Home > Oz Politics > Some unsolicited advice for Campbell Newman

Some unsolicited advice for Campbell Newman

September 13th, 2012

If I had just won an overwhelming election victory by defeating a government that had
(i) dumped its election commitments in an effort to reduce public debt and restore a AAA rating
(ii) made a mess of the public hospital system

I could think of lots of things I might do after taking office. But there are two things I definitely wouldn’t do …

Categories: Oz Politics Tags:
  1. truth
    September 19th, 2012 at 00:41 | #1

    @David Jago
    David Jago….
    Contrary to your implication, I agreed that mitigation of CO2 should still be done …as in my comment to John Humphreys…
    [ ‘Mitigation can still be done —in fact can be better done—while maintaining our competitive edge in cheap energy, and a prosperous economy unfettered by the upheaval of the carbon tax , ETS and all the bureaucracy that goes with it.’ ]
    ….and in my comment to Newtowian….
    [ ‘Why wouldn’t CAGW proponents be moving heaven and earth to do this easier mitigation to cut the warming by half—if they’re so alarmed??
    Reasonable measures to cut down on CO2 emissions can be done concurrently with that.’ ]
    Re global temperature, where you say I’m not telling the truth…
    This is from a BBC interview with Phil Jones of East Anglia University, one of the cornerstone researchers in the inner circle of climate scientists along with Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt at al.
    BBC talking to Phil Jones:
    [ "B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
    "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.’ ]
    Several questions later, Jones was asked by the BBC interviewer about his confidence that global warming has in fact occurred and that human activities are the case. Here is his response:
    [ "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."]
    Notice he attributes the warming there has been, to ‘human activities’.
    That covers many things other than CO2—like land use changes, highways, cities, airports, concreting over large areas where once were fields and pastures —huge population increases and all of the myriad impacts from that—and all the black carbon as billions of extra people burn wood for fuel, forests to grow crops…and burn diesel—bushfires, some caused by all of the extra power lines to service all the extra people.
    In a paper by Climate science high priest, James Hansen in the 70s, this , which is still considered scientific fact today, but ignored….
    “….although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”
    For CAGW to be real, sea level rise would have to be accelerating but it’s not , and is in some places decelerating.
    In the Netherlands , which has the longest record of sea level research of any country—and a serious vested interest in getting it right— Wilco Hazeleger of KNMI said—-
    “In the past century the sea level has risen twenty centimeters. There is no evidence for accelerated sea-level rise.
    Many other relevant scientists have agreed.
    And there’s a great deal more that refutes CAGW—not the least the reliability or lack thereof of the surface station records in the countries where they’re most reliable like America, Australia, UK etc, which speaks volumes about reliability and continuity in measurement of the rest of the world, with wars, famines, revolutions and other mayhem intervening—and the all-important historical records of the ocean temperatures , which have only been reliably measured since 2003, with the advent of Argo floats—and there is no significant warming in sea surface temperatures.
    The hide the decline controversy in the climategate emails showed that tree rings were unreliable as proxies for temperature, after 1960 [ and therefore could not be relied upon for historical temperatures], so there’s no reliable knowledge of historical temperatures to provide a beginning for a trend.
    Without a beginning, it’s impossible to have a trend. They can’t know how warm it was back then, so they can’t tell if it‘s significantly warmer now.

  2. Newtowian
    September 19th, 2012 at 07:42 | #2

    @Freelander

    “Carr is heavily tainted by his uncritical love of all things American.”

    I think its fair to critique Carr where he deserves it but not in this. To explain what I mean the following may illustrate:
    - Carr does not love all things US – how could he or anyone as the US is a bundle of contradictions like all societies – if you go there and have a close look at them you will see it – they arent that much different to us except in the extremes that money and empire bring.

    - Having been to the US a number of times in the past 10 years it has been a great revelation to me of how the left wing snear of the US is just pathetic and how diverse the place really is – forget the Hollywood bull. To illustrate – when flying to Amarillo a few years back I passed over the biggest area of Wind Turbines I have ever seen. Yea in Texas. Their cable TV along with the junk regularly in the mid West screens Communist Party of America programs. Look, to get a more balanced view I suggest Don (Weaselwords) Watson’s American Dreaming to put our cousins in better perspective. He is a human critic if ever there was one.

    - If Carr has a big vulnerability it was his siding not with the US but his association with Macquarie Bank and being unable to see the contradictions in modern finance that so perplexes John Quiggin our host.

    Anyway who says Carr is or needs to be perfect? But in the mainstream he is about our best example of a philosopher King with high profile that I know of. Carmen Lawrence was arguably one and I’d suggest Turnbull to his credit is too after a fashion. This doesnt mean they are perfect (e.g. Turnbull’s loony support for Russian rainmaking pyramid power at Byron Bay researched by our old friend the university of Queensland) but on balance they seem good people in intent at least and a stark contrast to serious nasties like Scott Morrison.

    The worry though and perhaps you are refering to this is – does power and success inevitably corrupt people in politics through a kind of natural selection process. Put another way -

    Have we evolved a political system where to gain power a person has to be fatally compromised or be deluded or cynical while the ‘more pure at heart’ are (Darwinianly) selected out of the pool because they arent good at exploiting people, covering their contradictions or coping with contradictory demands pertinent to their role like ‘save the children’ v. ‘save the planet’.

  3. Freelander
    September 19th, 2012 at 09:17 | #3

    Carr is an American kiss-a-ss and totally wrong choice as foreign minister. Now I am not going to defend or correct where you argue against tthings that are neither things I have claimed, my position, or the irrelevancies or non sequiters.

    Doesn’t leeave anythin more for me to say.

  4. rog
    September 19th, 2012 at 09:39 | #4

    @truth Truth seems to be some sort of automated Morano troll so to save time let’s look at what KNMI are saying about sea level rise;

    “Oceans react slowly to air temperature rise. Therefore, the sea level rise in the next few decades is rather insensitive to the rate of air temperature increase. Only after 2050 does the rate of global warming become more important.” (2006)

    Elsewhere KNMI describe their contribution to climate science as modest and emphasize the need to look at the global picture.

    http://www.knmi.nl/climatescenarios/knmi06/sealevel.php

  5. Tom
    September 19th, 2012 at 09:59 | #5

    @Newtowian

    Not much I that can comment about Carr. With regards to US politics, theres no better way describing it as a race to the bottom only that they are a few steps in front of Australian politics. Anyone with the right mind who followed the presidential election will mostly get this impression about US politics. Check the controversy behind Romney’s economic paper written by Taylor, Mankiw et al; the Republican propose to turn health and education into a voucher system; Paul Ryan wants to abandon fiat currency and use gold coins. The other candidate, Obama is not even half as good as what most of the leftist think he is. What the US politics and Australian politics have in common is that voters don’t have a real choice between the two major political parties because they have little difference.

    In regards to how politics became where it is, I’m not sure if there is one answer to that question. However, when you have politicians who immediately get alienated just because they have a different opinion on a certain issue (e.g. David Frum on Paul Krugman?); or when a politican turn against a policies of his own just because its introduced by another party (ObamaCare was originally proposed by Romney), you know there’s a problem.

  6. John Quiggin
    September 19th, 2012 at 10:50 | #6

    @truth

    You come to this blog and run Lindzen’s statistical significance line? If you believe what you’re saying you’re a fool, if not you’re a liar, most probably both. Please, nothing more from you.

  7. Freelander
    September 19th, 2012 at 11:05 | #7

    @John Quiggin

    Some of what these cl”wns do amount to an “Horatio Nelson” rapprochement to science and unwanted inconvenient data and information.

    Signal in the data. What signal?

    “The blind eye advantage.” That is why there’s no disability; it’s all otherly able!

  8. Freelander
    September 19th, 2012 at 11:06 | #8

    Rapprochement, ehem, approach!

Comment pages
1 2 10946
Comments are closed.