Home > Regular Features > Monday Message Board

Monday Message Board

December 7th, 2009

It’s time, once again for the Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. As usual, civilised discussion and no coarse language.

Categories: Regular Features Tags:
  1. Donald Oats
    December 7th, 2009 at 10:53 | #1

    Opposition Leader in exhile, Malcolm Turbull, has provided Fairfax Media with his own opinion of the Liberal party’s position on climate change…

  2. Tin Tin
    December 7th, 2009 at 11:24 | #2

    Hello John,

    just wondering if you had any interaction with the Queensland Police Special Branch before it was shut down in 1989. I would have thought an active ‘social-democrat’ such as yourself would have been of interest to them. Any curios would be worth mentioning – your file number or anything like that.

    Tin Tin

  3. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    December 7th, 2009 at 12:04 | #3

    Anybody looking for a cheap way to offset their carbon footprint. Here’s an option:-

    http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2009/12/07/saving-the-world-on-a-shoestring-budget/

  4. Alice
    December 7th, 2009 at 12:10 | #4

    Snark alert JQ

  5. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    December 7th, 2009 at 12:33 | #5

    Alice – is that a self referencing statement?

  6. Alice
    December 7th, 2009 at 12:50 | #6

    Terje – no its a reference to Tin Tin at 1.

    Terje – re your previous comment about what women think of Abbott? Well its in the papers according to a “galaxy poll” that women dont mind him. Now I cant find that galaxy poll result anywhere.??? The actual questions women were asked are not given. The results are not shown and furthermore if you want to leave a comment in response to this “claim” at the daily (rag) Tele or some other murdered media production you cant leave a comment (censored Terje – read through – picked through and censored).

    I dont know why I bother to debate you about it Terje. Abbott will never win the next election and my bet is he will be gone before. Even Malcolm Turnbull is in the paper saying Abbotts ETS is complete BS.

    It is and Abbott is.

  7. Tin Tin
    December 7th, 2009 at 12:53 | #7

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)

    TerjeP, humans aren’t the only greenhouse gas emitters. All animals are. Hunters should be able to claim credits for their kills. In fact hunting is probably more greenhouse gas friendly than vegetarianism.

  8. Michael
    December 7th, 2009 at 12:54 | #8

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    Just out of interest, are you supporting this program? Has anyone had any experience buying any kind of carbon offsets?

  9. Tin Tin
    December 7th, 2009 at 13:03 | #9

    @Alice

    Alice, hardly. Premier Beattie was a subject of Queensland Police Special Branch investigation during his early political career. On that basis, so too I would have thought John Quiggin – http://ozpolitik.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/guest-post-on-queensland-police-special-branch-lest-we-forget-or-best-we-forget/.

  10. Tin Tin
    December 7th, 2009 at 13:09 | #10

    @Alice

    Alice, there was something like 15,000 files on the Queensland Police Special Branch records – it didn’t take much for someone to be investigated. Apparently even a terse letter to the editor about government plicy could prompt an investigation.

  11. Tin Tin
    December 7th, 2009 at 13:15 | #11

    @Tin Tin

    John, looks like my inquisitiveness has been interpreted as a snark – not the case. Please feel free to delete if you like though.

  12. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    December 7th, 2009 at 13:40 | #12

    Michael – I’m thinking about giving them money just for bragging rights. It seems like a good cause irrespective of AGW and at A$6.15 per annum I wouldn’t mind being able to say I’m fully paid up on an ETS alternative. Heck at that price I might even make an advance payment for a decades worth. However I’m still waiting on feedback from the blogosphere so please check it out and offer up your thoughts.

  13. December 7th, 2009 at 13:51 | #13

    On October 13, 2009 the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) affirmed the “proximity presumption”, which recognises that persons living within a 50-mile (80 kilometre) radius of a proposed new nuclear reactor face a realistic threat of harm if a release of radioactive material were to occur from the facility.
    This decision comes slightly more than 51 years after the first nuclear power plant in the United States was officially opened by President Eisenhower on May 26, 1958 at Shippingport, Pennsylvania. This plant was decommissioned in 1982.
    The case before the NRC involved an appeal by the Calvert Cliffs 3 nuclear project and Unistar Nuclear Operating Services against the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board granting limited standing to joint intervenors – Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Beyond Nuclear, Public Citizen Energy Program and Southern Maryland Citizens’ Alliance for Renewable Energy Solution – in the hearing of an application for a combined licence (COL) for one US Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR) to be placed at the existing Calvert Cliffs site in Lusby, Calvert County, Maryland.
    Incidentally, the EPR is one of the “third generation” of nuclear reactors, the first of which is being built in Olkiluoto, Finland.
    When the contract for the 1600MW nuclear power plant in Finland was signed in December 2003, the starting date for operation was planned for 2010 and the overall project cost was €3.2 billion ($US4.5 billion).
    The latest starting date estimate is some time after June 2012 and the estimated overall cost is more than 55 per cent higher at €5 billion ($US7 billion).
    Those seeking to build an EPR in Maryland unsuccessfully asked the NRC to abandon the “proximity presumption” which they claimed was “no longer valid under modern standing jurisprudence”.
    The three Commissioners said they saw no conflict between the basic requirements for standing, as applied in the federal courts, and the NRC proximity presumption.
    They further said that the applicants had not provided any information to refute the basis of the presumption, such as evidence to show that the effects of an accidental release from the planned reactor would be limited to a shorter distance from the facility.
    The logical explanation for the failure to provide such information is that the builders of a “third-generation” nuclear plant could not disprove the presumption that people living within an 80km radius faced a realistic threat of harm if radioactive material were released from their facility.

  14. December 7th, 2009 at 15:31 | #14

    Does anyone know where the Flashback segment (7newsQld) from last night on Qld police special branch can be viewed?

  15. Alice
    December 7th, 2009 at 15:33 | #15

    @Tin Tin
    Im reserving judgement Tin Tin – even though Im not the judge…now why would you ask for the profs file number and why, even if he ever had one, would he give it to an unknown blogger such as yourself?

    I do not doubt Police Special Branch has had investigative powers, not only in QLD, there was some horrific harassements and intimidations and career interferences that occurred in NSW and likely elsewhere in the 1960s and 1970s – the so called era of greater civil freedoms and in an era of so called democratic freedom of speech. Sometimes, narrow minded people get carried away with their power and start interfering with the liberties of others….this is the only time Im likely to ever agree with aspects of libertarism – the mindless witch hunting and bogey man chasing and genuine intimadtion of people for their beliefs, done in the name of the police, ASIO or whoever else. These things are a scar that take a long time to heal…just like McCarthyism was a scar that when we look back now…we see “the mindless injustices” carried out in its name. Man’s inhumanity to man. Unable to live and let live.
    Dont worry – I once had a friend who went on holiday to QLD back in the 70s as a teenager and got stopped, interrogated and bullied by the police four times in two weeks (she was pretty as well) – even once returning from the laundromat with a pile of newly washed clothes was made to drop them on the ground and get bags and car searched and then was asked on a date by one. She came back and said “The QLD cops are bastards”. It was well known they were out of control (and then we found out later about the corruption at the core).

  16. Fran Barlow
    December 7th, 2009 at 16:04 | #16

    Tin Tin said:

    … humans aren’t the only greenhouse gas emitters. All animals are. Hunters should be able to claim credits for their kills. In fact hunting is probably more greenhouse gas friendly than vegetarianism.

    Err no, in practice, probably not. You have to go out with weapons and a car and that seriously adds to the cost. If you go on foot, use a crossbow and hunt feral pigs, cattle or sheep, butcher on the spot and cart it back yourself with a trolley and share it amongst enough people so that it doesn’t require refrigeration or get left to decompose, then maybe so, otherwise …

    Most animals in the wild simply recirculate CO2, and since their overall numbers tend to be stable when they aren’t declining, the cliam sees implausible as a general statement.

  17. Alicia
    December 7th, 2009 at 16:07 | #17

    @Alice

    Well said Alice. It’s ironic that the era of which you speak in Qld was an era of the great civil liberties movement of students and radical youth in support above all of the democratic right to march which Joh B-P outlawed for yonks. Beattie like most progressive types at the time was part of that social movement and even got arrested I think along with many others at the famous anti-Springbok demo outside the Tower Mill Hotel.

    Of course, our current self-proclaimed libertarians of the economic Right would’ve been no where to be seen in those days in much the same way they’ve been largely silent in the face of even worse encroachments on civil liberties by federal & state Libs and ALP alike in recent years.

    Hypocrites and cowards one and all they are.

  18. JJ
    December 7th, 2009 at 16:16 | #18

    without wanting to question the appraoch proposed by PopOffsets, it is useful top note that the UK government have an acceditation process for carbon offsets http://actonco2.direct.gov.uk/actonco2/home/what-you-can-do/Offset-your-CO2-emissions.html

  19. Chris Warren
    December 7th, 2009 at 16:33 | #19

    Fran

    Your understanding of recycling greenhouse gases is odd.

    Many animals emit methane which is produced, and not consumed. Methane is a greenhouse gas.

    Reducing agricultural livestock and encouraging more vegetable foods would have some benefit.

    Hunting some animals, depending on their methane production, may have a slight positive impact.

    Similarly with CO2, if an increase in animals increases the recycling of CO2 between air, animal, plants, this can still increase the quantity of CO2 in transit through the air.

    This is the problem.

  20. Chris Warren
    December 7th, 2009 at 18:17 | #20

    JohnL

    Is this right?

    The latest starting date estimate is some time after June 2012 and the estimated overall cost is more than 55 per cent higher at €5 billion ($US7 billion).

    If this is $A 8 billion then it is $A5 million for just 1 megawatt capital cost.

    Surely, if I put $5million dollars worth of solar cells into a paddock I could get more than a megawatt. [See SOLAR COST ]

    If you are right, and I see no source, this just shows how ridiculous and uneconomic the nuke maniacs are.

  21. December 7th, 2009 at 20:56 | #21

    For some reason the website is refusing to accept an answer to Chris Warren at 19.

  22. Ken
    December 7th, 2009 at 21:05 | #22

    After losing his leadership because Abbot and others refuse to follow any kind of party line or maintain unity Turnbull is refusing to follow the party line or maintain unity. Getting quite vocal it seems. A bit of payback or a genuine concern that inaction isn’t a viable option? Not that it couldn’t be both. I did think, after Abbot assured people there would be no action against the 2 senators that crossed the floor, that they’d be read the riot act (with fruity invective) behind closed doors but maybe Abbot can’t afford to, knowing just how close to fracturing the Liberals are. Put his foot down and the floor is likely to crumble beneath him.

    As for nuclear, I’m another one who has been rethinking a pre-existing dislike and thinks it should be on the table. Abbot mentions it as part of a maybe response to an issue he thinks is a socialist conspiracy but I suspect it’s more about the views of the mining industry. I doubt he has any interest in new gen nuclear that can run on existing nuclear waste – that wouldn’t require uranium from Australian mines!

    Globally, nuclear has to be considered vital to emissions reductions and development that doesn’t add to emissions – even if Australia can conceivably get by without it. But our energy sector has no interest in giving up on coal, is almost certainly running on assurances it won’t have to, and are only doing some renewables because they’re heavily subsidised and are being forced to. But they aren’t likely to be that keen on dumping coal in favour of nuclear either. What nuclear does have is a capacity to fit into a grid made for coal fired power.

    Of course I hope we will see significant developments on renewbles in general and energy storage in particular; cheap storage would make renewables a lot more competitive and attractive. Still, renewables with existing technology look a much better long term option than failing to deal with emissions at all.

  23. Michael
    December 7th, 2009 at 22:24 | #23

    The main reasons that Australia will not get a nuclear power plant in the foreseeable future is that it will simply be too costly. Maybe after the Chinese build a few hundred pebble bed reactors and the technology becomes cheap enough they can build one in Australia. The idea that Australia could ever hope to develop anything of this sophistication is almost touchingly naive. We also don’t have the kind of bureuacracy or private enterprise that could manage anything of this scale. This isn’t France.

  24. Michael
    December 7th, 2009 at 22:36 | #24

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    I might be interested in a program to reduce unwanted pregnancies in Australia. A start could be made in scrapping the baby bonus in favour of more direct means-tested support for lower inome families who really need the money. Restricting the availability of alcohol might help with unwanted pregnancies too. Reducing births in Australia would also provide bigger reductions in greenhouse gas emissions due to our high energy lifestyles powered by fossil fuels.

  25. Donald Oats
    December 7th, 2009 at 23:17 | #25

    I’m still being moderated for a two liner; oh, the irony!

  26. paul walter
    December 8th, 2009 at 02:41 | #26

    Abbott should not be surprised, this is how he treats people himself. Did he never imagine his victims would not turn on him one day, to give him a dose back of his own medicine?
    On a different note, its hard to thinkof people who more represent the philosophies in conflict: the true freemarket liberal rational pragmatist in Turnbull, who is a consequentialist, and the deadly deontological Abbott straight out Burke and Hobbes (and DeMaistre?); post and pre enlightenment thinking in deadly conflict.

  27. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    December 8th, 2009 at 05:55 | #27

    John Humphrey gives the Guardian a fisking for it’s alarmism on climate change:-

    http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2009/12/07/fisking-the-guardian-on-climate-change/#comment-79414

    An extract:-

    There is good science to suggest that humans are contributing to a warming planet, but there is very little evidence to suggest that our prosperity or security will be “ravaged”. There have been only 14 peer-reviewed studies of the consequences of warming, and they mostly find an impact of -1 or -2% of world GDP in about 100 years time. Of course, the world grows by about the same amount every year. So the “ravaging” is actually just the equivalent of a one-year recession. How under-whelming.

    Even the Stern Review and the Garnaut Review (not peer reviewed, and significant outliers compared to the peer-review literature) confirm that humanity will be more prosperous in the future, even with no climate policy.

  28. December 8th, 2009 at 05:57 | #28

    To Chris Warren: If you google Areva threatens halt of Olkiluoto construction you will find the source.

  29. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    December 8th, 2009 at 06:27 | #29

    Michael – I agree that the baby bonus is bad policy.

  30. Chris Warren
    December 8th, 2009 at 08:28 | #30

    JohnL

    Interesting story. However it needs careful reading as most of the cost escalation appears to have been due to contracted penalties and was not necessarily inherent in the technology.

    However the problems with welds and concrete, plus requirements for State subsidies, can show how thinks can proceed along a nuclear path.

  31. Ken
    December 8th, 2009 at 09:06 | #31

    TerjeP, the assertion that, with no climate policy (2 to 4 degrees C of warming over this century seems probable) the result will still be a more prosperous world, I think is overly optimistic. Very over the top optimistic. Not to mention that by 2100 the consequences, far from levelling off, will be accelerating, warming will almost certainly be bringing on the release of ever more CO2 and methane from permafrost and clathrates, ecosystem damage will be severe, Australian agriculture decimated, lots of low lying and previously productive agricultural land will be inundated… I seriously doubt that Garnaut or Stern would agree with Humphrey’s interpretation that a century from now the impacts, without any action, will be “just the equivalent of a one-year recession”.

    Of course, from someone like Humphrey who clearly doesn’t accept that there is a problem, that still resorts to basic misunderstandings of short term variability and longer term trends to make a misleading point, who thinks the worst has been ‘some ice melting’ – nothing to worry about – this interpretation is no surprise. But I had thought you’d got past your presumption that nothing serious is happening to our climate and that the scientific case for AGW was too weak to justify any serious action.

  32. Chris Warren
    December 8th, 2009 at 10:35 | #32

    TerjeP

    Ye Bloody God’s, I clicked on your link to the rightwing anarchist site and I found this quote:

    That has lead to some ice melting, but there is nothing particularly scary about that.

    Melting ice caps is by far the most scary of all warming trends. It forshadows a real environmental emergency, but it takes a bit of thinking to see the real possible impacts.

    So listen anarchist…

    The latest peer reviewed article I can find is “Science” 13 November 2009: 984-986.

    It notes the melt rate from Greenland is 273 gigatons of ice a year. (Gigaton = 1 cubic kilometre).

    Ice sheets and glaciers elsewhere in the world are also melting.

    FACT

    But the real problem emerges when you realise that when ice turns into water, it absorbs 333 joules of ‘latent heat of fusion’ (about .1 kilowatt per litre).

    If this ice was not there this heat, instead of melting ice, would heat the environment.

    So if we have a slight warming tendency now, when the ice is gone, the same heat will be trapped by the greenhouse effect, and the conclusion is inevitable.

    Today’s melting ice is a convenient heat sink, that is canceling the greenhouse effect, temporarily.

    You can google latent heat of fusion for the data.

    If we consider that the global ice melt is around 365 gigatons per year, then at 1 gigaton per day this equates to 10^8 kilowatts per day, (I have my workings but they are a bit tedious to include here – anyway just arithmetic)

    Once this is redirected to heating the environment – we cook.

    So by all means dream on – there is nothing scary – but at least

    1) get the facts
    2) get the data
    3) do the work
    4) show some proper analysis.

  33. Chris Warren
    December 8th, 2009 at 10:52 | #33

    I just did a little more searching, and here is data on southern ice melt.

    Antarctic ice melt is 196 gigatons per year (2006)

    http://tinyurl.com/icemelting

    There is no alternative, the polar caps control the world’s climate.

    With luck, the Antarctic ice melt my have been impact of the ozone hole, which has since been addressed. But economic growth caused the ozone hole to start with.

  34. December 8th, 2009 at 11:59 | #34

    @Ken
    “TerjeP, the assertion that, with no climate policy (2 to 4 degrees C of warming over this century seems probable) the result will still be a more prosperous world, I think is overly optimistic. Very over the top optimistic.”

    Tell it to Stern and Garnaut, the ones who said it.

    I’m no denialist, and I’ve repeatedly disagreed with John Humphreys over the estimates of damage that climate change will cause (he, like most of his ilk, thinks sea level rises are the main concern, and therefore there’s not much to worry about), but the counter-argument of sceptics and denialists that we are going to be richer and better able to deal with climate change in the future is a reasonable one that can’t be easily dismissed.

    Personally, I think the costs of inaction will be greater than JohnH supposes, and that the costs of mitigation-later will be much greater than mitigation-now, but that doesn’t make the claim of mitigation-later-is-better automatically bunk.

  35. December 8th, 2009 at 12:09 | #35

    @Chris Warren
    “But economic growth caused the ozone hole to start with.”

    That’s a weird statement. Obviously it was specific pollutants that caused it. Since they were indirectly produced by scientific and technological improvements, I guess you could say that they were indirectly, indirectly produced by economic growth. But why stop there? You could also say the ozone hole was indirectly, indirectly, indirectly caused by humans. Or the combination of planetary phenomena that made humans possible.

    Heck, go the whole hog and use my Reason For Everything – causality and the boundary conditions of space-time. Or use someone else’s – God. That’s right, the ozone hole was caused by either the Big Bang or Allah. ;-)

  36. Ken
    December 8th, 2009 at 13:50 | #36

    Jarrah, I can’t see that being short term richer based on greater spread and reliance on emissions intensive technologies will result in lowered emissions on any kind of time scale that will avoid seriously damaging climate impacts; that kind of development locks in ever greater emissions for decades. It’s not real wealth if it leaves long term external costs out of the equation; more like living it up on credit with no capability or intention of repaying. If that development is truly in the western wasteful consumer economy style it definitely looks like a way to make things worse.

    Unfortunately there’ll be no defaulting or writing off those costs. So I don’t have much problem believing mitigation-later-is-better is bunk. Especially given the scale of development requirements around the world. Doing it cheap and dirty doesn’t look like facing this problem face on at all, more like pretending it’s not a problem at all.

    Chris, it looks like the rate of ice-sheet melt has accelerated so much recently that it’s about 4 times as rapid now as a decade ago; it does look like a crucial tipping point is being passed. That climate denialists, including Humphrey, see the recent decade as a plateau for warming and fail to even reference such data – and that so many people seem to accept similar claims of warming having stopped as true – doesn’t give me cause for optimism.

  37. December 8th, 2009 at 14:00 | #37

    Michael :
    The main reasons that Australia will not get a nuclear power plant in the foreseeable future is that it will simply be too costly. Maybe after the Chinese build a few hundred pebble bed reactors and the technology becomes cheap enough they can build one in Australia. The idea that Australia could ever hope to develop anything of this sophistication is almost touchingly naive. We also don’t have the kind of bureuacracy or private enterprise that could manage anything of this scale. This isn’t France.

    A large part of the cost is a product of compliance with the regulatory environment. That means it is double counting to put that down in addition to counting the reasons for regulation; if nuclear reactors were desirable on other grounds, that would also imply not having the sort of bureaucracy you envision but a simpler one – if, and if not, don’t do it at all. There are already proven nuclear reactor technologies that are cheap enough to buy in, support, and regulate, and that are ready to go, like CANDU reactors. That sort of approach would not involve new development and the skills needed to support it straight away, but rather it would grow the skills base needed for any future rounds (for that, at present I incline towards fast molten chloride reactors that would breed fuel from a thorium based jacket with the help of beryllium neutron multiplication to beat break even).

  38. Alice
    December 8th, 2009 at 14:48 | #38

    @Chris Warren
    LOL -”So listen anarchist…”
    …I shouldnt laugh but I cant help it (and wish I said it)! I love what pops up in here occasionally. You guys are funny!

  39. Alice
    December 8th, 2009 at 14:51 | #39

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    Terje – Im with you that the bloody baby bonus is bad policy. So is the back to school allowance. I had a single mum friend that bemoaned these two. She said they handed it to rich women who could shove that cheque in their purse and forget about banking it for months because they didnt need it ….whereas those in real need – it would have been a real help.

  40. Michael
    December 8th, 2009 at 15:29 | #40

    @Alice
    That was the genius of Howard’s non-means tested handouts. Even though most people probably knew they didn’t really need it, you get used to it real quick and then feel deprived when it’s taken away. Australians love the tax-deductions-welfare merry-go-round. Much more fun than actually making things or tackling drudgery like climate change.

  41. Chris Warren
    December 8th, 2009 at 16:10 | #41

    Ken and others

    I have posted two links to data on ice melting.

    I have found it hard to find useful data as most reports are descriptive and focus on the area being lost (which cannot be used for quantity calculations as thickness varies).

    So I would like to hear of any other data sources of ice melt by a defined period for glaciers and other ice sheets.

    Glacial contraction of some “metres per year” is not useful data.

    Anyone know of any uptodate source?

  42. December 8th, 2009 at 16:14 | #42

    Terje, IPCC AR4 WG2 TS says

    These
    observations confirm evidence reported in the Third
    Assessment that, while developing countries are expected to
    experience larger percentage losses, global mean losses could
    be 1-5% of GDP for 4°C of warming [F20.3].

    And, of course, 4 degrees is not the maximum projected, so even larger costs are possible. Humphreys would seem to be wrong again.

  43. Chris Warren
    December 8th, 2009 at 16:32 | #43

    PM Lawrence

    I wish you would read your own link.

    Under the section titled “Economics” it presents no cost information at all, but towards the end cites a Canadian plant costing $14.4billion for 3.5 Gwatt.

    Is this what you want to inflict on Australians (presume Aust 2009 equiv is over $20 billion).

    You also did not mention the fact that the waste from this plant is not being held in underground storage.

    You also haven’t addressed all the other issues covered previously.

    You proposal looks unaffordable, polluting, and very risky.

  44. TerjeP
    December 8th, 2009 at 18:30 | #44

    I have no argument with the idea that melting ice acts as a massive heat sink. So if the world is warming I hope ice is melting otherwise things would get uncomfortable.

    Tim – I don’t see anything in your quote that contradicts what John Humphrey wrote. Perhaps you could help out by quoting the specific phrase or paragraph that he said that disagrees with the IPCC quote that you have offered.

  45. TerjeP
    December 8th, 2009 at 18:35 | #45

    p.s. If you really think he is wrong you might like to cross post the details directly on the ALS article itself so that incoming eyeballs can see the error. The ALS blog gets between 500-1000 viewers a day.

  46. December 8th, 2009 at 18:46 | #46

    Terje, Humphreys says the cost will be only 1-2% in a hundred years time. The IPCC says 1-5% for 4 degrees of warming and that warming will be 1.1-6.4 degrees.

    Humphreys deletes dissenting comments so I will not comment at ALS.

  47. Alice
    December 8th, 2009 at 18:47 | #47

    @TerjeP
    says ” So if the world is warming I hope ice is melting otherwise things would get uncomfortable. ”

    Sorry Terje – but you need to be called on a statement as ludicrous and insane as this one.

  48. December 8th, 2009 at 18:57 | #48

    Chris Warren at 30: On the estimated costs of nuclear power plants, perhaps you will find interesting this quote from John Rowe, Chief Executive Officer, Exelon Corporation, at the Carnegie International Non-Proliferation Conference: Part 1: Toward a Nuclear Power Renaissance? Fact or Fiction in Washington on April 6 2009.
    You will find this at http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/?fa=eventDetail&id=1303
    Rowe said: “The problem is, of course, first, a new nuclear project is vastly expensive. We estimate two 1500 megawatt units to cost in the order of $12 billion in today’s numbers. I represent the biggest company in my industry and that’s bigger than my balance sheet. So we can’t do it without the federal subsidy.”
    He went on to say: “The second problem is, of course, the waste issue. We’ve spent 20 years and $9 billion on Yucca Mountain, which is for all practical purposes dead or dormant. We have a great deal to do – to find an alternative methodology of storing the spent fuel, which may be a million-year problem, but the volumes are a lot smaller than they are for a lot of other million-year problems. Or we have to reprocess, but reprocessing brings about the proliferation risk, which the next speaker is more competent to talk about than I am. And reprocessing, at least in the current forms, also creates more low-level waste.”
    To be fair, Rowe did go on to say he could not picture dealing with climate at the present time that would keep America competitive without nuclear energy being a big part of it. He wished there were an easy option. He did not like to build things that created million-year problems. He did not like to build things that required all the financial risk and all the politics that a nuclear plant required. But he could not see America succeeding and meeting its obligations without it.
    Rowe’s comment on the high cost of nuclear energy follows a similar comment in 2007 by George Vanderheyden, the president of UniStar Nuclear (a Constellation/Areva, Bechtel venture), that “a nuclear plant can be financed in the United States only if the government provides a sufficient level of loan guarantees to allow utilities to ‘shed the risk’ of the first few units.”
    The source for this is the 24 May 2007 issue of Nucleonics Week under the heading “Nuclear ‘renaissance’ could falter if costs rise, Icapp meeting told”.
    Icapp is the International Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants.
    Vanderheyden repeated this sentiment outside a meeting in Calvert County, Maryland, where Constellation Energy has proposed a $4.5 billion new reactor project, according to an article in the September 5, 2007 edition of the Washington Post.

  49. Alicia
    December 8th, 2009 at 19:08 | #49

    “The ALS blog gets between 500-1000 viewers a day.”

    That’s internationally, right? Impressive!

  50. December 8th, 2009 at 19:17 | #50

    Chris Warren :
    PM Lawrence
    I wish you would read your own link.
    Under the section titled “Economics” it presents no cost information at all, but towards the end cites a Canadian plant costing $14.4billion for 3.5 Gwatt.
    Is this what you want to inflict on Australians (presume Aust 2009 equiv is over $20 billion).
    You also did not mention the fact that the waste from this plant is not being held in underground storage.
    You also haven’t addressed all the other issues covered previously.
    You proposal looks unaffordable, polluting, and very risky.

    I did read that link – and I have tracked many others that go into this area in much greater depth, and which give far more information on the economics of it all.

    That price incorporates their regulatory costs, of course, so my earlier point about how best to price these things still applies. If you like, you can look up the pricing India uses for this sort of reactor.

    Likewise, I didn’t go into storage or other issues, because I only wanted to point people at the topic – to open up the issue, not to swamp people with minutiae at a far too early stage. But they are no big deal if you plan on moving on to later generation reactors, as then you only have to store products until the later reactors can consume them. (If not, there’s little point having the interim transition approach anyway – unless yet other things justify it, which would in turn fold in long term storage as part of their cost benefit analysis.)

    So you have no basis for concluding that the “proposal looks unaffordable, polluting, and very risky”, for the good and sufficient reason that all you have had to go on was the briefest introduction to the area. Bluntly, all you were told was that the first step was a known step that hadn’t hit overwhelming problems when tried elsewhere, which is evidence the other way.

    Would you like some other links, or would you rather go and check for yourself to be sure of not being biassed?

  51. Alice
    December 8th, 2009 at 20:18 | #51

    @P.M.Lawrence
    Pm why dont you take you pro nuke arguments somewhere else?

    And this will be a invitation for a major tantrum but Im saying it anyway. Im over pety nuclear costers and arguers who cant cost accidents like Chernobyl (or any other nuclear accident thats happened on the planet).

  52. TerjeP
    December 8th, 2009 at 20:27 | #52

    Alice – why not take your anti nuclear arguments somewhere else?

  53. Chris Warren
    December 8th, 2009 at 21:52 | #53

    PMLawrence

    I think $A 20billion is unaffordable for 3.5 Gwatt generator capital cost. This is based on the magnitudes, and is prima facie a basis by itself.

    Solar capital costs are approaching $1 per watt [see

    SOLAR ]

    $20 billion would go a long way to researching and developing renewables.

    It still amazes me just how coy nuclear lobbyists are about costs and externalities.

    Most pro-nuclear tracts seem to be mostly poetic or hypothetical opinion pieces with no rigor.

  54. Fran Barlow
    December 8th, 2009 at 21:59 | #54

    Just watched the Mad Monk tie himself in knots on Lateline. Great fun

  55. December 8th, 2009 at 22:10 | #55

    @Chris Warren

    So, are you saying you don’t want to be told about other material that might give you more specific details about the actual inherent costs and difficulties of available nuclear reactor technologies (i.e., not “poetic or hypothetical opinion pieces”), as opposed to the costs that reflect obstacles that have been put in their way? Not telling you up front isn’t being coy, it’s simply not dumping on you.

  56. December 8th, 2009 at 22:22 | #56

    Alice :
    @P.M.Lawrence
    Pm why dont you take you pro nuke arguments somewhere else?
    And this will be a invitation for a major tantrum but Im saying it anyway. Im over pety nuclear costers and arguers who cant cost accidents like Chernobyl (or any other nuclear accident thats happened on the planet).

    Alice, if you look closely you will see that, far from arguing for nuclear power here, I’m trying to encourage people to explore what really is and is not involved – to open up exploration and discussion of the topic rather than close it off or pre-empt a conclusion about it (which, of course, is why I am not – yet – in the business of trying to cost it, since this is all far too preliminary for that). And as for tantrums, may I suggest that you not indulge in any or try to provoke any?

  57. Donald Oats
    December 9th, 2009 at 00:30 | #57

    Tony “Turncoat” Abbott has set up an A grade opposition front bench. He’s picked the “Scary Spice” clones out of the Spice Girls, in the hope that he’ll get some enemy soldiers with a bazooka or two. Which brings me to Bronwyn “Bazooka” Bishop, didn’t she do well to get a leg-up? And Phillip “Undertaker” Ruddock and Kevin “Giggles” Andrews too! Even the architect of treachery, Nick “The Knife” Minchin, got a guernsey. All atheists or humanists to the last one them!

    At least the election campaign won’t be boring.

  58. Chris Warren
    December 9th, 2009 at 06:49 | #58

    PM Lawrence

    Huh?

    So, are you saying you don’t want to be told about other material that might give you more specific details about the actual inherent costs and difficulties of available nuclear reactor technologies.

    Please indicate exactly where I suggested that I don’t want to be told about details re costs and difficulties.

    And I suggest you do this pretty quickly, as it appears to me you are engaging in disruptive falsification.

    But I will wait for your clarification.

  59. Graeme Bird
    December 9th, 2009 at 07:48 | #59

    I think we need to put some little-discussed environmental problems on the front-burner.

    1. Overfishing.

    2. Particulates in coal.

    3. Fresh water. Look why can we not get oversupplied with fresh water? Why not have endless fresh water to spare? If we have that, and the convincing evidence kicks in with the CO2, with massive oversupply of fresh water thats a problem we can quickly and cheaply deal with.

    We aren’t sure how things will work with our population. What if there is a nuclear war in the Northern hemisphere and we have tens of millions of refugees? We are going to have to have them as guest workers at the very least. My point is that why plan five to ten years ahead with fresh water? Why not put it on the front-burner and go for 100 years? Why not go for three, four or ten times what we really feel we need? To make sure it isn’t a bottle-neck of truly ghoulish proportions in some terrible future.

    4. Particulates in coal. If we can get rid of the particulates not only might it be healthier for many people. But it might open up a more competitive energy market. What I don’t get with the neoclassicals is they never seem to aspire to have a proper, organic, non-cronyist market?

    5. An electromagnetic pulse attack. This can come from a nuclear power. If they are not inhumane enough to actually wipe out Sydney they can close us down with a nuke many kilometres in the air. It would take down the whole East Coasts power grid. Burn out the electronics in all your modern cars. We wouldn’t have the electrical equipment to fix the elecrical equipment. We could go into freefall and never come out. It would be an open invitation for invasion.

    But the fact of the matter is that nature will come up with this EMP effect. And could do so at any time. So what we have to do is have ubiquitous surge-protection.

    In this regards Rudd may have gotten something right quite by accident. I doubt he was thinking of an EMP-event when he put together this idea of beefing up our underground communications network. It must be just dumb luck surely? Maybe I’m being mean-spirited. But to rely on satellites is just risky. Nice while you have them, but we must not rely on them. We must have excess capacity built up underneath the ground, and everything with built-in surge protection.

    Below is the full horror-story on the electro-magnetic pulse attack. Remember it can be caused by both humans and by nature. Nature will get around to attacking us this way. No doubt about that at all. If you don’t think our creditors will do this to us, this is neither here nor there. Because nature has this in store for us and most likely heading towards us from elsewhere in the galaxy as we speak.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIhfQ8cqzrU&feature=PlayList&p=97259EA922989014&index=0&playnext=1

  60. December 9th, 2009 at 08:29 | #60

    Chris Warren :
    PM Lawrence
    Huh?

    So, are you saying you don’t want to be told about other material that might give you more specific details about the actual inherent costs and difficulties of available nuclear reactor technologies.

    Please indicate exactly where I suggested that I don’t want to be told about details re costs and difficulties.
    And I suggest you do this pretty quickly, as it appears to me you are engaging in disruptive falsification.
    But I will wait for your clarification.

    I never claimed that; you have misquoted me, editing away the question mark and so on without indicating the cuts or the context of the previous question (not visible on this page). In fact I was purely and simply asking for clarification myself, since I had previously offered you links if you were willing to accept them but then you replied in a way that failed and omitted to accept or reject the offer – an offer to which you have still not replied, though to me your conduct suggests rejection. If there is any “disruptive falsification” going on, it isn’t on my part. So I ask again, quoting myself accurately this time from each relevant comment:-

    Would you like some other links, or would you rather go and check for yourself to be sure of not being biassed?

    and

    So, are you saying you don’t want to be told about other material that might give you more specific details about the actual inherent costs and difficulties of available nuclear reactor technologies (i.e., not “poetic or hypothetical opinion pieces”), as opposed to the costs that reflect obstacles that have been put in their way? Not telling you up front isn’t being coy, it’s simply not dumping on you.

    In the event that you still do not ask for further and better particulars – an offer I shall not repeat after this – and still more if you instead misquote me and/or accuse me of making representations about you, readers may infer what they will from that and from the rest of the context but it will be the facts speaking for themselves and will not constitute my accusing you of anything.

  61. Chris Warren
    December 9th, 2009 at 09:43 | #61

    PM Lawrence

    Cutting and pasting is not “misquoting”.

    You are being deliberately disruptive.

    I am well aware of all your tricky little tactics.

    I find them quite boring.

    If you have links to great wisdom, post it, don’t play silly games.

  62. Alice
    December 9th, 2009 at 09:53 | #62

    @Donald Oats
    Donald – yes Bronwyn Bishop has done well to get a leg up. Astonishing. Its a wonder Abbott doesnt recall JH himself from retirement for an appointment as the doppleganger PM. That would save Abbott having to find new ideas or new people, which he clearly has trouble with.

  63. Donald Oats
    December 9th, 2009 at 09:53 | #63

    Meanwhile, Copenhagen has a little of the Minchinian behaviour behind the scenes, with a select group of developed countries attempting to muscle through their own agreement…

  64. Donald Oats
    December 9th, 2009 at 10:02 | #64

    @Alice

    Think I’ll stop reading the e-news, stop watching the ABC news, and go do something else with the time saved, until the election where I vote “Not Liberal”. Easy-peasy.

    BTW, did anyone see how Abbott pulled in his gut whenever he realised the cameras were pointing his way, at the budgie-smuggling contest? He did it three separate times that I was unwillingly subjected to by the MSM. Not that he has much of a gut to worry about, but still…did he really think the camera operators wouldn’t notice? LOL!

  65. Alice
    December 9th, 2009 at 10:40 | #65

    @Donald Oats
    Thats charming isnt it Donald – I always suspected the motives of the World Bank to be honest. So did Stiglitz. He was right.

  66. December 9th, 2009 at 11:45 | #66

    Chris Warren :
    PM Lawrence
    Cutting and pasting is not “misquoting”.
    You are being deliberately disruptive.
    I am well aware of all your tricky little tactics.
    I find them quite boring.
    If you have links to great wisdom, post it, don’t play silly games.

    One, cutting and pasting a genuine question to turn it into an assertion is misquoting – particularly since you went on to accuse me of making that assertion, and particularly since you didn’t provide the context that showed I was seeking an answer to my earlier question.

    Two, I am not being deliberately disruptive, I am trying to avoid getting tangled up wasting time and research effort on people who don’t want information.

    Three, none of that is “tricky little tactics” to anyone who actually wants information, though I can see how it might appear such to people who want to push the information away.

    Four, if you really are bored you wouldn’t have come back with any of that.

    Five, although I do not have “links to great wisdom”, I do have links to further information and to people who are well enough informed and educated in the energy area to assess what is out there. I am going to assume charitably that you are in fact asking for that, and over the next few days I shall make the effort to pull that together with brief notes describing each – unless I receive snarky feedback from you or anybody else in the interim, in which case I shall not take the rather considerable trouble. Or you can research it yourself and thus ensure that I am not selecting and introducing bias.

  67. TerjeP
    December 9th, 2009 at 20:18 | #67

    Alice – page 2 looks at the difference in support for Tony Abbott amoungst women and men.

    http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/091201%20Federal%20Voting%20Intention%20&%20Leaders%20Ratings%20+%20Best%20Leader.pdf

  68. Alice
    December 9th, 2009 at 20:22 | #68

    @TerjeP
    Murdoch poll Terje?

  69. Joseph Clark
    December 9th, 2009 at 20:31 | #69

    @Alice
    You think they rigged the poll to make it look good for Abbott?

  70. Alice
    December 9th, 2009 at 21:03 | #70

    Joseph

    …you arent suggesting I think that the lib rugrat and hard right organised email networks with multiple voting mechanisms (more than one computer in the Bradfield home and a few at work??) would do a thing like that are you?

    Come to think of it – they sure can stack a branch. Polls are probably much easier…the whole newspoll employees probably have 50 different ways of hitting buttons as well….it is Murdoch.

    I dont believe anything but the census now.

  71. Joseph Clark
    December 9th, 2009 at 21:12 | #71

    @Alice
    So you do think Newspoll is rigged. That’s a little crazy.

  72. Alice
    December 9th, 2009 at 21:14 | #72

    @TerjeP
    Anyway Terje – you did a nice little tapdance on that link didnt you….keep tapdancing (exit stage left!)
    The question asked was whether they preferred Abbott to Turnbull NOT whether they preferred Abbott to Rudd (we know the clear answer there). Also two less percentage points of females think he would be worse leader (than Turnbull) than males….

    Does that answer your question? Well there obviously wasnt enough rugrats around to mess up this poll. His polling is pretty ugly compared to Rudd.

  73. Ken
    December 9th, 2009 at 21:27 | #73

    Chris@41, I can’t find the original article which compared pre satellite as well as GRACE satellite estimates of Greenland and Antarctic ice loss – but was a news article, though with quoted figures.

    GRACE satellite data (from 2002) is referenced in articles in Nature and Geophysical Research Letters – paywalled, but from GRL “In Greenland, the mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr in 2002–2003 to 286 Gt/yr in 2007–2009, i.e., an acceleration of ?30 ± 11 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. In Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of ?26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009″ Not 4 times the rate, my mistake, but more than doubled for both Greenland and Antarctic icesheets over 7 years(?) and much more, even in 2002-3 than pre satellite estimates for mid 1990′s (IIRC more than doubled). ICESAT data (laser telemetry) seems to be consistent with rapidly increasing icesheet loss shown by GRACE (gravimetric). It’s a rapid acceleration over a period denialists want people to think shows no significant warming.

    On Nuclear, I think it needs to be on the table for consideration but shouldn’t be reason to fail to pursue renewables with vigour right now. I can’t see Australia leading the way on nuclear; that won’t happen, but the trouble is I don’t see us leading the way in renewables either. The kind of grid that supports intermittent renewables just isn’t happening – more like more grid upgrades that increase the future availability of coal fired electricity – such as the Bonshaw to Lismore Transgrid project that’s in the pipeline. That one looks to be coal-fired electricity production positioning itself to undercut proposed gas and cane waste co-generation on NSW’s far North Coast. Probably on the (behind closed doors) assurance that there won’t be a serious carbon price to impact their competitive advantage.

    But, having failed to develop an intermittents friendly grid, nuclear could be the energy companies’ option of choice when governments finally come to accept that CCS isn’t going to work and coal really does have to go; they can slot it into that existing grid over the top of sites that are probably already toxic beyond rehabilitation. I think I’ll leave the heated arguments over it to others.

  74. Alice
    December 9th, 2009 at 21:39 | #74

    @Joseph Clark

    Joseph – in response I agree completely with Don at #13

    “Think I’ll stop reading the e-news, stop watching the ABC news, and go do something else with the time saved, until the election where I vote “Not Liberal”. Easy-peasy.”

    Am I crazy ? nope. I dont for crazies either.

  75. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    December 9th, 2009 at 21:41 | #75

    Does that answer your question?

    What question?

  76. Alice
    December 9th, 2009 at 21:56 | #76

    The bait and hook question Terje. Yes I swallowed it until I read it. Wooden spoon award to U tonight.

  77. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    December 9th, 2009 at 22:06 | #77

    Alice – I shared a link. It was topical because we have previously discussed Tony Abbott and his appeal (or lack of) amoungst the female population. However I did not ask any question.

  78. Joseph Clark
    December 9th, 2009 at 22:07 | #78

    @Alice
    Do you drink much before you post?

  79. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    December 9th, 2009 at 22:31 | #79

    Now that’s a question. And the answer to that question is no. And in case you’re confused by this reply let me assure you that it, like the earlier comment, does not constitute a question of any sort. No drinking and no question.

  80. Alice
    December 9th, 2009 at 23:12 | #80

    @Joseph Clark
    Only when I read what you write Joseph – who are you? Another troll? We get people like quite often…you can tell by the acid dripping off your snarks.

    Terje – I think you took Joseph’s snark as a question by me to you, by mistake.

    This is getting like Wonderland tonight!

  81. Alice
    December 9th, 2009 at 23:18 | #81

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    Terje – OK there was no question (no question about it at all). I admit it – straight up – my mistake. So lets talk your poll link then Terje?

    Women prefer Abbott as leader of LP compared to Turnbull less than men do, per your link. I think I was right. Women dont like him as much as men according to this poll. However, they never asked the women whether they preferred Abbott or Rudd (landslide to Rudd Id say – and while ever he keeps rabbiting about Workchoices V2 no one is going to like him).

  82. Alice
    December 9th, 2009 at 23:26 | #82

    Post at 29 should say “we get people like you quite often”. Two finger fast typing best I can do. (Joseph – the snarker – ??troll – is trying to suggest Ive been drinking – charming man – Im still up working on a paper and trying to make sense of the 1967 Metal Trades Wage case and look at the time…now I cant sleep)

  83. Alice
    December 9th, 2009 at 23:31 | #83

    JQ the time is wrong on the posts (must be QLD time?)

  84. Donald Oats
    December 10th, 2009 at 00:52 | #84

    Tom Wigley receives death threats, credible enough to involve the FBI and UK police. Boy, the way things are going on this CRU SwiftHack the threats could be from the crazies on either side, or even some nutter with a delusional belief in the purity of scientists (ie scientists must follow some canonical scientific method, a mythical version of scientific research typically described in undergraduate textbooks from philosophy to sociology. A few of the late 19th century and early to mid-20th century scientific texts also define an overally simplistic notion of scientific method too, Pauling’s General Chemistry for example – an otherwise fine book.).

    Seriously though, this is a disturbing development.

  85. TerjeP
    December 10th, 2009 at 05:57 | #85

    Terje – I think you took Joseph’s snark as a question by me to you, by mistake.

    Yes I did. The fact it was prefixed with your name is what confused. Sorry about that.

  86. TerjeP
    December 10th, 2009 at 06:10 | #86

    Alice – regarding the poll. This is what it says:-

    26% of females think Abbott is better than Turnbull.
    18% of females think Abbott is worse than Turnbull.
    46% of females think Abbott is about the same as Turnbull.
    10% of females are uncommitted.

    On those numbers it seems pretty clear that females slightly prefer Abbott over Turnbull. Do you agree?

    In terms of comparing female attitudes and male attitudes it is clear that more males than females rate Abbott as better than Turnbull. However more males than females rate Abbott as worse than Turnbull. All this really says is that men have more intense feelings both positive and negative about Abbott.

    Of course if this poll had been done before Abbott was leader of the Liberal I would expect a very different result. His status as leader will elevant his standing in many peoples eyes. However this isn’t the point. The point is that there is no evidence that Abbott has a specific problem with female support. He does however have a problem with general support with only 23% of people prefering him over Rudd.

  87. Alice
    December 10th, 2009 at 07:40 | #87

    @TerjeP
    That wasnt at all what we were initially discussing Terje – it was whether they preferred Abbott as potential prime minister over Rudd. Dont poll boogie with me you twister!. LOL. We were also discussing whether women (a particular gender) preferred him less (relative to another gender – males).

    They do as you say prefer him less than males – I think he does have a problem with female support but he also appears to have a slight lack of youth support as well..

    Im not overexcited about this poll. Its the question – something like “without thinking about the leadership of the fed lib party etc do you prefer Abbott over Turnbull as leader” (ie of the nation) etc its not exactly a sharp question –

    As regards the choice Turnbull – he just lost the fight for leadership of libs and Im sure he would lose some poll votes over that and Abbott was the only other selection to choose…on your numbers above the majority of females are indifferent. Yes it may pick up as you say – but its not exactly a warm female response he gets, is it?.

  88. December 10th, 2009 at 07:57 | #88

    Hey everyone, I am brand-new to this forum, but I have been looking for this site for a long time ‘n I’m so grateful I finally found it.

    I’m 23 years of age and doing my bachelors at Columbia.

    I’m the kind of guy who enjoys to taste fresh stuff. Presently I am constructing my hold solar panels. I’m doing it all alone without the aid of my staff. I’m using the internet as the only path to acheive this. I saw a very brilliant website that explains how to build photovoltaic panels and so on. The website explains all the steps involved in constructing solar panels.

    I’m not exactly sure about how correct the info given there is. If some people over here who have xp with these things can have a look and give your feedback in the page it will be grand and I’d really value it.

    Tnx for reading this. You people are great.

  89. December 10th, 2009 at 09:17 | #89

    Spam alert at #37.

  90. paul walter
    December 10th, 2009 at 09:44 | #90

    Re Joseph Clark’s denial of Newspoll push polling, I should ask this humorist what HE drinks, before attempting to post?

  91. Joseph Clark
    December 10th, 2009 at 11:26 | #91

    @paul walter
    Beer in the morning. Whisky after 12.

  92. Alice
    December 10th, 2009 at 11:39 | #92

    @Joseph Clark
    Maybe you need to drink the whiskey in the morning and beer after 12 Joseph and straighten up a bit ?

  93. Alice
    December 10th, 2009 at 11:41 | #93

    JQ – Im with Jarrah at #38 – check the link and maybe you need to delete.

  94. paul walter
    December 10th, 2009 at 13:51 | #94

    Alice,#41, it would depend on what he likes on his Cornflakes.

  95. Chris Warren
    December 10th, 2009 at 15:12 | #95

    Red wine for breakfast,

    white wine with lunch,

    port with dinner,

    marsala with desert,

    beer as required.

  96. Alice
    December 10th, 2009 at 15:25 | #96

    @paul walter
    LOL Chris…you forgot the bloody mary on your cornflakes!.

  97. Alice
    December 10th, 2009 at 15:28 | #97

    Chris, Paul..Paul, Chris…so sorry I was up late last night.

  98. boconnor
    December 10th, 2009 at 16:01 | #98

    Well just so much humbug: the NSW Minister for Community Services apologises for not protecting a 2 year who is murdered and stuffed into a suitcase after 34 risk of harm reports to the NSW Department of Community Services.

    Then complains that the child protection workers are over-worked. And yet the NSW government finds money for V8 Super cars and other circuses instead of child protection. Interesting priorities.

  99. Alice
    December 10th, 2009 at 16:56 | #99

    @boconnor
    Well – what do we expect boconnor when public services and public expenditure on anything is so “out of fashion” to the land of neo liberal Mordor? V8s have priority over this kids life. No wonder 12000 people signed the poll to sack NSW Labor and their phones were jammed all day with people wanting to sack them after Kristina “the puppets” promotion. It makes me sick too. Marie Bashir – where are you. Apparently he didnt even want to attend KKs swearing in. It should be a swearing out of the lot of them and idiot loonie right ideological mates state. V* super cars ?? They have dug their own grave.. spinmeisters. How many complaints calls gotted logged on that poor kid before he was murdered? Something like 27. I dont blame docs staff. Try looking higher up at those who, in their suits, consider themselves above this and only fit to hob nob with the wealthy (Obeid, Tripodi, the puppet, Roozendaal, Della Bosca, Robertson, – all pathetic self interested right wing – or left wings that couldnt give a damn about privatisation or unions like that joke Robertson – creeps).

    Poor kid. Just an example of the utter degradation of NSW Labor and their filthy private sector marketeering priorities.

    Get the broom and sweep out the neo liberal rubbish. Ive lost it.

  100. Alicia
    December 10th, 2009 at 18:37 | #100

    Alice, two state elections ago, many trad ALP voters in NSW vowed to vote Liberal such was their disgust with and anger at Labor.

    That sentiment’s reaching an unprecedented crescendo now even among public servants such is their horror at NSW ALP corruption and shenanighans.

    There’re a few bright spots in the gloom. Elizabeth Farrelly is still employed by the SMH and her piece today travelled widely and is dynamite.

Comment pages
1 2 8108
Comments are closed.