The Oz has published another response to my piece in the Fin, this time from Christopher Pearson. Unlike with William Kininmonth, I can’t complain about misquotation: Pearson gives extensive and fairly representative quotes from the article.
Pearson cites my observation that conservative political activists have constructed a parallel intellectual universe and goes on to say
This is precisely the kind of analysis I apply when trying to explain what sociologists call the plausibility structures that serve to underpin the twilight world of the warmists. Quiggin is fighting fire with fire, in much the same way that Marxist and Christian apologists used to try and encompass and thus explain away one another’s world views
Analytically, this is about right. Parallelism is a symmetric relationship, so Pearson’s view of my intellectual universe (and that of, among others, the US National Academy of Science, the Royal Society, NOAA, CSIRO and well over 95 per cent of active climate scientists) is much the same as my view of his (where these roles are filled by bodies like, among others, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Lavoisier Group, and experts such as those on Senator Inhofe’s list of 650-odd dissenters
– note the presence of such eminent Australian scientists as Louis Hissink and Alan Moran of the IPA).
I’ve always managed to maintain civil terms of debate with Pearson, and I hope to continue that, but of course discussions between parallel universes tend not to result in much in the way of serious engagement. I will however, restate my point that the problems with the parallel universe go well beyond climate change. An example is the way Pearson fell for the bogus claim that environmentalists had banned the antimalarial use of DDT, a claim propagated by now-discredited tobacco industry hack Stephen Milloy, and circulated through the parallelosphere by such authorities as Bjorn Lomborg and Michael Crichton. I had a to at it here and parasitologist Alan Lymbery did a thorough demolition here
. Pearson didn’t AFAIK revisit the DDT myth (and even refers to it as a human health hazard here), but neither has he learned any lessons about the reliability of sources like Lomborg and Crichton.
Still, by contrast with the usual standard of the Oz, Pearson’s piece is relatively calm and fairminded. I have only one major complaint. Pearson, like Kininmonth, misstates my view of where the issue is going, suggesting that I think the anti-science campaign is gaining ground with the general pubic. On the contrary, Australian public opinion is solidly behind mainstream science (PDF). [1] An ANU survey showed 56 per cent of responds agreeing that “global warming will pose a serious threat to you or your way of life in
your lifetime?” and only 13 per cent saying “No threat”. This is a strongly worded question, since the stated position is at the pessimistic end of mainstream opinion, represented by people like James Hansen and the book Climate Code Red. The response “not very serious” is pretty much consistent with mainstream opinion for respondents who don’t expect to be around after, say 2050. Only “No threat” is consistent with rejection of the science.
The real problem is not that delusionism is gaining ground in public debate. It is the continued prevalence of delusionist beliefs in the conservative political parties and among conservative political activists and commentators. In the long run, the conservatives will pay a high political price for this (they are already beginning to do so). But, on climate change, we don’t have time to wait for the long run.
fn1. Pearson quotes a Rasmussen poll which suggests the opposite, but Rasmussen seems to throw up odd results pretty frequently.
John Quiggin 
The problem with all these surveys is that they don’t measure behavior. For instance, I’m happy to believe there might be serious problems caused by global warming in my life time. Alternatively, am I willing to give up my car and my garden that contributes to urban sprawl? No, of course not. Or am I willing to pay, say, $200 more per year on my energy bills? I doubt it — and I don’t think I’m alone (you could look at the percentage of people that pay 5% extra for green-energy, which I bet will be near zero — this is available in Victoria at least).
It therefore seems to me to get a reasonable view of where we are going requires questions that measure behavior (and especially trade-offs), not just opinion. In this respect, I don’t think we’re going anywhere. Indeed, perhaps we’re even going backwards.
Thats my point JQ.
Lies and disseminations have become fashionable and there is a method to their media delivery. (The awful assumption behind it all is that they assume the average Australian is an idiot – not so).
Its rare to get reasoned responses or debate to real science in the Australian media because there is a lopsided focus on anti science.
Those inhabiting the genuine parallel universe are often to first to invoke the use of the term “parallel universe” interestingly (a derogatory insult in actual fact and deliberately intended to cast doubt on you and others who attempt genuine research).
There is a modus operandi.
1. First locate a catchy phrase that carries an obvious put down without being personal.
2. Reverse the facts and direct “catchy little phrase” towards those you seek to discredit. Deny any real research. Offer either none of your own or that from creative rather than mainstream sources (with suitable business like names for the so called “research organisation”).
Parallel universe is a catchy phrase isnt it? The conservatives are branding themselves though as major users of catchy phrases with not much that is solid underneath. Like playground bullies. Not what the electorate wants or needs right now. We have problems that need addressing. Could the conservatives have become too aligned to specialised but powerful business interests such that they are ignoring the majority of Australians and can only entice them (and at the same time satisfy their business funders) with lies?. Who really does own the party? They are becoming more and more disconnected. I wonder at times what the rank and file really think. Some must surely have doubts about the direction of the party.
John, one has to feel sorry for all those who get sucked into the tosh put forward by dishonest neo-conservative illywackers.
I might say too that perhaps you should have reported the figures for the
“Some countries are doing more to protect the world environment than other countries
are. In general, do you think that Australia is doing…?”
where 56% of people think it is about right.
Conrad, have you read the survey? In particular, the section “Paying to Protect the Environment”? Most people indicate that they are willing to pay higher prices to protect the environment, that they support an ETS and so on.
In the context of political choices like this, stated opinions, reflected in votes, are what matters and the fact that the majority of voters supported either Labor or the Greens is a reflection of those opinions. Of course, it remains to be seen whether that will be translated into action.
“Most people indicate that they are willing to pay higher prices to protect the environment”
.
As you may have noticed, I pointed out an easy test of how true this is (green power). People will say all sorts of things surveys, especially ones that give no clue of how much the numbers are or what a drop in living standards means (which is a problem with the question you are referring to).
.
Given that you have reasonable estimates of how much it would cost to mitigate global warming (or at least Australia’s contribution), then you could construct a much better question. For example, if I remember correctly, you have been arguing that it would cost 1-2% of GDP. How much per person is that in either extra tax or extra utility fees? In this way you could have a question like this (I’d like to know the answer in any case actually):
.
“Reasonable estimates of the amount it will cost to mitigate global warming show that each person will need to pay $800 [or whatever the number is] more in either tax or utility fees. Are you willing to pay …” with a Likert repsonse from “all” to “none”.
.
Of course even with this question, we are still stuck in a “I say this” versus “I do this” situation, but it’s much more reasonable question.
This survey is pretty much what you want, but there are difficulties with interpretation.
http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=545
suggests a median willingness to pay of around $10 per month extra for electricity.
As of 2003-04, mean household expenditure on fuel and power was $23/week, so I’d guess about $15 per week or $60/month for electricity.
If the price of carbon comes out at around $25/tonne, which is also around $25/MWH or 2.5 cents/Kwh, that would be around a 25 per cent increase in retail electricity prices, which would come out at about $15/month.
So, the WTP numbers are in the right ballpark in this instance.
I don’t think the GreenPower numbers are relevant. Lots of people, reasonably enough, view this as a gimmick.
Most people want governments to coordinate actions to protect the environment. This does not necessarily mean they’ll give up things personally when they know others will ‘spoil’ their efforts anyway.
There is a justifiable belief that if I individually pay more for my power or use my car less, less scrupulous people will compensate for and negate my actions, perhaps even capitalising on them for short term gain. The proposed government response reinforces this with savings from personal actions freeing more credits for other emitters.
In situations like this people want government to coordinate action to ensure fairness and that their savings actually contribute to the public good. This may be naive, as current policies demonstrate, but it’s equally naive to believe that the markets can be effective when they prioritise private over public good.
To give up on the ability of humanity through its government agents to coordinate a response is to give up. We *need* effective government action. The best thing individuals can do is pressure governments to achieve this.
I think the Right used the political expedient of blaming the loudest voices (Environmentalists) when this issue first became a mainstream one and lots of “Right” thinking people took that on face value. Radical Environmentalism had enough about it to evoke strong dislike and painting scientists the same colour was easy and probably electorally effective. The sensible people on the Right – I presume there must be some – must realise the true seriousness of human impacts on climate and environment but they can’t come out and switch on this issue without alienating a big chunk of their support base. Or else they’ll find themselves alienated.
The fact is there are many people in the ALP who have become sceptics over the past few years. The most prominent being Labor’s most highly-educated MP, the economist Craig Emerson.
It is simply rubbish that The Oz is spreading misinformation. Oh, unless you count when the issue is surely soiled when ignorant Culture Warriors like Robert Manne start cheering for your side.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25380219-7583,00.html
Alas, I genuinely believe that Pearson and the other brain-diseased corporate whores at “the Australian” are too dumb to understand the point you are trying to make with this sentence.
naughty but funny Gerard! It made me laugh. Really it is pretty atrocious what passes for news in this country. I wonder that other countries dont make fun of us here in Australia for being complete and utter idiots in our press media (….. they probably do!!)
Irish jokes may be eclipsed soon by Australian media jokes.
What would an Australian newspaper say if etc….?.
Q) How does an Australian Journalist change a light bulb.
A) With difficulty as he refuses to replace it with one of those left wing conspiracy energy saving thingos.
I find myself torn 50-50 between JQ’s point and Conrad’s point. Opinions and positions matter but behaviour also matters.
Public opinion has moved but I have my doubts about public behaviour. After all, a physical scientist would judge only by physical results. Without action, the palaver is worthless. Have we arrested growth in CO2 emissions? The answer is still no.
The essential obstacle to real progress is corporate power and government (and public) supineness before that corporate power. The denialism is fed by the corporates, especially the fossil industry corporates, whether they believe in it themselves or not.
Until the political and money power nexus of corporate capitalism is broken we will not see any real action on CO2 emissions and AGW. This power nexus will not be broken until there is a dramatic demonstration by the physical world itself. When there is a catastrophe or a string of catastrophes unambiguously related to AGW this will release a revolutionary series of changes through our society… or what’s left of it.
How does an Australian newspaper employ journalists?
They test whether they can open outlook express and edit cut and paste.
How does an Australian newspaper replace a journalist on leave?
It phones the IPA and tells them to hire a casual.
Its heartening to see nowadays, how easily so many members of the public have seen thru this Tabloid Oz and think-tank filibustering exercise, to glimpse so effortless what it is,for what it is.
Paul of Albury correctly posits that the global public wants these issues dealt with.
The (lack of) factuality of the denialists however demonstrates the extent to which they are play recklessly with human welfare; are quite aware they are are only delaying what must be faced, as with the proverbial visit to the dentist.
That they do this for what must be the most base and venal of reasons, particularly from those who claim the high moral ground of Christianity, in the interests of reactionary and venal formations, is disturbing indeed.
They do, indeed, deserve the contempt-laden epithet applied by Gerard.
Except that they are as surely knowing pimps, as much as whores.
Truly despicable.
Oh please people. Does anyone even remember the kerfuffle over petrol prices last year?!
Higher energy prices are wildly unpopular. Higher energy prices imposed by a government in the midst of a serious recession is political suicide. The government knows this, that’s why they’re doing just enough to appear to be taking the problem seriously, but nowhere near enough to actually change behaviour. Penny Wong is the master of climate change spin — appear deeply concerned, but measured and sensible, and above all don’t do anything that might hurt the voters.
The only way forward is to throw money at cleantech investment and make clean energy cheaper than dirty energy.
People might think that high oil prices and peak oil have gone away as issues. However, both issues will be back front and centre in a relatively short time.
I find it mildly amusing but very frustrating that people argue whether climate change is influenced significantly by humans or not.
I think the denialists say humans have little influence on climate and to change the way we generate energy will bring economic doom and gloom and it is an unnecessary impost on society to change our ways.
Those who say humans are causing the problem say if we do not do anything we will have real doom and gloom and not just a little economic inconvenience.
My position is that it does not matter who is right because there is a solution that will stop the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and make us all wealthier. That means if we implemented that solution both sides should be happy.
Forget the rhetoric and just use a little common sense.
If you do not include finance charges renewable energy is much much cheaper than digging and drilling for increasingly scarce resources and then burning it to produce energy. If we make finance charges zero then renewable energy will produce extraordinary profits to those who own the resources.
We are told we need to stimulate the economy because we are going to get a lot of people out of work – many of them in mining and manufacturing – and once people are out of work then everyone suffers because these people still consume but are not being productive.
Why not stimulate the economy by printing money and spend it on building ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This will not increase inflation any more than increasing the money supply by borrowing money, we do not have, to finance a stimulus package.
The result will be infrastructure that earns extraordinary profits so making society richer. There are no loans to service because we printed the money.
Of course there is the big question of who gets the money. We seem to have little worry about giving stimulus bonuses to everyone. Why not give everyone $1500 but require them to spend it on ways to reduce greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere.
If we do this for 10 years then Australia will have zero net emissions energy and at lower current costs.
The people who received the $1500 each year will have a nice little earner from the profits generated by the infrastructure they own giving them an annuity for life.
“Why not stimulate the economy by printing money and spend it on building ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This will not increase inflation any more than increasing the money supply by borrowing money, we do not have, to finance a stimulus package.”
I seem to recall that during the 1990s a redheaded lady from Queensland had a similar idea about simply printing money to fund her promises.
It is not true that printing more money creates no more inflation than simply borrowing money and spending it. If you increase the money supply this devalues the currency more. Moroever, once the population realises that the government is going to debase the currency people respond by either not holding as much currency or factoring in much higher prices as an insurance policy.
Indeed, the obvious question is why do governments ever bother with borrowing money if it is possible to simply print money with no greater negative results?
The right wing parallel universe exists because they ‘won’ the cold war, this means everything they think is therefore right. It’s a hubristic delusion among men of a certain age, fighting the last battle over and over again.
Pr Q says:
Global warming is as much a long-term threat to the Right-wing parties survival as it is to the survival of a temperate ecological system. As a self-hating social-democrat I still see some value in having Right-wing parties around. But they wont be for long if they defy the science of human survival.
Its noticeable that the, largely pro-science, Right wing parties in the EU are doing pretty well, holding office in most national governments.
Whereas the, somewhat anti-science, Right-wing parties in the US and AUS are suffering some sort of secular decline.
I am not saying that if the REPs or the L/NP swung to the Left on Green issues they would pick up alot of votes straight away. Other factors are causing the Right some woe. Mostly the swing of the electoral cycle and also in the US a reaction to the comprehensive failure of the Bush admin.
The key problem for the Anglospheric Right-wing parties is the rock-solid Greeness amongst young people. A recent Morgan poll showed climate change concern (“If we don’t act now, it will be too late”) steadily increased as the age of respondents declined, being highest (87%) in the 14-17 year old demographic. This was the highest level of Greeniness expressed by any demographic.
Thats only going to consolidate as schools further integrate Global Warming into their curriculum. No kid will want to fail Geography in year 11 just to flirt with denialist ideology.
Eventually these young people will grow older and become predominant amongst voters. So in the long-run the Right-wing parties must adjust to scientific reality or face electoral oblivion.
Obviously, you were not listening in secondary school or you would “know that, unlike theology, science sets no store in arguments from authority. Nor does science attach any weight to majorities or consensus. It advances by testing the evidence, replicating experiments, conjecture and refutation”.
You can’t come up with any evidence or a controled experiment that predicts a future outcome, so stick to what you know, Kremlinology and don’t fart or release any more hot air, as you might upset the fine ecological balance of the world..
B Kiernan came down in the last rain cloud?
Am still recovering from the shock of discovering that even an Australian, in this day and age of all times, could be so death-defyingly naive (or perverse), as to Emerson.
Emerson joins the Fergusons and Peter Garrett and Rudd into an energetic retreat into what Bob Ellis describes as “muscular timidity”?
But Bob Ellis is way too generous in ascribing the Labor government’s negative responses to Ecology to merely to cowardice alone.
What its is is something both more mundane and slimely, slitheringly knowing.
Try the lobbying efforts from anti environment, buck at any cost big business and its “Marn” toadies, B Kiernan!
# 22 meika Says: May 2nd, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Theres a lot of truth in that. The Right-wing was in politically dominant, or had the ideological initiative, for most of the past generation. In the US the Right won, or achieved great victories, in the
– Class War against the unions
– Cold War against the commies
– Civilizational Clash against militant Arabs
– Culture War against minority under-class
This led to an extraordinary outburst of Right-wing triumphalist ideology throughout the nineties, featuring theories of the End of History and Washington Consensus. All culminating in the tech-bubble at the end of the nineties.
It was only natural for Right-wingers to assume that they were on the “Right” side of History in the Climate Wars. They had won so many battles against the Left-wing in other conflicts they assumed infallibility and invincibility.
But the serial self-inflicted disasters of Iraq-attack, the debtquity-and-diversity depression and now melting ice caps have brought the Right to its knees throughout the Anglosphere. Some etended soul-searching is indicated.
Meika @ 22 it is an interesting proposition.
A group of people living in a parallel universe, full of their own self-importance knowing they are right and everybody else is wrong, claiming that global warming is a myth created by egotistical scientists with an over inflated idea of the importance of humans in the scheme of things.
It is worth remembering that, despite the evidence, there are still large numbers of people who believe pasionately in the creation story as a true and accurate record of history. They too live in a parallel universe where science is only that which confirms their belief.
Have you ever noticed the increasing use by the deniers that climate change is like a religion? This is the parallel universe they live in – a right religious community.
#21 Monkey’s Uncle please read the rest of the post. Printing money increases the money supply. Our current method of increasing the money supply is to borrow money that does not exist.
It is what you do with the new money that you create that matters.
If the money created is spent creating a new productive asset then there will be no inflation. Inflation happens when you print more money than there are things to buy. If the money you print produces a new productive asset then you have something to buy with the increased money supply. Of course printing money and consuming what you purchase will produce inflation.
It is about time governments realised that they can print money without negative results – as long as it is invested in productive assets. Going into debt to build community infrastructure is really a very stupid way to run an economy.
Hi,
I think you must have a lot of fun living in parallel universis. But, never mind.
I am surprised that you write under the banner of “Commentary on Australian & world events from a social-democratic perspective”. I have not been able to pick up on your social-democratic perspective. Can you explain this perspective, please?
Regards
Magne Forfang.
26# But Jack -there is one thing you can almost guarantee with economics and politics. Everything turns, and one day the so called victors awake to find themselves losers again….
Thats what I love about economics and politics – the long run revolutions and disequilibriums around equilibrium.
Could we seriously live without it? We think equilibrium only applies to demand and supply in markets. It doesnt. It runs much deeper than that – deep into peoples beliefs, political persuasions and adjustment to disequilibrium therein (and we think we are so able to control it all – or some do??) No – we are just a small part of the ebb and flow.
How does an Australian newspaper conduct performance reviews?
Journalists have to pass a truth detector test (with a zero score).
How does an Australian newspape deal with no news at all?
Piers,Miranda,Gerard,Janet,Michael. Worth every cent for vacant space ideas.
Prof Q said “I’ve always managed to maintain civil terms of debate with Pearson, and I hope to continue that”
Why? The man is a buffoon. He so desperately wants to be Evelyn Waugh it’s pathetic. He thinks that all that is needed to realise his ambition is to convert to Catholicism, subscribe to the Spectator and engage in reactionary politics. He doesn’t seem to realise that Waugh was a talented journalist, a talented novelist and a soldier of considerable physical courage. The only thing Pearson appears to have in common with Waugh is that he likes tinned grouse.
Why you would want to be on civil terms with such an oxygen thief beats me. I have nothing but contempt for him.
Alice, if lies were platinum, Murdoch would be a billionaire.
Hmmm, wait a minute…
JQ,
You linked to an article by Christopher Pearson, The Australian, 2 May 2009. The title of this article is “Chairman Manne’s no to dissent”. The article starts with:
“John Quiggin is a left-of-centre economics professor at the University of Queensland. He also runs a self-titled blog and writes a regular column for The Australian Financial Review”
Please tell me if I am wrong when I say only one statement is correct, namely “and (he) writes a regular column for The Australian Financial Review”. (Your name is Quiggin and not Manne, you are Professor of Economics and Politics and not Professor of ‘left-of-centre economics’, your blog is a real world blog and not an IT science fiction blog which has the as yet undeveloped technology of self-titling, and, if you are a chairman of one or several committees at the UQ or chairman of a board of directors somewhere else, then Pearson forgot to talk about this in the introduction.)
Do you really suggest it is worthwhile reading any further?
Paul#35b Yep….wait a minute!
JQ – how does ot feel to be described as left of centre??? Are you happy with that? I would have called you centrists right myself. Do these right wing loonies really know hat left is – or do they just see anyone not right wing looney as left?
Its a bit like saying beige is the new black isnt it???
No Im not wearing it on your behalf JQ, These guys who accuse you of being left are idiots who need reminding that things arent going their way. Left is the new right or dont you see it rolling over you??. You right wing diehards need to have a good look around you. People dont like you. Dumped. Yesterdays heroes. You crashed the economy and put people out of jobs. Get over it or get old (I think you did the latter first).
Alice, it is certainly true that Labor is new right. But left thinking and its critiques still prosper haler and heartier than ever, for the failure the lefts enemies to even begin refute it, or its critiques of various social issues. That to even the satisfaction of morons, let alone educated people.
Alice, I’m happy enough with left-of-centre. Obviously both the nature of the spectrum and the location of the centre are open to debate, but on the standard readings of these terms, where Labor is, on balance, to the left of the Liberals, I’m to the left of most of the Labor party. Relative to the general public, I don’t hold markedly leftwing views, but as you might expect I’m more consistently leftish than people who don’t devote a lot of time to worrying about such questions as “how does this position I hold fit with that one”/
Another parallel universe perspective here:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/
May 2, 2009
IN THE ALTERNATE UNIVERSE.
It seems like the conservative media item of the day is a Pajamas Media piece from John Hawkins, perhaps best known as the blogger behind “Right Wing News.” Hawkins’ item is well worth reading, especially for those who don’t usually read conservative blogs, because it helps capture the alternate universe that activists on the right seem to enjoy. … Just to be clear, Hawkins isn’t kidding. This isn’t satire ….
That article points to discussion here:
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=8181
Shorter version — the argument from that universe goes: the right has been gentlemanly, rational, and far too nice, but the evil distorters are winning so it’s time for them to take the gloves off and quit playing fair.
I recall hearing the same thing when Clinton won his second term, that they were such lying greedheads that if the country wanted to keep the Clintons in the presidency, business had no remaining responsibility to continue its self-restrained approach, it was open season on greed.
Yeah, it’s really the “Answer: cut taxes and end regulation, what was the question?” thing. Always.
Except now with encouragement for the brownshirts.
#41 I always took it for granted that you are, at the very least, to the left of Costa (that bald-headed bother boy ex-Labor NSW) 🙂
JQ#41 – come to think of it Ive noticed that about myself. Donald – also more on Costa soon.
I always thought of myself as centrist but when even the Labor party has noticeably shifted to the right over recent decades (and especially the woeful NSW Labor Party with the ominously dark and chronically cheerless Roozendahl happy to ignore the growing problems of road congestion, health etc and privatise just about everything).
Case in point – todays Telegraph. We have a Fed Labor Party in power. We have Costa (the mouth) given a double page spread to slam the Rudd’s broadband proposal on the grounds the government shouldnt build it and pushing for another doomed PPS.
Who is Costa? Who does he belong to now? (who would want him?) Labor or liberal or is it really the Telegraph paypacket that keeps him talking?
Then turning to page 3 – we get Mark Abib (labor) defending the budget deficit quite properly as he should. The article takes up one third of a page despite Labor leadership. On page 4 we have Piers Ackerman with a double sized piece screaming “children lament your legacy of Ruddy debt.”
The blatancy of the bias leaves you breathless.
When acknowledging JQ’s blog but being negative about him I wonder if it was a sneaky way for Christopher Pearson to double his readership for the week.
I’ll post at legnth on Costa sometime perhaps. As often happens, he went very rapidly from being a Trot to being a hardline rightwinger, and was in the latter category throughout his Parliamentary career. As soon as he left Parliament, he emerged as an open enemy of the Labor Party.
This says a lot about the rightwing machine that promoted someone like this.
Pearson writes
“To provide this insulation, the conservative movement has developed a network of think tanks, experts and news sources that amount to an alternative reality in which inconvenient truths like climate change can be ignored.”
Well Pearson may want to read the IPA website which boasts in their annual report for the 2007/08 year
“IPA Staff had 192 opinion pieces published in Australian newspapers”
They only paid out $406,000 dollars in salary expenses. Thats not a lot of people for all those opinion pieces is it? They have what appears to be only 18 employees and only 8 to 10 are classified as researchers or research fellows. Gee how do 18 people get paid only $406,000 in salary expenses? ( Lousy pay.)
I would suggest writing the opinion pieces and bombarding Australian newspapers with them constitutes the core activity of the IPA and they probably get paid per opinion piece published (piece rates). After all they only had 32 so called “research articles” published (probably the majority of them in their own IPA review).
Its a vocal minority group that claims to be “independent” and is anything but, that attempts to sway public opinion and Australian Newspaper editors are clearly accepting of it.
Thats just the IPA. I note a new name for yet another so called “independent” group “advising on economics and policy” in Costa’s article today. The Callaghan Institute.
http://www.thecallaghaninstitute.com.au/comingsoon.html
This one has 6 staff. One is Costa and another is his ex senior adviser when Costa was Treasurer. Oh and it must be pretty new because the website isnt complete yet.
In the comment above Pearson is essentially denying the influence of these conservative right wing and definitely “non independent” propagandists on Australia newspapers.
The salaries paid has me baffled until you look at payments to suppliers which is at least 3 times the salary so I suspect the opinion piece writers for the IPA are paid by the piece and located in the ranks of the liberal party.
“independent”??? Bah humbug.
Interesting link Alice @47 – a very blokey affair – a little like Christopher Pearson who has written many pieces lambasting women. The Liberal Party too is in danger of alienating women who have taken to a leftist agenda of child care and maternity leave provision even if they are right wing in other matters.
Even in the item referred to above Pearson has a go at the woman he nentions although it is completely irrelevant to the point he was making.
To give him credit it is a little difficult to work out the point of the article because it is all over the place. Clearly upset by Prof Q and his discussion of a parallel universe but not wanting to miss the opportunity to get stuck into Manne because of the opportunity afforded by the resignation of the editor of The Monthly.
Even his assessment of Manne as being more capable of engaging in public debate than Prof Q shows that he has no idea of any universe apart from his own. I was interested to see his reliance on the beliefs espoused in a public opinion poll in the USA and his religious references.
His support for Plimer carries with it a great deal of religious fervour too. The parallel universe will continue as it does for the Creationists who still reject the theory of Evolution. They have some scientists professing this belief too – but everyone else has moved on as has to happen with climate change.