to deputy mayor Sam Salpietro and fired a salvo across the bows of Wanneroo mayor Jon Kelly. The problem for Labor is that Mr Kelly is the party’s hope in the seat of Cowan, held by the Liberals Luke Simpkins with a thin 2.4 per cent margin. Labor sees a combination of the local mayor and Kevin Rudd as an irresistible combination in Cowan and had all but pencilled in the seat as a win before last week’s report. The CCC made it clear that in its opinion Mr Kelly was prepared to curry favour with former premier-turned-lobbyist Brian Burke in order to further his own political ambitions. Mr Kelly argued both at the commission and since the report came out that he did everything possible to distance himself from Mr Burke, but put bluntly the CCC just didn’t believe him – which must make the ALP’s administrative committee wonder whether the voters of Cowan will either.
• Dennis Shanahan of The Australian has been in touch to point out an error in last week’s Newspoll post, which stated both Newspoll and the Nielsen poll were both conducted on the Friday and Saturday. Newspoll’s surveying in fact continued throughout Sunday, with The Australian releasing the result at the end of the day.
marky
I’ll stake my left nut that mar’n ,when push come to pull,is like most thinking caring australians- ANTI NUCLEAR
just saying
And the first Nuclear plant… fair dinkum… we need the government to invest in it, but instead it is investing in ccs, future funds, the car industry, providing tax breaks on diesel for 4wheel drives and other things for farmers.. Handouts left right and centre… No idea at present…
[So suddenly you switch the argument from an official position to a personal one.]
No, you’re the one who switched the argument from claims he has made to assertions he has made in cabinet meetings.
As usual, you’re on 0/10
I am referring to this on PM last week:
[ALEXANDRA KIRK: Tony Abbott’s invoked Martin Ferguson’s known support for atomic power to lend weight to his call for a nuclear debate.]
Ferguson was also the person (along with Chris Evans) that helped over turn the 3 mines policy.
I was a little ungracious.
But.
Dein ist mein ganzes Herz!
Wo du nicht bist, kann ich nicht sein.
So, wie die Blume welkt,
wenn sie nicht küsst der Sonnenschein!
Dein ist mein schönstes Lied,
weil es allein aus der Liebe erblüht.
Sag mir noch einmal, mein einzig Lieb,
oh sag noch einmal mir:
Ich hab dich lieb!
Good Christmas and New Year, all.
Gusface if Nuclear was a clean option i would agree with it and if it did not have significant problems such as waste and radiation and if it was not costly i would support it.. .but most people who are pulling for it are the ones who will make bucket loads of cash from it…
Showy
woofy or wot.
Now you invoke the mad monk as your source.
God man has your brain expired?
[And the first Nuclear plant… fair dinkum… we need the government to invest in it, but instead it is investing in ccs, future funds, the car industry, providing tax breaks on diesel for 4wheel drives and other things for farmers.]
Hello! That’s my point! Basically the government is betting nearly everything on CCS, and is pouring bucketloads into it. That’s a crock, the coal power generators should be paying for it! Why is the government effectively paying for the technology so the coal generators can stay in business?
[Showy
woofy or wot.
Now you invoke the mad monk as your source.
God man has your brain expired?]
0/10
Typical, no argument, no ideas, no sources, just a personal attack. That’s what we all expect from you.
You’ll excuse me for not regarding Abbott as a reliable source on this subject. I want a source quoting Ferguson directly as saying he favours nuclear energy for Australia. Otherwise this is just speculation. (Like the assertion that he is a climate denialist, which no-one has produced a source for either.)
marky
[Gusface if Nuclear was a clean option i would agree with it and if it did not have significant problems such as waste and radiation and if it was not costly i would support it.]
Be patient in the next five years we will be looking at these debates as childsplay.
Physics and the very nature of power is about to be redifined.
[Physics and the very nature of power is about to be redifined.]
No Gusface, the Large Hadron Collider doesn’t make power, it USES power.
0/10
Psephos
i understand that Rudd invoked cabinet solidarity re nuclear a while back.
No minister or even member is on the official record as supporting nuclear.
except of course on shows on’s list.
ps
showy
Its getting tres smelly,just apologise and admit you were chancing your arm.
adults get it wrong all the time and admit mistakes,you should try it
🙂
pps admitting you were wrong,not the adult part.
We dont want to push it
😉
Where was this when the lying rodent was around?
[Brain scan reveals who will keep their promises
Promises are made to be broken, so it can be tough to tell which ones will be kept. But new-found patterns in brain activity can reveal whether someone intends to keep their word.]
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18266-brain-scan-reveals-who-will-keep-their-promises.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
I seem to have driven Marg away by calling her a mammalian chauvinist. Maybe she’s gone off to have an existential crisis, or to talk to the ants. Here’s hoping.
*gone*
[I want a source quoting Ferguson directly as saying he favours nuclear energy for Australia.]
Ferguson isn’t stupid. He knows that if clean coal isn’t affordable in a decade from now, then nuclear will be our only other option for most of our new power. Last week he pointed out that there is no point Abbott talking about nuclear without first putting a price on carbon, well putting a price on carbon is government policy.
I suspect that Labor will eventually debate nuclear power, and either the Right will support it and push it through, or the party will have a civil war a la the Liberals 3 weeks ago.
[i understand that Rudd invoked cabinet solidarity re nuclear a while back.]
LOL! Why did he invoke cabinet solidarity if everyone was against it?
Great foot bullet.
Shows
to stop tosspots making unsubstantiated allegations!
You’re more interesting when you just don’t make things up.
Shows
If only you knew
😉
[Ferguson isn’t stupid. He knows that if clean coal isn’t affordable in a decade from now, then nuclear will be our only other option for most of our new power.]
Geez.. talk about religiosity.. not even the slightest doubt that nuclear power is our saviour! No qualified statement will do. Not even “nuclear power might be a viable option at that stage”
Keep up the good laughs!
Thomas @913, they should apply that brainscan to Abbott just to get a definitive benchmark from the gold standard bearer of untruth.
Wouldn’t work on Barnyard though.. his brain got replaced with manure long ago.
A Westpoll survey of 400 respondents in The West Australian has federal Labor’s lead in the state at 53-47 (compared with 53-47 against in 2007). The West takes this to mean Abbott “has largely proved a turn-off for WA voters”, but it might equally be to do with Westpoll’s low-sample volatility, which has seen the score go from 55-45 in February to 50-50 in May to 53-47 in December.
SO@647:
[Wrong. There’s at least 80 years of Uranium left, but within a couple of decades all new reactors will be able to run on mixed oxide fuel extracted from what is currently called nuclear waste.
Also, this ignores the potential of breeder reactors to make fuel from Uranium 233. In other words, this is an argument base don assuming that reactor technology will stay the same for the next several decades.]
Thanks very much, SO, much appreciated.
It was a debate by a senator, and footnotes and justifications were not given for obvious reasons.
I was hoping for just such a rebuttal, but I had hoped for more detail about why each point was wrong.
I’ll see what I can do about providing corroboration or showing that he was talking through his hat.
For the fawning Rudd disciples fearing they will be deprived of posting over the summer break, I dare to propose a spare time activity for them. It takes the form of an undergraduate assignment.
[ “And now Rudd can’t avoid something that seems utterly contrary to his nature: a fight to defend and explain a painful and complex economic reform, with benefits that are contingent, uncertain and long-term.
For once, the man who has consistently put cynical politics ahead of good micro-economic policy, who has given us the most overblown rhetoric and the weakest delivery, has no choice but to stand and deliver.
He’ll have to take his army of morally lazy spin doctors and turn them to finding ways to explain a sophisticated economic mechanism in words the public understands.In the process, he may at last discover a commitment to a cause greater than his own political survival. ”
Discuss.
Word Limit: 2,500
Due: 15 January 2010. ]
Source:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/scare-campaign-a-chance-for-rudd-to-come-clean-20091213-kqje.html
ShowsOn #911
Posted Monday, December 14, 2009 at 12:16 am | Permalink
You need to do a bit more research into the LHC, ShowsOn. Sure it uses power (Hydro, ie water turbine like the Snowy, power from the Alps) to accelerate & collide particles, but nothing like the power collisions create. If it achieves its potential, it will power this planet – and the next generation of spacecraft to take us beyond our own solar system.
Cheez, ShowsOn, just because the Physics is new, doesn’t mean the system powering it is! Hyro/ water mill power predates the Industrial Rev by how long? A millennium? Two? Five?
Yes. It’s hard to take Westpoll results seriously when they fluctuate so much from poll to poll. It’s also hard to imagine the ALP will do worse in WA than they did last time (but who knows!)
Dio@710:
[cud chewer
I actually agree with most of your post except I think you are a bit optimistic about geothermal, although it could be cheap if it works on a large scale.]
Dio, you are wRONg again.
In iceland they use geothermal to heat the streets.
Geothermal is large scale there.
Wikipedia:
[Because of the special geological situation in Iceland, the high concentration of volcanoes and geothermal energy are very often used for heating and production of electricity. The energy is so inexpensive that in the wintertime, some pavements in Reykjavík and Akureyri are heated.
In Iceland, there are five major geothermal power plants which produce about 24% (2008) of the country’s electricity. In addition, geothermal heating meets the heating and hot water requirements for around 87% of the nation’s buildings.
In 2008, 24.5% of electricity generation in Iceland came from geothermal energy, 75.4% from hydro power, and 0.1% from fossil fuels.
the Liberals are now returning to eat their own vomits:
[Not only do the aggrieved Liberals feel the Nationals are overly represented in shadow cabinet, Joyce is now espousing views that are anathema to Liberal philosophy of the free market, foreign investment and less government regulation.
Mainstream Liberals feel as though they are having their noses rubbed in it. They fear Joyce will overpower and dominate the senior finance spokesman Joe Hockey – just as he rendered irrelevant the Nationals leaders Mark Vaile and Warren Truss – and become the economic voice of the Coalition. What may go down well in the front bar of the pub in St George is unlikely to resonate in Collins or Pitt Street.
”This is going to be a disaster,” said one MP. ”Great retail politician? Sure, but so was Pauline Hanson”.]
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/libs-fear-joyce-will-overpower-hockey-20091213-kqdc.html
Fran on Radio RN is giving Joyce a real hiding right now.
SO@724:
[ And you’d struggle to built a nuclear plant in the desert because it needs lots of water.
Otherwise, we seem to be on the same page.
I thought you supported nuclear?]
SO it is not a football team.
Dio is being realistic about all options. No power station except for wind and PV solar is viable in the desert because of (water) cooling requirements.
And I doubt wind is an option in the desert, there are too many windless highs tracking across the centre.
Which leaves PV solar if you are going to set up shop in the desert.
CC@762:
[And btw I find it amazing how the suggestion of building a reactor under the desert seems to conflict with some people’s world views. Yes it does mean a HVDC power line (which you’re probably going to have to build for other reasons). Yes it does mean a fancier cooling system. But technically, it makes a lot of sense.]
And the water comes from… where?
Under the desert? Why?
don
Further to SO647 uranium supply is a bit like oil supply – the higher the price the more becomes economic to extract. There is even uranium in seawater, though very low concentration. The limit is roughly still as ShowsOn says.
At current rate of compound growth in demand the world only has about 50 years supply of coal left too (150 years if demand stabilises). If we burn all the coal we wind up with the same atmosphere as the Miocene era, when there were no ice caps at all.
marky
[Gusface if Nuclear was a clean option i would agree with it and if it did not have significant problems such as waste and radiation and if it was not costly i would support it.]
Nuclear is not a clean option but then neither is coal – a coal plant emitts more radiation and uranium (in the soot) in a year than a nuclear one does. The GenII/III reactors onwards are safe too. Cost is the real issue relative to coal. (And I don’t make money from nuclear power; nor does James Hansen or Barry Brook).
don
I admit to being a pessimist on geothermal in the short term but there are a few reasons why. The geology of Iceland and New Zealand means that getting geothermal power there is different to here. It is close to the surface and easy to trap. We have to dig down a few kms; much harder to engineer and NOT proven. I say short term because, with reasearch and a pilot plant (that may reprsent $1B at risk, but may still be worthwhile for us to do) it might in the long term turn out very well. But either way, it is not currently proven in the form we need ot do it here. It might be a viable option in ten years though.
I agree with you on not putting nuclear reactors in the desert, unless they are GenIV, which again are a few years away. You need water, so put them on the coast or a big lake, but away from people. Port Augusta would be ideal.
The Greens claim that we are “cooking the books” on carbon emissions, by wanting to count the carbon stored in land use changes, but not the carbon released by “extraordinary events” such as bushfires.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/14/2770326.htm
I think Christine Milne may have a point. Bushfires are a natural part of the Aussie bush cycle. Not counting them is BS. The effective/average long term rate of carbon storage from forestry going into the soil is far lower than the amount of carbon locked up in a tree in the short term. I don’t know the details but this is important. Uncapped and badly defined carbon farming permits would make any Copenhagen outcome a joke. It would be Smokenhagen.
[I tried adding marg and Peter Y, but alas it don’t work, and yes I did follow the instructions and used their username from page source.]
stfu v2 does not require you to sift through the page source. Just use their display name (exactly as shown).
Socrates@933:
[Bushfires are a natural part of the Aussie bush cycle. Not counting them is BS. ]
Bushfires are releasing the CO2 they have stored since the last one. There is no net release of CO2.
If you heat your home with wood, you are carbon neutral.
Wood is, I seem to remember, the most used energy source in the world.
It’s also sad to see a young, decent looking politician like Greg Hunt trying to imitate Barnyard’s style of mouth frothing, foaming “retail” politicking. The only thing missing was the red face.
[STFU is a poor substitute for maturity and self-control, which would have benefit in other personal circumstances.]
I agree, however I found that I was exercising my maturity and self control so frequently that I was neglecting my other virtues…
A surprised left hook from the OZ. More Barnyard’s vomit for the Liberals to eat:
[Barnaby Joyce voices a far Right platform – BARNABY Joyce’s views about limiting foreign investment, the possibility of the US defaulting on its loans and the fraud behind climate change are an echo of the platform of one of Australia’s most extreme right-wing groups, the Citizens Electoral Council.
The CEC are the Australian disciples of US far-right figure Lyndon LaRouche, and while the CEC struggles to make an impact on the broader electoral scene in Australia, it has a strong following in the part of rural Queensland from where Senator Joyce comes.
The CEC’s Australian head, Craig Isherwood, who is based in Melbourne but first got involved with the CEC while living in Kingaroy in the 1980s, said yesterday that Senator Joyce was on the party’s mailing list.
“We’ve also got a lot of supporters in western Queensland and they run into Barnaby all the time — I’m sure they give him our material and talk to him about it,” said Mr Isherwood.]
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/barnaby-joyce-voices-a-far-right-platform/story-e6frgczf-1225809560799
[STFU is a poor substitute for maturity and self-control, which would have benefit in other personal circumstances.]
Whoever was making this comment should be shown how to do it, so it would not be too technically intimidating.
Finns wrote ;
[A surprised left hook from the OZ. More Barnyard’s vomit for the Liberals to eat:]
Phillip Corey in SMH saying some libs not at all comfortable with joyce and the nats in general
[ Libs fear Joyce will overpower Hockey
…Costello noted that Joyce was supported by the same people who were behind the disastrously parochial Joh-for-PM campaign that wrecked John Howard’s 1987 election campaign.
…If the idea of promoting Joyce was to get him into the tent to curb his excesses, it failed miserably in week one. Joyce aired the gamut of his policy beliefs including his trenchant opposition to Chinese sovereign investment, his support for greater bank regulation, his support for unconstitutional zonal tax treatment, and his alarmist statement that the United States and Queensland could default on their debts.
There will be no reining in of Joyce. As he told the Herald on Tuesday: ”It’s not as though you have a personality transplant when you go into cabinet.”
…Since the election two years ago, Joyce has led a ramped-up push to differentiate the Nationals from the Liberals. This has caused him to be frequently disloyal to the Coalition and contemptuous of the Liberals, so much so that Malcolm Turnbull, before he fell, was under real pressure to split from the Nationals for good. Then, in one fell swoop, the leadership changed and Joyce became a lead figure in the Coalition.
Not only do the aggrieved Liberals feel the Nationals are overly represented in shadow cabinet, Joyce is now espousing views that are anathema to Liberal philosophy of the free market, foreign investment and less government regulation.
Mainstream Liberals feel as though they are having their noses rubbed in it. They fear Joyce will overpower and dominate the senior finance spokesman Joe Hockey – just as he rendered irrelevant the Nationals leaders Mark Vaile and Warren Truss – and become the economic voice of the Coalition. What may go down well in the front bar of the pub in St George is unlikely to resonate in Collins or Pitt Street.
”This is going to be a disaster,” said one MP. ”Great retail politician? Sure, but so was Pauline Hanson”. ]
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/libs-fear-joyce-will-overpower-hockey-20091213-kqdc.html
Today’s news from our nuke-loving, climate-sceptic Energy Minister. For a nuke-loving climate sceptic (alleged) he is not doing badly on the renewables front. In fact he has done more for renewables than any minister in Australian history. You can speculate all you like on his personal views, but his actions speak louder than your speculations.
GEOTHERMAL ENERGY GETS A $35 MILLION BOOST
The Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson AM MP, has announced five geothermal energy projects to receive Australian Government funding of $35 million from round two of the $50 million Geothermal Drilling Program. The Geothermal Drilling Program will support more than $180 million worth of investment in this exciting new clean energy technology. In addition, geothermal energy was a big winner from the Renewable Energy Demonstration Program, with two projects worth approximately $535 million receiving Australian Government funding of more than $150 million. Geoscience Australia estimates that if just 1% of Australia’s geothermal energy was extracted it could supply Australia’s total annual energy requirements for 26,000 years. This is a huge resource if we can get the technology breakthroughs necessary to deliver geothermal energy to market cost-effectively and reliably.
SOLAR FLAGSHIPS PROGRAM NOW OPEN FOR BUSINESS
The Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson AM MP, has released guidelines for the first round of the Australian Government’s $1.5 billion Solar Flagships Program and called for applications by15 February, 2010. Round one will target 400 megawatts of solar generation from commercially proven technologies, leaving round two to provide an opportunity for the demonstration of a number of promising technologies that are not quite demonstration-ready today.
Two projects will be selected in round one – one solar thermal and one solar photovoltaic. The Solar Flagships Program has been designed to accelerate the delivery of large-scale, grid-connected solar power into the National Electricity Market. Minister Ferguson said: “Australia has a world-class solar resource and if we can make technology breakthroughs and drive the costs down, it has the potential to play a significant role in Australia’s electricity markets in the long-term.
A good read on the Mad Monks “singing solo” on climate change.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/blind-to-looming-disaster-howards-heir-will-succour-the-denialists/story-e6frg6zo-1225809435825
France gets at least 80% of its power from nuclear plants. Scandinavia, Britain and Germany are reversing previous opposition or increasing their nuclear capacity. India is installing French plants. It’s common sense for Australia, with its uranium resources, to be part of this expansion.
Really, we have the remote areas and geological structure, to take back nuclear waste and do a good thing for the planet (while making a tidy profit on the side).
Socrates @# 933
“I think Christine Milne may have a point. Bushfires are a natural part of the Aussie bush cycle. Not counting them is BS.’
This does make sense. Generally speaking bushfires are something over which we have very little or no control. If we take this to the extreme, assuming that we had no carbon emissions except for that from natural events what abetment action would we undertake to reduce our carbon emissions? If there was some abatement action that could be undertaken would not that mean that in the case where we had no other carbon emissions that we would have a negative carbon footprint.
It makes sense to count man made carbon emissions but no sense at all to count emission occurring from natural phenomena for the obvious reason that we can’t do anything about them.
Milne can be so damn thick sometimes. When St Bob departs it will leave a gaping hole.
I have never heard a more one-sided piece of journalism than the ABC’s report on Copenhagen this morning, concluding with comments by an unnamed source read by an actor! Has the “60 Minutes” team taken over the ABC?
Pseph, remember that Janet and friends were only put on the ABC board to make sure the clocks were all correct
Opps sorry a typo in post #944
This does make sense = This does not make sense
My apologies.
[Pseph, remember that Janet and friends were only put on the ABC board to make sure the clocks were all correct]
Yeh, set to 1950s time.
Oh, this is just hilarious!!! He doesn’t have a policy, doesn’t believe in AGW, but is miffed that Rudd is ‘stealing’ his CC policy 😀
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/coalition-claims-credit-for-labor-climate-policy/story-e6frfku0-1225810080674
[Coalition claims credit for Labor climate policy
A FEDERAL Government suggestion that carbon emissions could be cut by better managing farming land was actually Coalition policy, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said.
One of Labor’s climate negotiators told a private briefing at Copenhagen global climate change talks last week that Australia could make big greenhouse gas emission cuts if land use rules were changed, Fairfax Media has reported.
Better tillage of farms and improved fire management practices are thought to be able to help the country commit cutting carbon emissions by 25 per cent.
Mr Abbott said that was the Coalition’s policy.
“This is actively what the Opposition has been saying and it shows (Prime Minister Kevin) Rudd’s emissions tax is really all about revenue raising, it’s not about protecting the environment,” he told ABC Radio today.]