Contrary to expectations it might put its head above the parapet with today’s resumption of parliament, there is still no sign of Newspoll – or indeed any other polling series, at least so far as voting intention is concerned. Essential Research, however, is maintaining its regular polling schedule, but so far it’s been attitudinal polling only. The latest set of results was published in The Guardian on Friday, and it encompasses Essential’s leadership ratings series, which I relate here on a better-late-than-never basis. Featured are the first published ratings for Anthony Albanese, of 35% approval and 25% disapproval, compared with 38% and 44% in the pollster’s final pre-election reading for Bill Shorten.
To put this into some sort of perspective, the following table (click on image to enlarge) provides comparison with Newspoll’s debut results for opposition leaders over the past three decades. The only thing it would seem safe to conclude from this is that Albanese’s numbers aren’t terribly extraordinary one way or the other.
Scott Morrison’s post-election bounce lifts him five points on approval to 48%, with disapproval down three to 36%, and he leads Albanese 43-25 on preferred prime minister, compared with 39-32 for Shorten’s late result. Also featured are questions on tax cuts (with broadly negative responses to the government policy, albeit that some of the question framing is a little slanted for mine), trust in various media outlets (results near-identical to those from last October, in spite of everything), and various indigenous issues (including a finding that 57% would vote yes in a constitutional recognition referendum, compared with 34% for no). The poll was conducted June 19 to June 23 from an online sample of 1079.
Elsewhere in poll-dom:
• Australian Market and Social Research Organisations has established an advisory board and panel for its inquiry into the pollster failure, encompassing an impressive roll call of academics, journalists and statisticians. Ipsos would appear to be the only major Australian polling concern that’s actually a member of AMSRO, but the organisation has “invited a publisher representative from each of Nine Entertainment (Sydney Morning Herald/The Age) and NewsCorp to join the advisory board”.
• A number of efforts have now been made to reverse-engineer a polling trend measure for the last term, using the actual results from 2016 and 2019 as anchoring points. The effort of Simon Jackman and Luke Mansillo at the University of Sydney was noted here last week. Mark the Ballot offers three models – one anchored to the 2016 result, which lands low for the Coalition in 2019, but still higher than what the polls were saying); one anchored to the 2019 result, designed to land on the mark for 2019, but resulting in a high reading for the Coalition in 2016; and, most instructively, one anchored to both, which is designed to land on the mark at both elections. Kevin Bonham offers various approaches that involve polling going off the rails immediately or gradually after the leadership change, during the election campaign, or combinations thereof.
So, the Albanese disapproval is only about half of Shortens disapproval.
That’s an indication of voters at least giving Albanese a chance compared with Shorten.
I did university physics and chemistry and I cant be arsed further pointing out the multifaceted flaws in your arguments (especially that last one – goodness me). You keep fighting your ideological wars soldier – it aint going to stop that falling tree. Sad thing is, so far that ideological war has stopped us from stepping away from it.
Bucephalus
“The big problem with the claim that warming has never happened this fast is that the proxy reconstructions don’t have the granularity or accuracy of the instrumented temperature measurement of the modern age – so the claim is unverifiable. There is also no explanations for such things as the cooling from the 40’s to the 70’s which resulted in claims of an approaching ice age.”
This is largely nonsense, but lets explore the issue
Let’s assume we don’t know anything, how would you test if the Earth is warmer.
Astrobleme says:
Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 1:39 pm
The question is not if CO2 is increasing due to human activity – that’s pretty straight forward – yes, it is. The question is how sensitive the climate is to the increase in CO2. Yes, it absorbs and releases energy. We know that. But how do we prove that the change in weather and climate is driven by the 1/10,000th change in the concentration of CO2 and not other factors like natural ocean current cycles or land clearing?
ItzaDream @ #240 Tuesday, July 2nd, 2019 – 1:24 pm
futtock
Bucephalus
“There is also no explanations for such things as the cooling from the 40’s to the 70’s which resulted in claims of an approaching ice age.”
For shit’s sake, this is an urban myth. There were no such credible claims of ‘global cooling’ – though climate change skeptics still won’t let it go.
https://skepticalscience.com/70s-cooling-myth-tricks-part-I.html
Kakuru:
From which, being a myth, it follows there is no explanation for it.
The obfuscation tactics employed by the fossil fuel industry boosters re climate change is nothing less than accessory to murder.
Kakuru says:
Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 1:50 pm
Bucephalus
“There is also no explanations for such things as the cooling from the 40’s to the 70’s which resulted in claims of an approaching ice age.”
For shit’s sake, this in an urban myth. There were no such credible claims of ‘global cooling’ – though climate change skeptics still won’t let it go.
https://skepticalscience.com/70s-cooling-myth-tricks-part-I.html
_____________________________________
Right wing hypocrites don’t care whether something is true or not. They just say whatever would appeal to the prejudices of ignorant people.
Which makes them so dangerous.
“But how do we prove that the change in weather and climate is driven by the 1/10,000th change in the concentration of CO2 and not other factors like natural ocean current cycles or land clearing?”
Well, the change is about 46%. From 280 to 410 ppm, and recall that during the current series of Ice Ages it varied from 180 to 280.
Land clearing increases the albedo, so would act to cool the Earth.
Ocean cycles just sounds like handwaving; what Ocean cycle are you talking about?
Science doesn’t do ‘proof’, so to demand proof is to misunderstand. Science can show what is NOT affecting the climate.
when Svante Arrhenius first noted the properties of CO2, he pretty well straight away did a basic computation on what the effect of doubling carbon dioxide would do. Way back in 1896.
https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
See p 266
Windhover
Myths often have explanations as to how they might have came about. For example, was the myth of the giant, one-eyed Cyclops inspired by fossil elephant skulls found on Mediterranean islands?
Myths about climate change often have a basis in *something* – usually a profound misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the evidence. Bucephalus has exemplified this. He’s wrong, but there is a basis to his wrong-ness.
TPOF
“Right wing hypocrites don’t care whether something is true or not. They just say whatever would appeal to the prejudices of ignorant people.”
Yes, and this is how ignorance persists. It took people a long time to accept that cigarette smoking was hazardous to one’s health, partly because vested interests disputed the scientific evidence. Many people preferred to believe the scientific consensus was actually a conspiracy.
It would be laughable if it wasnt so serious.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
The only reason you would doubt the scientific consensus is if you were immoral and had skin in the fossil fuel game or due to blind faith in an ideology. Or dumb as a futtock.
If it was just a matter of ‘whats it the best way to the shops, 97% of navigation tools say route A, but I am going to take route B’ – then all power to you. But those with blind faith dont just get a second opinion when a doctor says they have cancer. They go to 34 doctors in a desperate search to find the single one who says – she’ll be right mate.
Kakuru, point taken.
But semantically when B head wrote there were no explanations, inferentially he meant no scientific explanation and my comment was and remains contextually accurate.
Bucephalus @ #187 Tuesday, July 2nd, 2019 – 12:39 pm
It is hard to believe that a person who could believe such arrant nonsense can actually use a computer 🙁
P1
Or tie their own shoelaces.
Wow, this is impressive
https://www.goldfields.com/news_article.php?articleID=8048
Hopefully other Miners will take note!
Got it Windhover. It’s hard to know what Bucephalus means sometimes.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/the-1970s-global-cooling-consensus-was-not-a-myth/
“Conclusions
A review of the climate science literature of the 1965-1979 period is presented and it is shown that there was an overwhelming scientific consensus for climate cooling (typically, 65% for the whole period) but greatly outnumbering the warming papers by more than 5-to-1 during the 1968-1976 period, when there were 85% cooling papers compared with 15% warming.
It is evident that the conclusion of the PCF-08 paper, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, is incorrect. The current review shows the opposite conclusion to be more accurate. Namely, the 1970s global cooling consensus was not a myth – the overwhelming scientific consensus was for climate cooling.
It appears that the PCF-08 authors have committed the transgression of which they accuse others; namely, “selectively misreading the texts” of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979. The PCF-08 authors appear to have done this by neglecting the large number of peer-reviewed papers that were pro-cooling.
I find it very surprising that PCF-08 only uncovered 7 cooling papers and did not uncover the 86 cooling papers in major scientific journals, such as, Journal of American Meteorological Society, Nature, Science, Quaternary Research and similar scientific papers that they reviewed. For example, PCF-08 only found 1 paper in Quaternary Research, namely the warming paper by Mitchell (1976), however, this review found 19 additional papers in that journal, comprising 15 cooling, 3 neutral and 1 warming.
I can only suggest that the authors of PCF-08 concentrated on finding warming papers instead of conducting the impartial “rigorous literature review” that they profess.
If the current climate science debate were more neutral, the PCF-08 paper would either be withdrawn or subjected to a detailed corrigendum to correct its obvious inaccuracies.”
April 8, 1977 Time magazine Cover – “How to Survive the Coming Ice Age”
RBA reduces cash rate to a record low of 1%.
Anyone want to put up a graph of global atmospheric temperature anomalies for the 20th Century that doesn’t show cooling from the peak in the 1940’s to the low in the 1970’s?
That’s rather simplistic and without getting into the Newtonian versus Einstein theories – the phenomenon is replicable by experiment (as anyone who has done high school science would have done). There isn’t any way we can replicate by experiment the impact of human caused CO2 increases on global climate.
All the big words have got me rattled, but I can’t help thinking on Mr Newton looking up seeing the apple coming down and prattling on about not verifiable.
The Global Warming apple has already left the tree.
With economy in a shambles, global warming emissions rising and energy prices through the roof, Crowe of Nine/Fairfax writes this garbage:
And the RBA has just lowered rates to 1%
Bucephalus @ #269 Tuesday, July 2nd, 2019 – 2:31 pm
Seriously?
You are quoting a 42 year old Time magazine article to prove your case?
You should dig a little deeper. I’m fairly sure Reader’s Digest did an expose on the subject only 30 or so years ago.
I do not converse about the global warming topic with climate change deniers. It is a waste of time. As one article put it, it is not a matter of how many humans survive but if any at all will.
Bucephalus
Some of the best science was from the 70s…
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf
But wow… you are deep in conspiracy land now.
And how did you determine what a cooling paper was?
And why is it important? Did any of the cooling papers actually get it right?
So they need a long, broad, shallow spillway between where the water exits the plant and where it reenters the river. Waterslide spas? Spaterslides?
Or just release it as steam. It’ll cool down by the time it precipitates out of the atmosphere.
Bucephalus
I like this comment from Nick Stokes of the Moyhu Blog – he’s a smart guy.
“A review like this without any details is useless. Perhaps the details are meant to be in the spreadsheet mentioned, but there is no live link.
Only one example of reclassification to cool is given, and it is in the classic KR style of picking out and bolding out of context. Just repeating the quote without bold:
“Extrapolation of present rates of change of land use suggests a further decline of -1 K in the global temperature by the end of the next century, at least partially compensating Extrapolation of present rates of change of land use suggests a further decline of -1 K in the global temperature by the end of the next century, at least partially compensating for the increase in global temperature through the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, anticipated from the continued burning of fossil fuels.”
and it isn’t forecasting cooling at all. It is saying that land use, a minor factor, may partially compensate “for the increase in global temperature through the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, anticipated from the continued burning of fossil fuels”
IOW, it won’t warm quite as much as it might have. That is not a cooling paper.”
So they counted a paper from the 1970s that said that landclearing would increase the albedo and have a cooling affect as being a ‘Global Cooling’ paper…
No, that’s just dumb.
Bucephalus says:
Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 1:28 pm
Simon² Katich® says:
Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 12:49 pm
It is a theory that it is driven by human activity
“Gravity is a theory. Would you stand still under a falling tree claiming ‘it is just a theory!’ or step out of the way?”
That’s rather simplistic and without getting into the Newtonian versus Einstein theories – the phenomenon is replicable by experiment (as anyone who has done high school science would have done). There isn’t any way we can replicate by experiment the impact of human caused CO2 increases on global climate.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Perhaps not Bucephalus, but wouldn’t it be a good idea to act wisely and ask what happens if all the many scientists and scientific institutions around the world who have been modelling and predicting global warming for decades, are correct?
I mean, if they’re wrong, and a few talk-back shock jocks and a few fossil fuel industry-backed maverick scientists are right, what have we got to lose by transitioning to a renewal energy economy?
Only foul-smelling air and dirty water. Not to mention a few extra carcinogens in the environment.
On the other hand, if by some chance most of the scientists are correct, then we had better do something to cool the planet while we have the time to do it.
Really Bucephalus, you don’t have to automatically argue against everything the Left proposes.
@Dan
We are on a island.
“Anyone want to put up a graph of global atmospheric temperature anomalies for the 20th Century that doesn’t show cooling from the peak in the 1940’s to the low in the 1970’s?”
Don’t think anyone will dispute this.
But why is it important to you?
Just skimming lightly over the last two pages, Bucephalus seems to say that human activity hasn’t produced any Warming, but land clearing might.
Duh?
American invented religions, like Prosperity Pentecostalism, seem to believe that Jesus was/is a Conservative American Capitalist who comes wrapped in the yankee flag!!!
Are they as stupid or what?
buce
ROFLMAO – that one was debunked ages ago. The cover you’re referring to is a hoax.
I’ll put in big letters so it gets through – THE APRIL 8 1977 COVER YOU’RE REFERRING TO IS A HOAX!!!!!!
From Time itself:
http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/
Here’s the REAL cover:
Why would anyone take you seriously when you post such poorly researched drivel. It took me less time to find the truth than it did for you to post your crap in the first place.
We accept your apology in advance.
Buce, Morrison’s beliefs on creationism and anthropogenic climate change are outlined here https://sciencereligionspectrum.org/blog-posts/australian-neo-pentecostal-perspectives-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/
How could someone who believes this stuff not subscribe to the Young Earth theory as well?
swamprat @ #283 Tuesday, July 2nd, 2019 – 2:49 pm
Yep. I blame Maccas and Krispy Kreme donuts consumed while watching Faux news. 🙂
Murphy
Freedom to deceive?
swamprat
As a break from the biblical fundies in undies a different flavor of fundy nutter for you.
.
.
There is always a bit of interest when parliament opens whether the MPs swear on bibles or take an affirmation. Victorian Liberal Tim Wilson has taken the whole process into new territory by taking his affirmation today while holding a copy of Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2019/jul/02/parliament-coalition-labor-morrison-politics-live
Climate change deniers miss the point that global warming will be overlaid over and interact with whatever natural cycles are applying. Climate scientists don’t deny the reality of natural cycles, although their effects are not that well understood. Nor do natural cycles mean that global warming can’t happen, which is what many deniers seem to be saying.
Regarding the coming Ice Age, there was a bit of a flap in the 1970s after a run of cold winters in North America. However, the idea never gained general consensus as has the reality of global has over the last 3 decades.
P1
No, he’s quoting a HOAX cover photoshopped only a few years ago, see my post above for details. Which doesn’t prove his case at all. It does however prove he’s an idiot who will clutch at any straw he can.
Bucephalus
You’re being tricky. You’re conflating two separate issues: (1) decrease in global temps from 1940- 70 (see below), with (2) predictions during this time that that the earth was cooling and headed for new ice age. There was no consensus about (2) (the subject of the bullshit Time article). The lit review (PCF08) was concerned only with (2), and made no bones about it.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/
From the article:
After rising rapidly during the first part of the 20th century, global average temperatures did cool by about 0.2°C after 1940 and remained low until 1970, after which they began to climb rapidly again.
The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back out into space.
The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war. In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C, while solar activity levelled off after increasing at the beginning of the century
The clean air acts introduced in Europe and North America reduced emissions of sulphate aerosols. As levels fell in the atmosphere, their cooling effect was soon outweighed by the warming effect of the steadily rising levels of greenhouse gases.
Bucephalus
Here is the webpage by William Connely (one of the authors of that paper you mentioned)
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
You can see for yourself his logic and how he decided which papers to include as ‘Global Cooling’ papers
You can see why he ddin’t include some and if you have some you think he’s missed you can post them there.
[‘It was an incident straight out of a Victorian ballroom, a dowager putting the young, presumptuous and nouveau-riche upstart in her place.’]
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/ivanka-trump-wants-power-and-laughing-at-her-expense-wont-stop-her-20190702-p523d9.html
Astrobleme @ #281 Tuesday, July 2nd, 2019 – 2:48 pm
Yes, you can dispute this, but you don’t really need to bother. The effect was so small – 0.1 degree cooling in a 30 year timescale against around 1.0 degrees of warming when you look over a slightly larger timescale – that it is simply irrelevant.
Skeptical Science has a good rebuttal of this nonsense – https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century-advanced.htm
You can select a “basic” explanation, or “intermediate” or “advanced” explanations, depending on your level of scientific understanding. The “basic” explanation might even be simple enough for Bucephelus:
“Mid-century cooling involved aerosols and is irrelevant for recent global warming.”
This explanation of course, also demonstrates that humans can and do affect the climate.
Dan Gulberry
Cut him some slack. He still thinks there is some connection between science and Anthony Watts. College drop out ex tv weathermen being being the go to guys for climate science.
Seriously…bucephallus quoting Wattsupwiththat?? The goto site for NutterTruckers subscribers??
How cute! 🙂
Stupid, but cute. They really just dont fo the numbers or evidence thing there.
Funny how the concensus stuff goes round and round. The question is never if the science is settled, it never is. But….given the nature of the problem and timescales involved its settled enough to be able to make public policy thats informed by the science.
Unless you are a RWNJobbie denialist moron of course who will keep denying there is a problem until your bottom ignites in the heat and your children die of thirst…..and then you will blame the Govt and complain loudly for lack of publicly funded bottom burn treatment and no water .
Why the fuck is anyone arguing with the troll? He’s not a real person.
Not waving but drowning.
lizzie @ #287 Tuesday, July 2nd, 2019 – 2:53 pm
I see there’s no reference to ‘Truth’ in that title. 🙂
Who’s arguing? I’m just participating in the time honoured Aussie tradition of kicking someone while they’re down.