Some unsolicited advice for Campbell Newman

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 …

58 thoughts on “Some unsolicited advice for Campbell Newman

  1. 1. Annoy all the voters who put me in by sacking a large number of those who live in my electorate with no clear rationale not having learned the lessons of Jeff Kennett.
    2. Labour under the illusion that everything is right with the world and we can return to Queensland of BJP and continue merrily with business as usual.
    3. (sorry) Annoy everyone in sight and so jeopardising those comfy marginal seats won by so many colleagues on a slim margin. Loyalty is only as durable as the next poll as Labor has well demonstrated too.
    4. (sorry again) Ascribe to the view that Queensland really wants to be the dumb state by hitching my star to a daft television program well past its used by date (Big Brother of course).

  2. (i) dump its election commitments in an effort to reduce public debt and restore a AAA rating
    (ii) make a mess of the public hospital system

    Nice one.

  3. A clear indicator of inepitude in a politician is when he or she manages to annoy and alienate just about everybody including rusted-on supporters. Campbell has managed this feat in just a few short months.

    The wheels are falling off which is kinda amusing considering the following;

    ” Campbell Newman’s detractors call him that (Noddy) for his perceived resemblance to the Enid Blyton character as well as his misadventures, such as an expedition he led across the Tanami Desert, in northern Australia, in which his party had no fewer than 199 flat tyres.” – The Age, Nov 18, 2007.

  4. You won’t like my take, but tell me where I’m wrong…

    If Newman is going to be massacred in the media and public eye due to making these spending cuts, wouldn’t it have made sense to cut harder & faster? Abolish the $1 billion of economics spending, abolish the CSOs, turn health & schools into voucher systems, cut back on higher-ed, environmental and community spending, etc

    The negative press is going to come anyway, so they might as well go the full hog and hold tight, and then hope the results come in over the next two years.

  5. @John Humphreys – Perhaps the negative press would be worse if the cuts were made harder and faster? If not, why push the limits and cut funding everywhere?

  6. @john humphries and the $80 per household payment? and all of the other silly spending on big brother and etc? it doesn’t make sense because they have no idea what they are doing

  7. His, CN, mistakes, sadly, will not inevitably prove fatal ((or first term fatal).

    Welcome to the Qld new normal.

    Fortunately, I’m appreciating from a distance!

  8. Goods for you Freelander, I moved from Canberra to Qld 6 months ago, now wondering whether the change in the weather was worth it!

  9. At the Federal level one could wonder how a totally flawed politician and with a decades long history showcasing those flaws, our own two-fisted little battler, (well five pound pom import actually), Toxic Tony, could be such s hot money favorite for our next PM. If he does manage it, don’t expect his stay will necessarily be short. Howard, who offered and gave so little, still managed to stay and stay and stay. CN may remain a long time, persistence and performance seem nowadays completely disconnected. And with the level of misinformation from all sources including the media who knows what the public perceives?

  10. @John Humphreys You can be sure of the results in cutbacks to public health, no need to wait 2 years. You can also be sure of the private sector not filling gaps in public health, no need to wait for the results of that experiment to come in.

  11. @John Humphreys

    “Abolish the $1 billion of economics spending, abolish the CSOs, turn health & schools into voucher systems, cut back on higher-ed, environmental and community spending, etc

    hold tight, and then hope the results come in over the next two years.”

    JH, what results would anyone be waiting for after these measures? The outcome would be a total unmitigated mess.

  12. And in sad, sad, news. The pc losing a rusted on fixture. Sad news for the pc; sad news for Australian economics. Anzsog’s gain, of course.

    Let’s hope the professor applies for the vacancy. Apparently they are going to experiment with merit selection.

    That’ll be novel.

  13. Looks like I’ve come to the wrong place. I was looking for some intelligent “open minded ” discussion not the usual partisan dogma.

  14. @Harry Rogers

    Sounds like your innate equipment is totally unsuited to your quest. Like the congenitally colour-blind in search of an appreciation of colour.

    Love these drive bys. Invariably poor shots. But frequently score high on unintended irony/humour.

  15. @Ikonoclast

    you’re kidding?

    199 flat tyres?

    didn’t anybody on his ostensible side check the napoleonic requisite,that is,is he lucky?

    strike a light—–they’re doomed.

  16. The conservative movement is heading to a direction where people simply could not follow anymore. Other than academics such as Robert Manne and Harry Clarke etc. There are conservative politicians (e.g. David Frum) who are blasted by their own party just to say that people who are not their ally might be right (e.g. Krugman).

    To say the truth, I’m not sure what changed or if anything changed at all. However these extreme ideological policies seens to only have appeared in the recent decade or two. It could be that they think it would be electoral suicide if they went ahead with extremist policies like what John Humphrey listed. However I don’t think CN’s policies are less political suicidal either, its interesting why he didn’t went ahead and do what John Humphrey listed since, if they are of the mentality to do as much damage they can do when they are in power, they would of done so. With that being said, our conservatives do look like they are always just one step or two behind the Republicans in the US.

    I’m quite interested to know what ex-conservative supporters think of the current conservative movement.

    P.S. I do think the level of discussion dropped a little recently

  17. Not sure how to describe current conservatism in Australia, if you take past leaders Fraser and Howard it has been noted that Howard was the first conservative PM to claim the title and Fraser was more socially progressive while maintaining fiscal conservatism.

    The current lot are a desperate bunch. I once thought that Turnbull had some principle but I see that he likes to talk the talk but wont walk the walk (he is silent on his own parties numerous failings in both principle and execution of)

  18. @rog

    Agreed on Fraser, the Liberal Party was similar to the current US Liberal ideology (center-left) back at that time. I think Hawke-Keating were more conservative than Fraser to be honest.

  19. @rog
    In fairness to Turnbull he knows disunity is death and if he did speak truth to power and the libs lose what is perceived as the unlosable election he would be a pariah for evermore. On the other hand with current events in the Arctic [ ] he may getting worried he has picked the wrong horse to ride to glory.

  20. Are there any conservative parties in Australia? Where are all these conservatives? I want to find a conservative to vote for. Till then the nearest thing is the Greens.

  21. Morally challenged spineless scvmbags, plenty of those to choose from. Even a wall thumping little standover artiste (seemingly specialising in female victims, or is that only a preference) looks likely to be our nect pm, thst is, a pugilist who admits to administering biffo on field, but when called on to remember specifics suggests this activity was so frequent that like his consumption of individual beers he can not be called on to remember one incident from the others.

  22. The fate of a now former rba exec who brought up the “serious questions ” simply shows how nowadays the greatest career poison is doing one’s job.

  23. Momentarily starved for amusement, I decided to look at the site so subtly attached to the “John Humphrey” above to the right. And not disappointed I was. Apparently, according to the most recent post, the “audit” was too soft, things much much worse. Cause, aging population. Very interesting. JH must imagine Qld is a country, not a State, and not a state in a federation with vertical fiscal imbalance, and mechanisms including the CGC. But then ignorance is self-sustaining, requiring no maintainance and, for its possessors, at least, bliss.

  24. Given the PC has lost it head why not a movement to draft John Quiggin into the position. After all, they do say for selection of the new chairman they may undertake a bold experiment and use that much avoided criteria “merit”. (Hell, if successful, ANZSOG might even give the novelty a shot.)

    So let’s hear it for “Draft Quiggin for the Productivity Commission!”

    You know it makes sense! (Certainly magnitudes more sense than “Joh for Canberra”!)

  25. How could anyone make a mess of the public hospital of QLD that hasn’t already been made by Labor—except another Labor government?

    Anthony Morris QC told the truth about QLD Health under Labor—-in irony and careful metaphor—careful because retribution is swift and delivered by the pack , for those who cross Labor.

    And the Patel affair was great for the health of many Queensland innocents wasn’t it—especially as they had to watch QLD Labor Inc pay Dr Death taxpayers’ hard-earned money to do a runner on a business class airline ticket —-to cross the world and escape accountability under the law.

    And then there was the big fraud and the payroll debacle—great shape, that system—- like absolutely everything under Labor.

    And how many public servants does a State have to have, to avoid such mass hysteria over cutbacks?

    Ten thousand more—twenty thousand—total wall to wall featherbedding??

    Kevin Rudd treated senior public servants like something he stepped in, and replaced them with the ‘right’ people—ruthlessness and brutality were his hallmarks—–so any Rudd and Labor caterwauling over , and faux sympathy for , public servants is just more Labor /MSM propaganda.

  26. John regret your exhausted vote yet?

    Sorry I will keep asking, you all got this cause you all wanted to play games with your aluminium base ball bats.

    Folks; you have no-one to blame but yourselves. Be thankfull his plan doesn’t include salting the earth.

  27. Horns become him.

    Sometimes you need to punish bad by transferring support to worse because bad, may if punished, improve, but bad unpunished is worse bound and then what choice will you have or vote still effective to waste.

  28. @John Humphreys
    I’m interested to read that you don’t care about whether there’s actually any CO2-induced global warming at all.

    Putting aside the fact that you would like conditional carbon pricing policy instead of the unilateral carbon pricing—if CAGW is not happening, as many reputable scientists say, with peer-reviewed research to back them up—why would you want to destroy Australia’s cheap energy advantage for no scientific reason?

    Why would you throw Australia into turmoil, damaging our coal-fired power industry—[and eventually you would have to phase out any gas-fired power industry too]—and destroy most of our manufacturing for no good reason?

    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.

    Much more could be done to develop new technologies with a healthy and prosperous economy to fund research, than with an economy that’s dragged down by a carbon bureaucracy, uncertain energy security and by obligations to transfer Australian wealth and technology off shore.

    This anxiety to shut down any talk about the science —not just by you, but by our Climate Change Commissioners, and our post-normal climate ‘scientists’ seems to me to have more to do with dreams of untold riches from a new market in ephemeral ‘permission’ given by some international overseer than with a prosperous future for Australia.

  29. @Newtowian

    The Arctic melt has as much to do with black carbon as it does with CO2[ if it does].

    Warmists are desperate to leave black carbon [soot, nothing to do with CO2], out of the equation when they’re trying to alarm us about the Arctic melt.

    Most of the black carbon comes from the burning of forests and biomass in China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia and Brazil—and in recent weeks the burning in Indonesia is continuing apace as haze from Indonesian fires have been reportedly causing problems in Singapore.

    Black carbon is responsible for ~ 50% of the melt, and this is what some top scientists [ not even sceptics] have to say about it…

    [ ‘Washington, DC, July 29, 2010 – Reducing emissions of black carbon, the dark component of soot, could be the best – and perhaps only – way to save the Arctic from warmer temperatures that are melting its snow and ice, according to a study published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Dr. Mark Jacobson of Stanford University studied the short-term effects of reducing black carbon and other greenhouse gases, including CO2 and methane, over a 15-year period of time, with black carbon reductions appearing to be the fastest way to avoid further Arctic ice loss and warming.’]

    [ ‘Besides its damaging impact on the Arctic, black carbon emissions have a significant effect on the overall warming of the earth.’]

    [‘Jacobson was able to conclude that black carbon may be the second largest contributor to warming after CO2, echoing the conclusion by several other scientists, including Dr. V. Ramanathan at the Scripps Institution at the University of California, San Diego and Dr. Drew Shindell at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

    Increasing levels of black carbon combined with decreasing levels of sulfates may account for more than half of the accelerated warming in the last few decades, Shindell’s research suggests.’]

    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.

    Ever hear Steffen, Flannery, Karoly, England et al lobbying for that—when they fly the world emitting madly as they go —–to lucrative speaking engagements and conferences?

  30. @truth You seem to be under at least two massive misapprehensions

    1. Warming produced by black soot, methane etc is anthropogenic just as it is with CO2. And, looking at the Arctic, it’s pretty obvious that the C (for catastrophic) in CAGW is depressingly likely to be realised

    2. Although the full importance of black soot has been recognised only recently, action is already underway, as it is with other non-CO2 sources

    Googling your talking points suggests you are probably getting them from Anthony Watts, who recently distinguished himself by claiming that the Arctic ice melt ended on 4 September (it’s still going on, and ice extent is now far below the previous minimum).

    To be clear, we should be looking for any cheap and low-risk method of reducing emissions, whether that’s focused on CO2, other gases, soot or even things like painting roofs white.

  31. Interesting the black carbon argument. If true, the disappearing ice maybe a good thing. As the accumulated sunlight absorbent black carbon covering the ice disappears with the ice and the new ice is once again reflective. However, not so sure I take what the good dip truth has to say with more than a grain of salt or soot. Starting with your conclusions and groping around for supporting ‘evidence’ is not a methodologically sound epistemological approach. (Even if one practiced and perfected by such esteemed ‘research organisations’ as the Productivity Commission.)

    But, of course, I might not know of what I talk. Indeed, might be, delicate paw strokes and all, the proverbial dog.

  32. @charles

    John Quiggin…

    Point 1…Of course it’s anthropogenic—just about everything is—but it’s not CO2, and mitigation of it doesn’t require the elimination of coal-fired electricity , and our competitive edge , and the loss of our export industries

    The C for catastrophic certainly is relevant, since the mitigation of the black carbon problem , which, with the political will , is much more easily done than mitigation of CO2, would break a catastrophic cycle.

    This mitigation is especially important since the melt resulting from the black carbon, so long as BC continues to be deposited, amplifies the warming, setting up a dangerous feedback cycle, and not just Arctic warming, but the cycle causes global warming as well.

    The soot is deposited on the ice, where , being black, it absorbs the heat from the sun, melts the ice , thereby leaving black water where once was the reflective white ice—cutting down on the earth’s albedo, and thereby , with less heat reflected, absorbing more heat from the sun and amplifying the warming.

    Black carbon is also responsible for much of the glacier melt and the thawing of permafrost , which of course releases methane, which is a massive problem.

    Point2…Not all that recent, as Jacobson’s papers [ peer-reviewed] on the effect of black carbon on Arctic ice start at least as far back as 2000, and there are many of them—and he and the other top scientists in the field testified before a Committee of Congress on BC at least two years ago.

    ‘Dr. Mark Jacobson of Stanford University studied the short-term effects of reducing black carbon and other greenhouse gases, including CO2 and methane, over a 15-year period of time, with black carbon reductions appearing to be the fastest way to avoid further Arctic ice loss and warming.’

    Other scientists like Ramanthan and Shindell have at least been publishing on it for several years—I think it was at least five years ago that Shindell [ NASA] wrote a paper concluding that BC was responsible for more than 50% of the Arctic warming, and said that that…

    “We will have very little leverage over climate in the next couple of decades if we’re just looking at carbon dioxide,”

    Ramanathan suggests’ removing one ton of black carbon could equal taking out 1000 tons of CO2, when it comes to warming.’

    The trouble with that Climate and Clean Air Coalition you reference, is that none of the countries producing most of the black carbon—China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, other Asian countries and Brazil–have joined it.

    The developed countries do need to mitigate diesel particulate emissions, which are the biggest problem there, but most of the BC is from the burning of biomass in those other countries—China et al .

    Ramanathan says, quote: “In the dry season, between October to April, the entire Arabian Sea and the North Indian Ocean is filled with haze. It’s transported both from the South Asian side and from Africa.”

    Durwood Zaelke, President of the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development. “Targeting black carbon with aggressive, fast action today is the most important strategy for saving the Arctic.”

    I’m not worried about your sneer at me re Anthony Watts, and my ‘talking points’ as I’ve commented often in the past on Real Climate, where anyone straying from the ‘consensus’ gets the full smear, name-calling, character assassination—the whole bit.

    CAGW proponents always go for the smear and cheap shots, when they can’t refute.

    My information comes from a wide variety of sources—-abstracts and papers , and many blogs of all varieties.

    Now can you tell me why our highly-paid Climate Commission want to alarm us, as Garnaut and others do, so we’ll accept a carbon tax and the trashing of our economy, but they never even mention—not a whisper —about the mitigation of BC that can solve a great deal of the problem that they want us to be so alarmed about?

    Could it be that such mitigation would inconveniently show that CO2 is not as catastrophic a problem as they want us to believe—as the continued rise of CO2 without warming suggests??

  33. @truth

    Mr “you can’t handle”, why don’t you go loop de loop somewhere else. Currently, the market is flooded so no one’s going long in stupidity. That’s it. Message. No one’s buying! On the way out don’t bite the messenger.

  34. Ha ve to add I love the “blame the poor third world”, “it’s all their fault” sentiment running through the tribute to truthiness!

    Wishful thinking! Where would we be without it?

    Ans : A lot better off.

  35. But. Special message for the hard of thinking. Nothing above suggests that black carbon reduction Is necessarily a bad thing.

  36. @truth

    Addressing black carbon (BC) emissions is a necessary, but not sufficient, response.

    From Skeptical Science:

    “It is important to emphasize that BC reduction can only help delay and not prevent unprecedented climate changes due to CO2 emissions.” (Ramanathan and Carmichael. Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon. Nature Geoscience (2008) vol. 1 (4) pp. 221-227)

    Your final statement “as the continued rise of CO2 without warming suggests??” is simply untrue, and belies your moniker.

  37. “The truth is rarely pure and never simple.” according to Oscar Wilde.

    @truth. Show us one ‘Sandstone’ Science establishment which does not take the relationship between CO2 emissions and the present significant temperature change on a global scale serious. More show us any of these establishments, such as CSIRO, NASA or any Academy of Sciences which does not rate the risk management aspects of above findings as extremely serious, only then we have some substance to argue your case.

    Your case here is as untenable as the case of Newman’s comparison of Queensland’s economy with those of Greece and Spain and claims of black holes. Given the scale of cuts and sackings as well as the fundamental policy changes the Newsman Government is endeavoring to undertake, then the lack of serious economic analyses and transparency at the heart of it is absolutely alarming. The arrogance is staggering, as well as the amateurish attempts in implementing the current regimes ideology clearly indicates, that the problems which do exist in this State’s public sector will not be addressed never mind solved.

  38. @truth

    Although I’m not a scientist, there are two issues in regards to Black Carbon (BC) worth consideration in my opinion.

    1. Agreeing the issue needs to be addressed, other than the conclusion quoted by David Jago #44 from Ramanathan and Carmichael. BC stays in the atmosphere for at most a week compared to CO2 which stays in the atomosphere for more than a century. If the world do decide to act on BC, the issue should be settled in a much short time compared to CO2.

    2. According to

    “Per capita emissions of black carbon from the United States and some European countries are still comparable to those from south Asia and east Asia,” Ramanathan said.

    The implication now arise on the difference how to reduce BC emission. According to Science Daily, “Countries in Europe and elsewhere that rely heavily on diesel fuel for transportation also contribute large amounts”

    have very different implications to

    “Between 25 and 35 percent of black carbon in the global atmosphere comes from China and India, emitted from the burning of wood and cow dung in household cooking and through the use of coal to heat homes.”

    The difference here is that diesel is a traded good which has a market price, as such, measures similar to Carbon Pricing on diesel or even trade restrictions can help to reduce majority of BC emission in developed countries and parts of Asia’s emission.

    The problem now arise in Asia, where a large proportion of its emission of BC comes from non-priced goods such as wood and cow dung for living purposes. It’s obvious they are used because the population in rural area could not afford to use much gas or electricity. However when they are not priced, it is not possible to use measures such as pricing or taxation. The only means to affect the the usage are:

    (1) Government put a market price on woods (tree branches and other flammable plant) and cow dungs.

    Workable? I don’t think so.

    (2) Government propose a ban on these actions and employ patrollers in all rural villages to overlook the compliance of the law.

    Workable? Depende on your opinion, but I don’t think so.

    (3) Government provide subsidies in all rural areas for usages of gas and electricity to the extent that the rural population can afford them.

    Workable? Maybe, but chances are very low.

    (4) Educate the rural population about AGW.

    Workable? It doesn’t mean they can afford what they can’t afford.

    How would you propose a workable way to reduce the burning of wood, flammable plants and cow dung for living purposes in those developing countries?

  39. @truth

    Could it be that such mitigation would inconveniently show that CO2 is not as catastrophic a problem as they want us to believe—as the continued rise of CO2 without warming suggests??

    Temperature is rising, CO2 is rising and people write rubbish like this as if it support a silly argument.

    Just like an eskey, the fun will start when the ice is gone. Look up latent heat if you want to know why an esky works, and why a system with ice can absorb extra heat for a while with only a small temperture change.

  40. @John Quiggin

    [Apologies John for triggering a climate change at 30 paces duel. It wasnt my intention.]

    To those of you arguing about black carbon, can I request we get back to politics which is what this thred was supposed to be about I think.

    My point was that the new Q government seems to want to return to the wild frontier of Jo and his mad development push and deny the environmental lessons and initiatives of the last 40 years many aspects which they themselves to their credit pushed in another time – as though nothing has changed. Put another way they have lept onto the electoral success equation environmental = green = labor = communist and it has yielded short term gains in the state where Australians want to be Australians.

    While this makes for great dog whistles and 8 second sound bites it regretably will push the economy and Australian society into a culdesac it will have to eventually dig itself out of because of changes in the bigger world beyond these shores and hence its something Queensland should not be doing – which I think is what this thred is supposed to be about.

    Regarding the Arctic melt, this is just the latest in a host of insults Queensland style unconstrained economic growth/ development keeps foisting on the earth and its not sustainable in any sane sense of that word. Other examples I could have used include population growth and fuel and energy costs which are just as disruptive. I used the Arctic example because its current, spectacular and the Australian press has been ignoring it.

    What these ‘future shocks’ pose is a fascinating dilemma of how to respond for politicians like Turnbull who see themselves as philosopher kings and long term thinkers. Do they hitch their star to current dog whistle politics or do they recognise that the rules of global game are changing and develop a completely different political profile in tune with rapidly changing reality but which could alienate them from their colleagues.

    Maybe Carr provides the model here for what a politician should and shouldnt do. He has never struck me as wanting the top job – yet he was installed in NSW as premier and remained untainted by its gutter politics – and in the future who knows.

  41. You are spot on Newtowian, this ‘restructuring’ of the Queensland public service, the budgetary position and rhetoric and/or ideology behind it have to be seen in the larger economic frame, wherein the emperor wears no cloths. Thus, it is a legitimate question to ask how our politicians, for our purpose the new State Government, factor in the consequences of a looming global financial defrocking as well as the pressure to decarbonise rapidly enough to save our collective bacon from sizzling. Early indicators of this new Govment do not look promising, to the degree that I get the impression such possibilities do not even feature on their radar screen, nevermind your ‘fascinating dilemma’. Whether that is due to ignorance, woful neglect or straight out malficient intent remains to be seen. There is a strong possibility of a lot of pain being broadly dished out without any collective gains in return.

  42. @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.

  43. @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’.

  44. 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.

  45. @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.

  46. @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.

  47. @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!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s