A fresh start to an important political year

PM Julia Gillard looks to the campaign ahead in 2013. AAP Image/SNPA, Ross Setford

May I start my introductory column for The Conversation with one not-so-bold prediction. This hung federal parliament – just the second in a century – is likely to be the last one we’ll see for a very long time.

With some notable exceptions, the Australian people usually speak fairly clearly at federal elections. Even when they don’t, the electoral system tends to produce a decisive result. It’s unlikely to be different on September 14.

What will be distinctive about this election is that the date is known so many months out. Of course, in a parliament where the unexpected is the expected, that could change – for instance, if Kevin Rudd were to achieve the Herculean challenge of seizing the leadership.

But on present settings, election year already has its structure and, notwithstanding Julia Gillard’s optimistic declaration that this was not the start of the campaign, everyone is on the hustings.

The hung parliament has been a paradox. On the one hand a lot of policy work has been done or at least started. The price on carbon, operating now for more than half a year, is an historic reform, of the magnitude of John Howard’s introduction of the GST – though whether it survives as the GST did is another matter. There is a mining tax on super profits, albeit not raising much revenue.

A beginning has been made on a National Disability Insurance Scheme; some rate such a scheme, when it is operating, as a reform that will be comparable to Medicare. The government is moving to get a new funding system for schools in place, along the lines of the Gonski recommendations.

Yet in the public mind this parliament has been largely defined by noise and nastiness, to an extent that many people just want to close their ears until it is over. The closeness of the numbers, the feeling that there could be a sudden election, a certain desperation on both sides, have soured debate.

This parliament has given crossbenchers in the House of Representatives the sort of power usually only accorded to crossbench senators. It is a matter of argument whether that is the system at its most democratic or its most dysfunctional.

How much of the bitterness of the past two years flows into the election campaign remains to be seen. But regardless of tone, one thing is clear: this campaign will be policy heavy. There will be big issues at stake, both economic and social.

Most obvious is whether carbon pricing continues. Tony Abbott has promised he would, if necessary, go to a double dissolution to secure its end. If he ever welshed on his pledge to repeal the carbon tax, it would be the doozy of all broken promises. Abbott has also undertaken to repeal the mining tax. The Coalition doesn’t support the Gonski education changes. Economic management, border protection, industrial relations and broadband will all be centres of policy contention. (At least the NDIS has bipartisan support.)

In recent times there have been calls for greater media focus on these policy issues and less on the political contest. But it’s not a case of just doing one or the other. In my writing for The Conversation, I will of course be concerned with the “horse race” aspect of the contest. After all, the “horses” carry the policies – who is first past the post will determine the shape of the future. As Paul Keating said, “when the government changes, the country changes.”

But at The Conversation, which draws on the talents of academic experts all over the country, we are also especially looking at the politics of the next few months through the prism of policy, and my writing will have an emphasis on that as well.

The Conversation generally will be asking tough questions on policy and how the parties measure up. I hope to receive feedback from readers on policy questions of interest.

As well as being chief political correspondent for The Conversation I will be a professorial fellow at the University of Canberra. One of the projects the university is considering is a bird’s-eye study of the bellwether seat of Eden-Monaro which we would report on through The Conversation.

The Conversation is increasing its real time political coverage just when the diversity of political reporting is contracting in the mainstream media. Economic pressures are partly but not entirely to blame.

But the result is clear. The increasing tendency in recent years is to have one reporter write news on a subject across a number of mastheads.

I believe that it is as important to have multiple voices reporting news as it is to have many voices in commentary. On occasion what is “fact” and the weight that should be given to particular pieces of information in a story can be as disputed as opinions based on the facts. And the more competition there is in the searching out of facts, the more the community will know. My writing for The Conversation will also include news.

I reckon this is going to be a fantastic year for following and reporting politics. We should not be cynical or put off by the less attractive aspects. We have a robust democracy, even if aspects of it can try the patience sometimes. Technology has enabled those in the media, old and new, and their readers to have a degree of interaction that could not have been dreamed of a couple of decades ago.

Let us indeed help to make 2013 a year of meaningful conversation.

305 Comments

You are free to republish this article both online and in print, as long as you follow some simple guidelines, which are summarised here:

Unless you have express permission from the author, you can’t edit our material, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. To make material edits contact us
You have to credit our authors and partner institutions — ideally in the byline.
You have to credit The Conversation — ideally at the top of the article and include our logo — with a link back to either our home page, The Conversation, or (preferably) the specific article URL on The Conversation website.
If space is tight, you can run the first few lines of the article and then say: “Read the full article at The Conversation” with a link back to the article page on our site.
If you’re republishing online, you must use our page view counter, link to us, and include links from our story.
It’s okay to put our articles on pages with ads, but you can’t sell our material separately.
You have to confirm that you're licensed to republish images in our articles. Some sources, such as AAP, don't allow their images to be republished without permission.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Feed

Join the conversation

305 Comments sorted by

Iain Davidson

Archaeologist

What a refreshing piece. Many of your pieces for the Age or the ABC have focussed more on the negative aspects of the Government, yet here you identify the big policy issues they have tackled. More of that, and the arena might become a little more bearable to the general public. It seems to me that the impact of the hung parliament has been seen in two areas. First, the Opposition has thought that it could gain government at any time so it has opposed everything rather mindlessly to keep the…
Read more

What a refreshing piece. Many of your pieces for the Age or the ABC have focussed more on the negative aspects of the Government, yet here you identify the big policy issues they have tackled. More of that, and the arena might become a little more bearable to the general public. It seems to me that the impact of the hung parliament has been seen in two areas. First, the Opposition has thought that it could gain government at any time so it has opposed everything rather mindlessly to keep the pressure on. That is why an outcome that brought Abbott to Government would be committed to wreck all of the good policy of this Government. Your story needs to point that out. Second, the constant opposition, and the media's kowtowing to it, has created a really toxic atmosphere around politics. (And granted, the Government should take some of the blame because they have to respond.) This has turned people off attending to the policy issues. Because of the media bias, the simplest option is to blame the Government for this atmosphere. But when someone with your stature points to the achievements of the Government, against what some people thought would be possible, the whole playing field changes. It could, indeed, be an interesting year under such circumstances and not just one that turns voters off.
Of course, what is also needed is some good journalism which would get across the message that climate change is real and that measures such as the carbon tax need to be strengthened rather than weakened in order to make progress in minimising it. Something like this blog would be good: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/02/10/finding-nemo/

4 months ago report
1. Michael Shand
  
  Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Software Tester
  
  In reply to Iain Davidson
  
  Completely agree about the Carbon Tax, if you dont think Climate Change is real then Of Course you would vote to repeal the carbon tax, it only makes sense. We need to educate people so that they realise the harm this is doing and the media are the ones with the real power to affect that change
  
  4 months ago report
2. Dave Clayden
  
  Developer
  
  In reply to Michael Shand
  
  Who doesn't think "think Climate Change is real"?
  It is perfectly clear that denial in the highly organised and funded sense only exists in the USA, Canada and Australia and that even the LNP does not buy into the scam.
  The LNP has its own policy in the form of the cost inefficient DAP a huge new tax to subsidise polluters, so your post seems to fly in the face of reality twice.
  
  4 months ago report
3. Michael Shand
  
  Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Software Tester
  
  In reply to Dave Clayden
  
  "Who doesn't think "think Climate Change is real"? " - A large number of people actually
  
  "LNP has its own policy in the form of the cost inefficient DAP a huge new tax to subsidise polluters" - What are you talking about? this is off topic and really wierd
  
  Me thinks you are after someone to argue with rather than an actual discussion
  
  4 months ago report
4. susan walton
  
  logged in via email @live.com.au
  
  In reply to Iain Davidson
  
  Whether a reporter is partisan or not depends on who the reader is going for..Labor or the Coalition.
  
  It is the oppositions job to hold the government to account, and accountability is something this particular Labor government has roughshod over.
  
  It would be interesting to know exactly what great policies this government has implemented, funded fully..is operational and working fine.
  
  Our borders are out of control, the NDIS has has so much flak surrounding it, most people are just rolling…
  Read more
  
  Whether a reporter is partisan or not depends on who the reader is going for..Labor or the Coalition.
  
  It is the oppositions job to hold the government to account, and accountability is something this particular Labor government has roughshod over.
  
  It would be interesting to know exactly what great policies this government has implemented, funded fully..is operational and working fine.
  
  Our borders are out of control, the NDIS has has so much flak surrounding it, most people are just rolling their eyes..same with the NBN. The NBN has blown right out of proportion money wise, is way behind schedule and in my electorate and dozens of others are not even due to start for at least 3 years. Suddenly slamming the states with the NDIS when they've already tabled their budgets was just plain disgusting..the NDIS is not disgusting..but the rhetoric surrounding it certainly was! nothing is straight forward with Ms Gillard.
  
  The scandals surrounding brand Labor are unbelievable! the backstabbing of Rudd, McCelland, Crossin and Henry Jenkins are awful. The Slipper and Thomson affairs.
  
  The Obeid business in NSW, the AWA affair with Gillard, Wilson and Blewitt, the HSU debacle..all Labor failings. The corruption in unbelievable..the likes of which I've never seen before.
  
  Climate change! true or not..the carbon tax was based on a direct lie, does nothing for the environment and is merely a money go round which cost billions in handouts...all borrowed money, I doubt the countries debt will be paid off in my lifetime. Not important? yet both Gillard and Swann touted this furiously over the past 3 years..
  
  Labor's list of failures, lies and corruption is just way too long to forgive.
  
  4 months ago report
5. David Doe
  
  Videogame Producer
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  Ladies and gentlemen, a News Ltd consumer in the wild.
  
  You speak of "going for" as if this were a sporting event. People "go for" policies, not parties. Those that do otherwise need to have a good hard look at themselves in the mirror.
  
  It is not the opposition's job to hold the government to account, it is the media's job to do that. It is the opposition's job to provide a clear and reasonable alternative to the government of the day.
  
  I doubt there would be a single policy that would you…
  Read more
  
  Ladies and gentlemen, a News Ltd consumer in the wild.
  
  You speak of "going for" as if this were a sporting event. People "go for" policies, not parties. Those that do otherwise need to have a good hard look at themselves in the mirror.
  
  It is not the opposition's job to hold the government to account, it is the media's job to do that. It is the opposition's job to provide a clear and reasonable alternative to the government of the day.
  
  I doubt there would be a single policy that would you credit as operational, working and fully-funded, so a discussion on these would be pointless.
  
  Think of the NBN as the electrification project of this century. Do you remember what happened to the party that opposed electrification? You do use electricity, don't you? If you oppose the NBN, you oppose the opportunity for Australians to be able to compete globally in an increasingly monetised information economy.
  
  The Slipper affair is none of the ALP's business, seeing as he was an LNP member who, treated unfavourably by the party, left to achieve ambition, and managed to broadside the people he clearly detested at the same time. A coup for Peter Slipper. His personal life has nothing to do with the government of the day, save from being an expedient way for the media to tar it with an excessively broad brush. Say... What was the outcome of that investigation anyway?
  
  Thomson I will give you, but perhaps you could explain to me exactly what the problem is, as I fear you might just have a case of confected generalised outrage without knowing the specifics.
  
  And the coup de grace, raising the question that climate change may or may not be real.
  
  Congratulations, you're officially a News Limited voter.
  
  4 months ago report
6. Tony Grant
  
  Student
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  You don't read like the type that would be interested in the long term interests on this country..."your self-interest" is part of the boomer/pre-boomer style of older Australians!
  
  You don't read broadly, because it would upset your small view of the world!
  
  If Howard would have introduced the "MRRT" this nation would have been "crash-proof" and this conversation would not be happening?
  
  The previous government gave away "lollies" to all the kiddies, well, mostly those that didn't need the…
  Read more
  
  You don't read like the type that would be interested in the long term interests on this country..."your self-interest" is part of the boomer/pre-boomer style of older Australians!
  
  You don't read broadly, because it would upset your small view of the world!
  
  If Howard would have introduced the "MRRT" this nation would have been "crash-proof" and this conversation would not be happening?
  
  The previous government gave away "lollies" to all the kiddies, well, mostly those that didn't need the extra "calories" and put nothing into setting this nation up for "long term prosperity"...INFRASTRUCTURE!
  
  As for border security.. I would encourage young people not to work in the field of "geriatrics" whether it be medicine or related fields, then we will see if in your "nursing home days" you still want the "borders closed" as these "queue jumpers" maybe the only people that will work in "aged care"...the children want their inheritance, oh, not to forget the grandchildren...they love grandma'(s) assets even more?
  
  4 months ago report
7. David Stephens
  
  Writer and activist
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  Tp pick out one point from this farrago: to which debt are you referring Susan? Public (the one that Costello bragged about paying off) or private (the one we are racking up on plastic and the one we have to pay off ourselves, as individuals?Do you know what proportion of public debt to GDP Australia has compared with other countries?
  
  4 months ago report
8. Michael Shand
  
  Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Software Tester
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  "Climate change! true or not.." - Really?
  
  4 months ago report
9. Paul Savage
  
  Theme Leader, Biotechnology at CSIRO
  
  In reply to Michael Shand
  
  Sure climate change is real, but the real worrying trend is that the current Government's rhetoric seems to be: "we've introduced carbon pricing, job done, climate change is fixed." Nothing is further from the truth. Merely increasing our electricity bills not have much of an impact on climate change. It really is just another tax -- like the GST, which had little impact on consumerism. While carbon pricing is hailed by some (even it seems, begrudgingly, by Michelle Grattan) as a policy victory…
  Read more
  
  Sure climate change is real, but the real worrying trend is that the current Government's rhetoric seems to be: "we've introduced carbon pricing, job done, climate change is fixed." Nothing is further from the truth. Merely increasing our electricity bills not have much of an impact on climate change. It really is just another tax -- like the GST, which had little impact on consumerism. While carbon pricing is hailed by some (even it seems, begrudgingly, by Michelle Grattan) as a policy victory it probably will not achieve any environmental outcome. The reality is that carbon pricing is just another broad-based tax... which in itself is fine by me, so long as the revenue raised is invested in carbon-reducing technologies and research, but not if it just goes into consolidated government revenue or to fritter away on wasteful programs.
  
  During the coming campaign you will see the Prime Minister boast about introducing carbon pricing legislation *as if it is significant in tackling climate change*. Don't fall for it -- the ETS is significant but just in and of itself it will not stop or reverse the damage.
  
  4 months ago report
10. Michael Shand
  
  Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Software Tester
  
  In reply to Paul Savage
  
  I agree with you that the carbon tax in and of itself is not enough and we need to do more and I agree that it is a problem if we rest on our laurals based on passing the carbon tax alone
  
  But this is not what I am suggesting is it?
  
  I agree that if the governments rhetoric is "We did carbon tax, thats enough.." - then we should be vocal and tell them its not
  
  The answer to this problem is not slagging off the carbon tax but rather praising the policy for being forward thinking and pushing for more
  
  the attitude of "Because they havent done everything I want therfor nothing they do can receive any positive attention" is nonsense and self-defeating
  
  Also, the GST is fine mate, I grew up never not having a GST and its fine, its not a problem, GST in NZ is 12.5% and always has been as long as I can remember - whats the issue here
  
  4 months ago report
11. Michael Shand
  
  Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Software Tester
  
  In reply to Paul Savage
  
  Sorry, I didnt catch this the first time I read your comment;
  
  "h in itself is fine by me, so long as the revenue raised is invested in carbon-reducing technologies and research, but not if it just goes into consolidated government revenue or to fritter away on wasteful programs"
  
  You might be misinformed about what the Carbon Tax does and where the money goes, that or your being extermely hyperbolic
  
  4 months ago report
12. Paul Savage
  
  Theme Leader, Biotechnology at CSIRO
  
  In reply to Michael Shand
  
  I agree, there's noting wrong with the GST. I didn't mean to imply that I thought there was, if that's what you took away from my comment. And I also agree that not doing enough on climate change does not mean that carbon pricing is necessarily a bad thing, I never suggested otherwise. Generally speaking I'm in favour of broad-based consumption taxes, of which carbon pricing clearly is an example.
  
  My whole point is that the government *is* very much resting on laurels with carbon pricing. Ms Gillard has stated several times that her government has "addressed climate change" with their wonderful carbon pricing legislation, and with all the air of a job done and dusted. We shouldn't allow that to go unchallenged.
  
  4 months ago report
13. Michael Shand
  
  Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Software Tester
  
  In reply to Paul Savage
  
  Yeah, I agree to some extent but I feel waht you are doing is ignoring other factors. Yes GIllards ultimately responsible but lets look at what situation they are in;
  
  We have huge lobby groups crying about how unfair the tax is and it needs to be reduced or else cripple our economy
  
  We have an opposition leader leading in the polls and standing on a platform of repealing the carbon tax
  
  We have media that is largely ignoring or mis-reporting the issue
  
  We have a government that has lowered…
  Read more
  
  Yeah, I agree to some extent but I feel waht you are doing is ignoring other factors. Yes GIllards ultimately responsible but lets look at what situation they are in;
  
  We have huge lobby groups crying about how unfair the tax is and it needs to be reduced or else cripple our economy
  
  We have an opposition leader leading in the polls and standing on a platform of repealing the carbon tax
  
  We have media that is largely ignoring or mis-reporting the issue
  
  We have a government that has lowered the price on carbon already - to alleviate preassure from various groups stated above
  
  The solution to this is not knocking Labor for introducing a Carbon Tax
  
  To me its like when Obama stated his personal support for same sex marrige - no its not enough, its not even policy let alone good or bad policy BUT the solution to this is not to criticise Obama for making his statement
  
  The answer is to show support for him for making that statement and like you said demand more
  
  I just dont see how criticising Labor for the Carbon Tax is helping and demanding that those that do be silent because Labor hasnt done enough is definitely not helping
  
  4 months ago report
14. Dave Clayden
  
  Developer
  
  In reply to Michael Shand
  
  Michael, if reality is such a stranger to you I am surprised you have found your way here.
  Hardly a sole out side the business funded tentacles of the Heartland Institute believes a word of denial and in fact of course those people don't believe it either as the actual point of denial is the protection of business form legal responsibility exactly paralleling the actions of many of the same people defending the tobacco industry.
  
  4 months ago report
15. Dave Clayden
  
  Developer
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  I see this place is immediately descending to the 9th cirlce of hell as the political muppets find another spot to vent.
  Discussion is as dead as the brains involved.
  
  4 months ago report
16. Michael Shand
  
  Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Software Tester
  
  In reply to Dave Clayden
  
  "Hardly a sole out side the business funded tentacles of the Heartland Institute believes a word of denial" - So this is what we refer to as a Bubble.
  
  We all have our own little bubbles were we think "No one I know thinks this.....therefor no one thinks this"
  
  I work with many smart, educated and well off individuals who actively believe that Climate Change is either not real, not human caused or not a problem.
  
  Infact when I introduced one of them to the NASA website with all the Satilite information about Temp and Sea Level - they told me NASA was unscientific because they only presented one side of the argument.....sigh*
  
  Dont get too caught up in your own bubble mate, many many people are in denial about the Climate, I wouldnt think the majority but definitely a loud minority are in denial....dont be in denial about that
  
  4 months ago report
17. susan walton
  
  logged in via email @live.com.au
  
  In reply to Dave Clayden
  
  Dave Clayden is a name used with much ferocity on Julia Gillards fb page, so I can only assume you are the same person...always attacking and belittling because obviously, it's your way or the highway.
  
  I would suggest political muppet refers to yourself more than myself..but your nastiness shines through as usual.
  
  4 months ago report
18. susan walton
  
  logged in via email @live.com.au
  
  In reply to Michael Shand
  
  I've no intention of wading into the climate change debate..I do, however, believe..as do thousands of others..that the way this was implemented and the uselessness of it in questionable.
  
  There are scores of stories out there that believe this, it boils down to what one wants to believe. However, to drive poor farmers off their lands for a money grab at carbon credits proves, to me, that the whole idea is in poor form.
  
  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/21/oh-thats-gonna-leave-a-mark-eu-carbon-trading-worthless/
  
  http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/09/carbon-credits-drive-brutal-land-grab/
  
  4 months ago report
19. susan walton
  
  logged in via email @live.com.au
  
  In reply to Tony Grant
  
  You, SIR, are out of line!
  
  I read very, very broadly and owned my own business for 15 years and am now looking at other business's to buy..I am in a financial position to do this as having bought a very run down newsagency and post office at age 32 and turned into a very lucrative going concern! My husband is a coal mining engineer which also gives me freedom from financial bothers.
  
  My view of the world and the people in it are wide and varied..yours, obviously..are tinged with more than a small amount of rudeness, shallowness, judemental and opinionated opinions.
  
  You have no idea how to converse...you did not address one thing I spoke about, you simply attacked. Disgusting!
  
  4 months ago report
20. susan walton
  
  logged in via email @live.com.au
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  ps..I believe the word you are looking for is SOUL...not sole, which is that piece of skin at the bottom of your foot...I suggest you take your foot out of your mouth in this case.
  
  4 months ago report
21. susan walton
  
  logged in via email @live.com.au
  
  In reply to David Doe
  
  A News Ltd consumer? oh please! I read the political articles on every newspaper going..it's an easy thing to do with the internet. I also read getup and crikey and various other political blogs..I read the Drum every day.
  
  As the the phrase 'going for'...what a desperate phrase to pick on!
  
  4 months ago report
22. Michael Shand
  
  Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Software Tester
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  I agree driving famers off their land as a grab for cash is bad.....what does that have to do with the carbon tax though?
  
  4 months ago report
23. susan walton
  
  logged in via email @live.com.au
  
  In reply to Paul Savage
  
  Thank you Paul...your post is one I relate to, and one I wholly agree with.
  
  4 months ago report
24. susan walton
  
  logged in via email @live.com.au
  
  In reply to Michael Shand
  
  This....
  
  http://www.prisonplanet.com/armed-troops-burn-down-homes-kill-children-to-evict-ugandans-in-name-of-global-warming.html
  
  4 months ago report
25. Michael Shand
  
  Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Software Tester
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  Susan, your coming off a little conspiratorial
  
  My question is simple, what does Australians Carbon Tax have to do with stealing farmers land as a grab for cash in other countries?
  
  4 months ago report
26. susan walton
  
  logged in via email @live.com.au
  
  In reply to Michael Shand
  
  This article explains....we will be buying our carbon credits from these countries in the future..the other thing re the carbon tax that bothers me is in this link...it appears to be a failed venture from everything I've read. If someone can point out that it isn't..I'm perfectly willing to read..
  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/21/oh-thats-gonna-leave-a-mark-eu-carbon-trading-worthless/
  
  "A key element of Prime Minister Julia Gillard's carbon tax policy is designed to ensure that Australia…
  Read more
  
  This article explains....we will be buying our carbon credits from these countries in the future..the other thing re the carbon tax that bothers me is in this link...it appears to be a failed venture from everything I've read. If someone can point out that it isn't..I'm perfectly willing to read..
  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/21/oh-thats-gonna-leave-a-mark-eu-carbon-trading-worthless/
  
  "A key element of Prime Minister Julia Gillard's carbon tax policy is designed to ensure that Australia reaches the target of a 5 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, not by cutting that volume in emissions from Australia, but by purchasing carbon credit offsets from other countries.
  
  When asked recently about the purchase of offshore permits Julia Gillard said: "Yes, this is going to be an internationally-linked scheme, and so it should be."
  
  Deloittes Australia has warned that carbon credit fraud is "the white collar crime of the future".
  
  It is alarming that the Prime Minister has given no indication that she is aware or has any understanding of the recent history of the operations of international carbon credit markets.
  
  Just six weeks ago, the World Bank reported that the international market in carbon credits has suffered a debilitating collapse and expressed doubt about the ongoing viability of global markets.
  
  Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/the-bishops-gambit/carbon-offsets-have-already-run-out-of-credit-20110720-1hnmv.html#ixzz2KYCYvy3K
  
  4 months ago report
27. Helen Errington
  
  logged in via email @iinet.net.au
  
  In reply to David Doe
  
  Well said David.
  
  4 months ago report
28. Stuart Eley
  
  logged in via email @gmail.com
  
  In reply to Dave Clayden
  
  See http://theconversation.edu.au/i-can-change-your-mind-about-other-peoples-minds-about-climate-change-6886
  You'll notice that the proportion that deny, don't know or think it is natural is larger than those who believe it is happening and human induced. That majority would obviously prefer no action on CO2 reduction, but maybe impact mitigation.
  
  4 months ago report
29. Sally Boteler
  
  customer service officer at health & leisure
  
  In reply to Paul Savage
  
  Pricing carbon was not instigated to solve climate change problems, it is a driver of change across industry, business and government.
  The change required is monumentally huge and needs, globally, to happen very fast, but the signs here in our corner are that the scheme is beginning to have the predicted and required effects.
  That is a positive, and so are the other measures put in place, and all at minimal cost to the public - especially on those with lower incomes.
  And of course new measures will need to continue being introduced, but the Opposition's plans certainly don't appear to have anything to recommend them as they stand.
  
  4 months ago report
30. Michael Shand
  
  Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Software Tester
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  So you are confusing and conflating 2 entirely different topics yeah?
  
  Admittedly your are doing this
  
  Your against Carbon Credits.....you havent presented any argument against the carbon tax except your own lack of knowledge.
  
  I might agree with you about Carbon Credits....that is entirely different from the Carbon Tax......so do you really not understand this or are you intentionally being deceptive?
  
  4 months ago report
31. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  Like you I have no intention wattsoever of rekindling the tis/tisn't climate slanging match.
  
  But heck mate, using Julie "Death Stare" Bishop as a source of information is most dangerous.
  
  To illustrate:
  
  Julie states: "It appears that 90 per cent of trades in the European Union emissions trading system were fraudulent, resulting in a loss to European taxpayers of more than $6.6 billion."
  
  Now what the Europol report actually stated was: " It is estimated that in some countries, up to 90…
  Read more
  
  Like you I have no intention wattsoever of rekindling the tis/tisn't climate slanging match.
  
  But heck mate, using Julie "Death Stare" Bishop as a source of information is most dangerous.
  
  To illustrate:
  
  Julie states: "It appears that 90 per cent of trades in the European Union emissions trading system were fraudulent, resulting in a loss to European taxpayers of more than $6.6 billion."
  
  Now what the Europol report actually stated was: " It is estimated that in some countries, up to 90% of the whole market volume was caused by fraudulent activities."
  
  Now there's a subtle difference there don't you think? But Julie has just extrapolated the role of organised crime in "some countries" to Europe as a whole.
  
  Never trust anyone who doesn't put links to the source articles in their pieces Susan - they're covering things up.
  
  Just in case you think that was an "honest mistake" - she does it again.
  
  Here's Julie: "On December 28, 2010, the European law enforcement agency EuroPol issued a media release about extensive defrauding of the European Union emissions trading system."
  
  No they didn't actually. They arrested 100 organised crims in Italy for cheating the Italian government out of VAT payments from emissions trading. It was not the ETS being defrauded but the national governments of Britain and Italy.
  
  Read all about it: https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/press/further-investigations-vat-fraud-linked-carbon-emissions-trading-system-641
  
  She just makes stuff up.
  
  Still what can one expect from a woman who made her name fighting the claims of asbestos victims.
  
  Now all that aside, I reckon there are still a lot of issues about carbon credits - how we measure them, from when, for what- very complex and a lot of it involving science. Needs work but can be done. Though not necessarily in the technically precise and comprehensive manner we might prefer.
  
  4 months ago report
32. Tony Grant
  
  Student
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  It's your mindset, not your work ethic...you could read the world over and it would still be SSDD!
  
  4 months ago report
33. Dianna Arthur
  
  Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Environmentalist
  
  In reply to Sally Boteler
  
  "And of course new measures will need to continue being introduced, but the Opposition's plans certainly don't appear to have anything to recommend them as they stand."
  
  Prize for understatement of the year is on its way, Sally (a nice little something from the IPA courtesy of the Heartland Institute).
  
  4 months ago report
34. Marilyn Shepherd
  
  pensioner
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  Our borders are not out of control, do you seriously believe the hysteria over the arrival of refugees on an island 2,600 km from the mainland is out of control?
  
  All those refugees come to the mainland on Australian jumbo jets, they are allowed to come here under our laws and there is no loss of control when they are watched from the time they leave Indonesia.
  
  Fair dinkum, why do you believe the nonsense.
  
  4 months ago report
35. Grendelus Malleolus
  
  Senior Nerd
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  A UK Carbon Credit company did a bad thing? and this means anyone who accepts that global warming is real and that we are the cause of some measure of it is also bad?
  
  Even if that false equivilency had merit why would you use Prison Planet as a source when you can go to the Oxfam report itself - it is a far better source. The company involved has provided a rebuttal - but I think it lacks the level of governance and transparency that one would want to see in any industry.
  
  I do find it interesting…
  Read more
  
  A UK Carbon Credit company did a bad thing? and this means anyone who accepts that global warming is real and that we are the cause of some measure of it is also bad?
  
  Even if that false equivilency had merit why would you use Prison Planet as a source when you can go to the Oxfam report itself - it is a far better source. The company involved has provided a rebuttal - but I think it lacks the level of governance and transparency that one would want to see in any industry.
  
  I do find it interesting that Prison Planet are more than happy to use Oxfam as a source when they publish a report into one company's malfeasance but totally reject Oxfam's view of the need for climate change action. For example, Prison Planet state "Climate change alarmism and implementation of global warming policies is a crime of the highest nature" twisting the intent of Oxfam's campaign against the way that biofuels are making food unaffordable for poor countries.
  
  Prison Planet is not a reliable source - they are tertiary commentry at best and manipulative at worst. Go to the origanal sources they cite and you may be far better served.
  
  4 months ago report
36. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  susan walton wrote:
  "There are scores of stories out there that believe this...... " Using 'stories' written by neoliberal think tank lobbyists or groupies, appears desperate as the bias is evident. Critical thinking is taught in universities routinely to students, admittedly biases can come through, even so the goal is balance. "Think Tank" references are better suited to the general media, crikey, the age, fin review, smh, etc.ctc. However posting sources provides a window into some of your values, that is appreciated.
  susan walton wrote:" I've no intention of wading into the climate change debate ...." That is an interesting comment. Look forward to the value system becoming clearer in time. Understood all your writing clearly and the values are emerging, thanks.
  
  4 months ago report
37. Peter Blackwell
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Dave Clayden
  
  To the extent it is forced down our throats with at best half truths and fiction to justify - ME !
  
  4 months ago report
38. John Phillip
  
  John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Grumpy Old Man
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  Well said Susan. The proof of the veracity of your argument is supported by the vitriol directed your way by the looney left commentators below. Talk about denial...
  
  4 months ago report
39. John Phillip
  
  John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Grumpy Old Man
  
  In reply to David Doe
  
  Ladies and gentlemen, a looney left, Labor apologist in the wild...David, with your obvious bias towards the ALP, I doubt whether you could honestly assess the efficacy of labor's policies in the Gillard years. Thankfully, I dont think we'll have to put up with their corruption and incompetence after September.
  
  4 months ago report
40. Barbara Cain
  
  logged in via Twitter
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  Perhaps you should read Michelle's column again! Surely constructive opposition is what we looked for - particularly in a hung parliament. How many of us wanted to return to the poling booth immediately after such an indecisive conclusion. It is so easy to cast doubt on anything - we need vision for a new world is unfolding.
  
  4 months ago report
41. Venise Alstergren
  
  Venise Alstergren is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  photographer, blogger.
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  Dear Mr Rupert Murdoch,
  
  Kindly leave the internet media alone. You have screwed the MSM with your pitiless hatred of Julia Gillard, and her government. You have reduced your readers to their lowest common denominator, by feeding them tripe, footy and fashion trends. You have brought Australia to its lowest intellectual level in history. You have destroyed the reputation of the press, both here and overseas. And you have ensured Australia will be taken back to the 1950s under a Bob Santamaria think-alike.
  
  If all of the above wasn't enough you have engaged the services of Ms Walton to write semi-literate comments on-line. Grow up, Mr Murdoch, not even you can have it all.
  
  4 months ago report
42. susan walton
  
  logged in via email @live.com.au
  
  In reply to Venise Alstergren
  
  Don't be so stupid! The pitiless hatred of Gillard has nothing to do with Murdoch, and everything to do with the type of leader she has been..simply awful!
  
  Labor faithfuls can swarm onto articles such a this and back her all they want..the truth remains that as a government, this particular one has failed, in every way imaginable. As the polls show!
  
  Their inhouse fighting, the union corruption..the lies re the carbon tax and the surplus alone are enough to make most realise this.
  
  As for being employed by Murdoch..what a desperate thing to say..laughable actually! I think it's the likes of you that need to grow up.
  
  4 months ago report
43. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  susan walton wrote : "Labor faithfuls can swarm onto articles such a this and back her all they want..the truth remains.... " Such vitriole, worthy of a neoliberal groupie from either major party. Go girl.
  
  4 months ago report
44. susan walton
  
  logged in via email @live.com.au
  
  In reply to Paul Richards
  
  Intelligent disagreements I can appreciate and understand..stupid personal attacks are just that..stupid and personal.
  
  I believe and understand what I see, read and hear..the believing is how one's mind deciphers.
  Very rarely do I read a Labor voter's post anywhere that instils in me an admiration of this particular labor government..and I have voted Labor in the past. In 2007 I voted Labor with a belief that Labor had changed from the drunken Hawke and socially inept Keating days..but I was…
  Read more
  
  Intelligent disagreements I can appreciate and understand..stupid personal attacks are just that..stupid and personal.
  
  I believe and understand what I see, read and hear..the believing is how one's mind deciphers.
  Very rarely do I read a Labor voter's post anywhere that instils in me an admiration of this particular labor government..and I have voted Labor in the past. In 2007 I voted Labor with a belief that Labor had changed from the drunken Hawke and socially inept Keating days..but I was wrong.
  
  The first attack on Rudd, I could understand to a degree..the 2nd challenge and the revolting way Labor politicians came out against him shocked and upset me..not because of I wanted him back, simply because there was no need, he was never going to win and everyone knew that..the hate and vitriol leveled against him by his own team was simply disgusting. Yes..I have ethics, and expect no less in the politicians, not that I see it..but I still do expect it!
  
  The list of Labor's failings are huge..the Timor business was another really ridiculous scenario..the Malaysian deal, grocery watch, cash for clunkers, citizen's assemblies..the failed Miner's Tax, the surplus nonsense! on and on it goes. New day, new drama..and I've only mentioned a few of them.
  
  I don't only read these things in Murdoch papers..I read them on the ABC, and every Fairfax paper online..the only paper I have delivered to my home is a Fairfax paper. To suggest Murdoch controls our thoughts and the news is just silly.
  
  4 months ago report
45. Jillian Carroll
  
  PhD student at Victoria University
  
  In reply to David Doe
  
  Yes, Thank God somebody has seen through Tony Abbot's self definition of the role of the opposition ass i think through constant repitition people were beginning to fall for this slight of hand i.e redefine the role of everything to your own liking.
  
  4 months ago report
46. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  susan walton wrote: " ..... stupid personal attacks are just that..stupid" hmmm....
  "Don't be so stupid! ..... " wrote about Venise Alstergren's comment on Rupert Murdoch influencing editorial comment personally.
  Anyones opinion is theirs, the stupidity of the statement is subjective and based on an observers values. That does not make a comment unintelligent, just limited to their value system.
  It is interesting you did not deny being employed by the Murdoch group. If you are, you will be aware…
  Read more
  
  susan walton wrote: " ..... stupid personal attacks are just that..stupid" hmmm....
  "Don't be so stupid! ..... " wrote about Venise Alstergren's comment on Rupert Murdoch influencing editorial comment personally.
  Anyones opinion is theirs, the stupidity of the statement is subjective and based on an observers values. That does not make a comment unintelligent, just limited to their value system.
  It is interesting you did not deny being employed by the Murdoch group. If you are, you will be aware Rupert Murdoch has carefully crafted the culture and does not 'need' to personally "control[s] our thoughts and the news". It is known in the media as the 'Murdoch style', because of this he is able to stand off hands clean and confidently say of employee behaviour over the British phone hacking scandal; "I feel that people I trusted - I don't know who, on what level - have let me down, and I think they have behaved disgracefully, and it's for them to pay. And I think, frankly, that I'm the best person to see it through." Brilliant business strategy, absolutely no responsibility accepted, its not me its them. But utterly transparent.
  The Economist describes Murdoch as "inventing the modern tabloid". If you still believe Rupert Murdoch's carefully crafted culture is not influential globally go right ahead defend it, no offence taken here. All good.
  But why do you have the need to defend the influence of media on the political centre of gravity?
  Why do feel the need to attack stories contrary to your values, if the media does not "control[s] our thoughts and the news"?
  
  4 months ago report
47. Dianna Arthur
  
  Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Environmentalist
  
  In reply to Paul Richards
  
  Thank you, Paul, for presenting an mature response to Ms Walton's subjective POV.
  
  4 months ago report
48. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Dianna Arthur
  
  You offered to supply me a list of peer reviewed publications to support your position. Instead, you sent a series of links to old brochures. There is a big difference. I'll consider the matter closed unless you can deliver what you offered.
  
  4 months ago report
49. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Paul Richards
  
  Paul,
  We would be better able to evaluate your comments if you indicated the mechanism by which you feel free to see inside the thinking of Mr Murdoch. Are you a close acquaintance, or are your opinions a compendium of the writings of others whose information might in turn be less than objective? Or somewhere between? Just how do you see yourself as specially qualified to write what you did above?
  
  4 months ago report
50. Jack Arnold
  
  Director
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  A good comment Susan, but the hard reality is that Murdoch does control our thoughts & the news.
  
  In 1972 my late mother was at the editorial desk of the Sydney Daily Mirror when Rupert swept in and stated,"I don't care what you say about MacMahon, make him look bad". The success of this strategy was the Whitlam government.
  
  Since 1974 after being called to account before the Senate bar, Murdoch has used this sane strategy across the News Ltd empire, with devastating political effect.
  
  4 months ago report
51. Jack Arnold
  
  Director
  
  In reply to Paul Richards
  
  Paul, this strategy was also used at the Sydney Daily Telegraph by both the late Sir Frank & Kerry Packer.
  
  If journalists wanted to keep their jobs, they "self censored" by asking "Is this article in the best interests of the Packer family?"
  
  Aljazerra English operates with the same constraint on the Qatar Royal Family that sponsors all the Aljazerra news services.
  
  4 months ago report
52. Dianna Arthur
  
  Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Environmentalist
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  I have provided current links to legitimate climate science; such as NASA, a variety of reports from meteorological organisations from around the world and other bona fide science groups.
  
  You sir, have provided links to opinion blogs with links to the IPA, Heartland Institute, 'Lord' Monckton and nothing else.
  
  Nor is any of your discussion on topic. I admit by having responded to your unsubstantiated claims I am guilty of same. I will refrain from further discussion with you on this thread.
  
  However, more than happy to debate you on topic in future - you provide an easy target.
  
  4 months ago report
53. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Anything from the IPCC would do the job Dianna .... have to be the most heavily reviewed science ever ... but Geoff won't look at those ... full of lies, dodgy data, fibs and conspiracy. All left wing science apparently.
  
  Geoff's not that sort of "scientist" ... he only "believes" Jo Nova and Prince Monckton... you know Proper People - with the right ideas who know the real value of a hole in the ground.
  
  4 months ago report
54. Dianna Arthur
  
  Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Environmentalist
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter, I agree.
  
  However, as you point out "Geoff won't look at those", therefore I attempted to expand his horizons by presenting work by the plethora of genuine scientific bodies from around the world.
  
  Of course if one is impressed by far-right think tanks like the IPA, he is unlikely to wish to have a rethink - which is completely odd behaviour for someone who describes himself as a scientist.
  
  4 months ago report
55. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Dianna Arthur
  
  No, Dianna, you offered to provide specific details and you failed. I have little interest in post facto excuses.
  You might like to open another topic to explain how you have derived your unusual ability to presume (usually far from the mark) what I am thinking, then to post it as if it was a factual observation. My concept of a University is a place for learning and teaching, not a place for false prophets.
  
  It might surprise you to know that I had already read a large selection of the original…
  Read more
  
  No, Dianna, you offered to provide specific details and you failed. I have little interest in post facto excuses.
  You might like to open another topic to explain how you have derived your unusual ability to presume (usually far from the mark) what I am thinking, then to post it as if it was a factual observation. My concept of a University is a place for learning and teaching, not a place for false prophets.
  
  It might surprise you to know that I had already read a large selection of the original papers on which your pamphlets were based. You might have been able to infer that because of the many times I have responded to blogs without the time needed to find and quote data by return mail, but from memory.
  
  Your memory, though it might lack rigour, does not lack imagination. Where have I written, in a place where you could read, that I am " ... impressed by far right think tanks like the IPA?" If you can't quote me the source, then I have to regard your comment as an unethical, untrue example of your conduct. You take this too far, you get into the realm of legal activity.
  
  I usually find it is less trouble to tell the truth from the beginning. It saves you having to remember the excuses.
  
  4 months ago report
56. Dianna Arthur
  
  Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Environmentalist
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  I do check background sources, such as:
  
  Jo Nova's, which reads like a Who's Who guide to science deniers. you know, the website where you blog on and on and on.
  
  The site that takes Monckton seriously, along with Jennifer Marohasy who was on the IPA payroll and is still on their particular bandwagon: http://www.ipa.org.au/people/jennifer-marohasy
  
  Jo Nova herself rides shotgun for the Heartland Institute:
  http://joannenova.com.au/tag/heartland-institute/
  
  I have presented links to real science, you have not referenced ANY peer reviews science, nada.
  
  Why would you expect anyone to take you at all seriously?
  
  4 months ago report
57. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter, Might I please ask you to cease and desist from attributing to me statements I have never made; and in particular, attempting to present unflattering inferences about me based on the straw man thus created.
  
  You, and others here who offend similarly, have absolutely no demonstrated capacity to interpret my private thoughts and to attribute motivation to them.
  
  Should you wish to contest this, please state your data ( with confidence limits).
  
  Peter, you mention peer review. Apart from…
  Read more
  
  Peter, Might I please ask you to cease and desist from attributing to me statements I have never made; and in particular, attempting to present unflattering inferences about me based on the straw man thus created.
  
  You, and others here who offend similarly, have absolutely no demonstrated capacity to interpret my private thoughts and to attribute motivation to them.
  
  Should you wish to contest this, please state your data ( with confidence limits).
  
  Peter, you mention peer review. Apart from the disgusting conduct revealed by climategate, let's take an example from
  http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/08/lisbon-workshop-on-reconciliation-part-vi/
  
  You'll need to renew the outcome of the dispute (Steig, the pro from PIK was wrong; O'Donnell the amateur blogger as right, with others. Steig came back with another bash, was shot down again.) Estimates of Antarctic temperature change were revised as to intensity and distribution and some convergence was appearing between parties. One problem was the year spent by O'Donnell at al responding to the reviewers, who are said to include input from, or even participation by, the interested party, Eric Steig himself.
  
  However, academics do squabble; but in the outcome, the IPCC AR5 leaked SOD document uses a figure higher than either of the combatants, who spent inordinate time on detail. More problems with wishful thinking versus peer review?
  
  4 months ago report
58. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Dianna Arthur
  
  No, Dianna, you gave links to sources of diverse papers, not to the single papers that I expected. Most of us check background sources, that is not newsworthy.
  By contrast, I have given links to actual papers. meaning that when you hit the link you get the full paper. You say explicitly that I have not.
  One example, which I urge you to deny or to publish an apology: http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf
  There are many more, but they all get snipped after a few days/weeks.
  
  OTOH, have you an example of your own where one click opens the paper you want read?
  
  It seems like Churchill's situation, "Having established the principle, it now remains to discuss the price?"
  
  4 months ago report
59. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Geoff...
  
  I'm not sure what you are trying to say here regarding the UWA psych paper you've posted above.
  
  This paper is a rather decent exposition of the links between rejection of the science behind AGW and a plethora of other conspiratorial notions ranging from who shot Martin Luther King to NASA's "obvious" faking of the moon landing. The authors basically chart out a pattern of deranged thinking common to the likes of Jo Nova, Monckton and their other "sciencey" followers.
  
  Now are you asking Ms A to deny or apologise for a bit of decent science?
  
  What exactly are you trying to say?
  
  4 months ago report
60. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Geoffrey Harold Sherrington, your comment has no reference, so not sure which person you are interjecting on or if it is our earlier conversation. So if my reply appears obscure, that is my confusion.
  Geoffrey Harold Sherrington wrote: "We would be better able to evaluate your comments if you indicated the mechanism"
  My values last time reading a comparison were weighted to less than 4% of our culture. My values are not yours and it would be naive to believe you could possibly comprehend them.
  Geoffrey Harold Sherrington wrote: "Just how do you see yourself as specially qualified to write what you did above?" Thank you for the question. Qualified again is subjective and based on your values no qualification. This is grasped because your values are within, having held them many years earlier. All good, thanks for all your comments.
  
  4 months ago report
61. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to Jack Arnold
  
  Jack Arnold wrote: "..... this strategy was also used at the ....." It is interesting these examples are so transparent.
  It is also interesting very similar strategies and their application are taught about in media courses at Universities globally. That 'think tanks' are brimming with graduates taught how to write copy for political agencies and yet just few appear to be aware. Something to think about.
  
  4 months ago report
62. susan walton
  
  logged in via email @live.com.au
  
  In reply to Paul Richards
  
  Nowhere have I attacked a story contrary to my values..when I read the same stories on every news media going that Ms Gillard blew the Timor deal..then I believe she blew the Timor deal.
  
  When I read that she stated there would be no carbon tax on every media outlet known to mankind...then I believe she said 'no carbon tax'. When I read, again..on every media story on the planet that she wanted a citizen's assembly, a cash for clunkers scheme, she mis-managed the miner's tax, ...etc. etc. etc…
  Read more
  
  Nowhere have I attacked a story contrary to my values..when I read the same stories on every news media going that Ms Gillard blew the Timor deal..then I believe she blew the Timor deal.
  
  When I read that she stated there would be no carbon tax on every media outlet known to mankind...then I believe she said 'no carbon tax'. When I read, again..on every media story on the planet that she wanted a citizen's assembly, a cash for clunkers scheme, she mis-managed the miner's tax, ...etc. etc. etc....then guess what? I believe it, no matter whether it comes from the ABC, a Fairfax or a Murdoch paper.
  
  As for the climate change being true or scaremongering, I have read many, many articles both for and against the concept. What I do believe is that the human species is a very destructive species and this won't change...a carbon tax won't change this mindset either. Not only do we pollute the air..we gouge the earth for our highways and hi-rises...we destroy the countryside for our open cut mines, dams and suburban sprawl. Most of all..the world is over populated..and a carbon tax will fix none of this. That is why I believe it to be nothing more than a money gouging exercise. Nothing more, nothing less...
  
  It's interesting that I deny being employed by Murdoch? Really? Then, to please you...I deny it. I laugh at the very suggestion, I wouldn't even know how to apply, my journalistic skills are nil..my interest in working for any paper absolutely and irrevocably are also nil, even if they asked me, which they wouldn't, due to my lack of journalistic skills, qualifications and interest. What does annoy me, is the way shallow thinking people think that anyone who disagrees with their concepts must work for either a paper or a political party.
  
  Some of us just care where the world is going and are against corrupt and incompetent governments and their equally corrupt and useless leaders....
  
  4 months ago report
63. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  susan walton wrote: "It's interesting that I deny being employed by Murdoch? Really? Then, to please you...I deny it. I laugh at the very suggestion" It was assumed you did not work for the Murdoch group, it was just a segway. Also literally 'interesting', as the 'style' of comment is used to seed discent in media by contracted agencies worldwide and you do it for free.
  susan walton wrote: "Some of us just care where the world is going and are against corrupt and incompetent governments and their…
  Read more
  
  susan walton wrote: "It's interesting that I deny being employed by Murdoch? Really? Then, to please you...I deny it. I laugh at the very suggestion" It was assumed you did not work for the Murdoch group, it was just a segway. Also literally 'interesting', as the 'style' of comment is used to seed discent in media by contracted agencies worldwide and you do it for free.
  susan walton wrote: "Some of us just care where the world is going and are against corrupt and incompetent governments and their equally corrupt and useless leaders" That inference is that authors staff and commenters here do not. So at your discretion you attack them over a clash in values, rather than understanding their perspective and respecting it.
  As you wrote; "Nowhere have I attacked a story contrary to my values." - susan walton.
  It is commendable to have values and firmly adhere to them. However attacking others over a clash in values is best avoided. Current thinking is this just fortifies opposing beliefs, in other words solidifies their cognitive biases and strengthens an unevolved value system. Thank you for all your comments, your personal value system is clearer and that is appreciated.
  
  4 months ago report
64. Venise Alstergren
  
  Venise Alstergren is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  photographer, blogger.
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  A government is only as bad as the opposition allows it to be. The leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, has lazily resorted to personal vilification of the leader of the government, Julia Gillard and, supported by the Murdoch media, have successfully befuddled the electorate into believing that the former has been criticising the government by smearing the individuals concerned.
  
  This is simply not good enough. Where are the suggestions as to how to run the country better? Almost every voter…
  Read more
  
  A government is only as bad as the opposition allows it to be. The leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, has lazily resorted to personal vilification of the leader of the government, Julia Gillard and, supported by the Murdoch media, have successfully befuddled the electorate into believing that the former has been criticising the government by smearing the individuals concerned.
  
  This is simply not good enough. Where are the suggestions as to how to run the country better? Almost every voter going into the polling booths will carry a mental picture of Gillard nailed to a very nasty cross, whilst being shot through with Tony Abbott spears; they will vote accordingly.
  
  If you think this unlovely Coalition, led by a man of the Catholic monopolised political parties of the 1950s, to be a smart way to run a country, so be it. I think that no matter the mistakes made by Labor, the positive steps taken, outweigh the ill.
  
  BTW: I dislike being called stupid by someone who is palpably stupid.
  
  4 months ago report
65. Venise Alstergren
  
  Venise Alstergren is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  photographer, blogger.
  
  In reply to Paul Richards
  
  Thank you for your comment. I hope you will read my answer to Susan Walton 17 Feb '13.
  
  Cheers
  
  Venise
  
  4 months ago report
66. susan walton
  
  logged in via email @live.com.au
  
  In reply to Venise Alstergren
  
  When you think to call someone semi-illiterate and having a pathetic guess at who they may be employed by..then expect to be called stupid.
  
  A country run by Catholic monopolised political parties of the 1950's may or may not be the way to go..but a country run by a government and a leader with no morals or ethics is not being run at all..it is merely floundering along. Staggering from one scheme to another. They are schemes more than policies, as there is a new one every day..without ever funding or implementing correctly the schemes from last year, 6 months ago..or even last week.
  
  That..to me...is most unlovely.....more than unlovely..just plain incompetent.
  
  4 months ago report
67. Venise Alstergren
  
  Venise Alstergren is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  photographer, blogger.
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  When you criticise Julia Gillard's morals and ethics you should be careful. Traditionally these words have been associated with a person's sex life.
  
  Despite the Murdoch press vilifying everything the government does, there have been some substantial achievements.
  
  Historically, the Labor government has been associated with positive actions. Medicare being a case in point. The so-called Liberal Party-ergo the Coalition, as the Liberal Party is unable to win an election in its own right-is alternatively…
  Read more
  
  When you criticise Julia Gillard's morals and ethics you should be careful. Traditionally these words have been associated with a person's sex life.
  
  Despite the Murdoch press vilifying everything the government does, there have been some substantial achievements.
  
  Historically, the Labor government has been associated with positive actions. Medicare being a case in point. The so-called Liberal Party-ergo the Coalition, as the Liberal Party is unable to win an election in its own right-is alternatively known-in civilised countries-as the Conservative Party.
  Conservative Parties are infamous for just wanting to maintain the status quo.
  
  You may be happy to be part of a nation which, in the foreseeable future, will be hooked onto the British Royal family; I am not. You may be happy to see all our national parks, marine and land-based being turned over to developers and miners; I am not. You may be happy to see women's right to abortion removed, or in some states not being granted; I am not. You may be happy being tied to an ironing board; I am not. You may be happy being a second class citizen; I am not. You may be happy to see workers held to the equivalent of John Howard's Fair Work law; I am not. You may enjoy having censorship of the media, plays, movies, books and the internet; I am not. You may be happy with a solid phalanx of rigid Catholics ruling this country. I am not. You may be happy with the top mining companies ripping the guts out of this land without having to pay the commensurate tax. I am not. You may be happy to be slugged for more tax; I am not. Finally, you may be happy to return to the dreary world of the 1950s. I, most certainly, am not!
  
  4 months ago report
68. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Venise Alstergren
  
  Venise,
  No care is needed. You have reduced the discussion ad adsurbum, intentionally or ignorantly as the case might be. Your analysis means nothing; there is no reason to continue it. You cannot possibly know enough of the sex life, the morals or the ethics of the person you discuss, to make a valuable comment. This is a shame for me because I am a very active photographer and I dislike associations that you might create for others, such that photographers as a group conduct themselves this way…
  Read more
  
  Venise,
  No care is needed. You have reduced the discussion ad adsurbum, intentionally or ignorantly as the case might be. Your analysis means nothing; there is no reason to continue it. You cannot possibly know enough of the sex life, the morals or the ethics of the person you discuss, to make a valuable comment. This is a shame for me because I am a very active photographer and I dislike associations that you might create for others, such that photographers as a group conduct themselves this way.
  I, for one, consider that you approach hate speech and show dreadful blog conduct. Please check how many of the items in the Charter of this blog you have violated.
  
  We will:
  •Give experts a greater voice in shaping scientific, cultural and intellectual agendas by providing a trusted platform that values and promotes new thinking and evidence-based research.
  •Unlock the knowledge and expertise of researchers and academics to provide the public with clarity and insight into society’s biggest problems.
  •Create an open site for people around the world to share best practices and collaborate on developing smart, sustainable solutions.
  •Provide a fact-based and editorially-independent forum, free of commercial or political bias.
  •Ensure the site’s integrity by only obtaining non-partisan sponsorship from education, government and private partners. Any advertising will be relevant and non-obtrusive.
  •Ensure quality, diverse and intelligible content reaches the widest possible audience by employing experienced editors to curate the site.
  •Support and foster academic freedom to conduct research, teach, write and publish.
  •Work with our academic, business and government partners and our advisory board to ensure we are operating for the public good.
  
  n.b. "political bias".
  
  Why not send me some samples of your work so that we can discuss the higher level of intellect needed for creative photography. It's a rare gift, whereas almost anyone who can write can be unbecoming.
  
  4 months ago report
69. Peter Blackwell
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Venise Alstergren
  
  Venise, Ahhh yes,,, yet another parallel universe, full of denial and one eyed support of the worst prime minister in the history of the country - and I am from a working class upbringing and traditonally a Labor voter ! You join policy with performance as though they come in hand. Sadly that has not been the recent case.
  Your self appointed title of Stirrer fits.
  Don't use your desire to heap hatred on the opposition as a corollary to justify your blind support of the current incompetent government - the two issues are mutually exclusive.
  
  I am not so sure the opposition would be much better at leading the country than Labor,,, and would like to see the burial and rebirth of all political parties in this country, BUT I dont want Gillard, Swan and their cabinet who have failed to apply their skills to the greater good of this country, to have one more minute at the helm than is necessary.
  
  4 months ago report
70. Jack Arnold
  
  Director
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  Hi Venise, now we have the present Federal Liberal Party led by a right wing Catholic former monk & apostate of Bob Santamaria, once leader of the DLP (for the Roman Church). Can you spot the difference?
  
  Oh, and the policies and costings? Uhm ... no policies and no costings from the Liberal Party until three days before the election when there will be too much information & skulduggery going on that the mainstream media will be able to ignore any analysis.
  
  This is an often stated strategy by the "Catholic monopolised [Liberal Party]" of the present. Certainly an "unlovely & incompetent" scenario ... complete with a leader who is unacceptable to 2/3rds of Australian voters.
  
  4 months ago report
71. Dianna Arthur
  
  Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Environmentalist
  
  In reply to Venise Alstergren
  
  Power to you, sister!
  
  4 months ago report
72. susan walton
  
  logged in via email @live.com.au
  
  In reply to Venise Alstergren
  
  Traditionally morals and ethics have been associated with a person's sex life?
  
  Please!! we are talking about the government and Ms Gillards leadership morals and ethics here..not some Mills & Boon novel.
  
  Although Ms Gillards sex life does appear to be fairly interesting...if one is into other women's men.
  
  4 months ago report
73. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  susan walton wrote; "Please!! we are talking about the government and Ms Gillards leadership morals and ethics here..not some Mills & Boon novel." Well actually you are wrong, we are commenting on and accessing political value systems. All values are inclusive, when thinking critically. Can only encourage some tempering of your emotions, the comments are looking increasing desperate from this perspective.
  
  4 months ago report
74. susan walton
  
  logged in via email @live.com.au
  
  In reply to Paul Richards
  
  Fine. If you and Ms Venise Alstergren are interested in anyone's sex life...go for it.
  
  What anyone's sex life has to do with accessing political value systems I have no idea..but whatever floats your boat.
  
  My emotions are just fine btw....I would have thought it far more desperate for Ms Venise Alstergren to even consider dragging sex into the conversation when it was perfectly obvious the morals and ethics I was talking about were concerning the governing of the country..and nothing to do with sex.
  
  I suggest you read what people are replying to..before jumping on your desperate bandwagon.
  
  4 months ago report
75. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  susan walton wrote " ....... without dragging sex into the conversation" Interesting use of keywords. Clear to everyone. Sex is part of politics, it might be difficult to deal with for some value systems. But no one can take it out. My hope is you do not 'drag.....' sex into any part of your life.
  
  4 months ago report
76. Venise Alstergren
  
  Venise Alstergren is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  photographer, blogger.
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Bollocks!
  
  Do you have your work in the National Gallery?
  
  4 months ago report
77. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Venise Alstergren
  
  Venise,
  I have writings in the National Library; and elsewhere I am well hung.
  
  4 months ago report
78. Venise Alstergren
  
  Venise Alstergren is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  photographer, blogger.
  
  In reply to Peter Blackwell
  
  Why do you take my comments so personally? I have no particular bias in favour of Julia Gillard. On the other hand, I have no real bias against her. She was-whether she took it herself is immaterial- like most women in a man's world, landed with an impossible job. Boy, is she going to pay the price.
  
  FFS what has being born into a working class milieu have to do with the price of apples? Oh, you mean, being a Labor supporter by birth. This sort of thinking bespeaks a person who is either A) Getting…
  Read more
  
  Why do you take my comments so personally? I have no particular bias in favour of Julia Gillard. On the other hand, I have no real bias against her. She was-whether she took it herself is immaterial- like most women in a man's world, landed with an impossible job. Boy, is she going to pay the price.
  
  FFS what has being born into a working class milieu have to do with the price of apples? Oh, you mean, being a Labor supporter by birth. This sort of thinking bespeaks a person who is either A) Getting on in years, or B) A little creaky mentally. C) This is the year 2013 AD, not the nineteenth century. People and children no longer have to work in squalor, or clean chimneys. We are, or should be, free of old fashioned shibboleths like 'voting for the working-classes political party'.
  
  Personally, I have no rusted-on belief for the Labor Party-I am just as likely to vote for the Greens. However, the only thing worse than a covern of 1950s Catholics running this country, would be the arrival to the Prime Ministership of Australia of Pol Pot, Hitler or Stalin.
  
  Finally, please do not thrust your assumptions onto my thinking. your penultimate para was utterly disgusting. Kindly attempt to play the ball, not the man.
  
  4 months ago report
79. Venise Alstergren
  
  Venise Alstergren is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  photographer, blogger.
  
  In reply to Jack Arnold
  
  You should study the amount of Catholics who are in Tony Abbott's "front bench". He is not the only Jesuit seminarian here.
  
  4 months ago report
80. Venise Alstergren
  
  Venise Alstergren is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  photographer, blogger.
  
  In reply to Dianna Arthur
  
  Gets grim, doesn't it?? (smile!) :)
  
  4 months ago report
81. Venise Alstergren
  
  Venise Alstergren is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  photographer, blogger.
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  Who are Mills and Boon?
  
  4 months ago report
82. susan walton
  
  logged in via email @live.com.au
  
  In reply to Paul Richards
  
  My sex life is not in question...you and Venise are obsessed with the sex lives of politicians it seems!
  
  4 months ago report
83. Venise Alstergren
  
  Venise Alstergren is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  photographer, blogger.
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  I wouldn't have thought personal advertising on 'The Conversation' would be comme il faut.
  
  But no photographs. Yet you accuse me of letting down the side? ""This is a shame for me because I am a very active photographer and I dislike associations that you might create for others, such that photographers as a group conduct themselves this way…"" Tsk tsk.
  
  4 months ago report
84. susan walton
  
  logged in via email @live.com.au
  
  In reply to Venise Alstergren
  
  1950'S Catholic coverns? Just a tat OTT wouldn't you say.
  
  Obviously, you would prefer the country to be run by the likes of Thomson, Slipper and union thugs.
  I would refer you, however, to the following links...re Labor Catholics, they are equal to Liberal Catholics. Labor was, for many years, the heartland of Catholicism. As it is..they are still equal with roughly the same amount of Catholics on both sides.
  
  It pays to do your homework before spouting such nonsense as the country being run by Catholic Coverns. Paul Keating was Catholic, Rudd was born Catholic and changed to C of E... ( just as an example.) How's the Coven nonsense going for you again?
  
  http://economics.com.au/?p=6402
  http://www.smh.com.au/national/politics-and-religion-crossed-paths-20091225-lezy.html
  http://www.smh.com.au/national/catholics-divided-in-the-house-20091225-lezv.htmlhttp://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Catholics.html
  
  4 months ago report
85. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  susan walton wrote: "...you and Venise are obsessed with the sex lives of politicians it seems!"
  Projecting your values onto ours, I can see why you might take that perspective. So all is ok, thanks for your comments, again your value system and personal stage of development becomes clearer.
  
  4 months ago report
86. Venise Alstergren
  
  Venise Alstergren is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  photographer, blogger.
  
  In reply to susan walton
  
  Purlese; you've bored me witless for long enough......
  
  I have a life to live, even if you don't.
  
  Yawn
  
  4 months ago report
87. susan walton
  
  logged in via email @live.com.au
  
  In reply to Venise Alstergren
  
  Oh dear...you were wrong re Catholic Covens..there ARE an equal amount of Catholics in both Labor and Liberal, and has been for a very long time...so now you do the *yawn* thing to cover up your lack of education and general knowledge.
  
  lol
  
  4 months ago report
Marg Darcy

Program manage

I agree with Iain, it is refreshing to actually see a report that talks about the achievements of Labor. Now it will be interesting to see if Michelle Grattan can write more articles that do not assume that the Opposition will win Government. Perhaps if the media focused on policies rather than personalities we would see a shift in the polls.

4 months ago report
1. Peter Blackwell
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Marg Darcy
  
  The current government have successfully passed over 300 pieces of legislation whilst at the same time have wasted more money and impacted household cost of living negatively more than any before.
  Historically a Labor voter, I cant look past their abject incompetence and self-righteous indignation when cabinet minsiters who should clearly know better say they have done so well and expect me to believe them.
  The successes exist - but are well and truly overshadowed by their failures.
  
  4 months ago report
Geoff Henderson

Graduate

Michelle welcome to the Conversation! I have admired your work for so many years that I don't try to count.

I am especially pleased to see your recognition that truth is sometimes rather loosely related to fact because of a journalistic interpretation. I look forward to factual reporting that relies upon the story for interest rather than it's ability to entertain readers.

May I suggest that at some stage the fate of media probably deserves some column inches. We are seeing free to air TV in strife, newspaper revenues declining and increased concentration of media assets - and media driven policy. And maybe a loss of "faith" in the media. Since the media plays a huge and important role informing Australians, my view is that we should learn more about the state of play and maybe given some insight as to where things are going with the media.

4 months ago report
Antonio mosaic

Healthcare worker

It will be interesting if M Gratten can remain unbiased against gillard and play the ball and not the er man in footy parlance

4 months ago report
1. In reply to Antonio mosaic
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
alexander j watt

logged in via Twitter

Welcome to the Conversation! A big win for diversity in Australian journalism.

4 months ago report
Michael Shand

Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.

Software Tester

Couldnt agree more with commenters below, very refreshing article, thanks for posting Michelle, I am looking forward to more of your writings.

My only contention with what you wrote here is describing a hung parliment achieving meaningful policy as a paradox...this is only a paradox in your mind and in the mind of the australian public - coalition governments are actually not out of the ordinary in many parts of the world and they usually do achieve no more or no less than any other type of government

4 months ago report
1. Jack Arnold
  
  Director
  
  In reply to Michael Shand
  
  Michael, am I correct in thinking that the Liberal Party has ruled in coalition with the Notional Party during the Howard government, the Fraser government, and during the 23 years of Menzies, Holt, Gorton & MacMahon until 1972? So why is any coalition such a bad thing for Australian politics?
  
  Certainly, the Labor Greens Coalition under Julia Gillard has been very effective passing about 300 pieces of legislation, despite the worst efforts of the (mis)Leader of the Opposition without majority in their own party & wannabe journalists ensconced in the Canberra Press Gallery & feeding off the press releases from the unelected party hacks that control party pre-selection rather than gathering independent 'news'.
  
  Now which journalist called for the sacking of Prime Minister Gillard? Oh dear, I thought journalists reported the news rather than run government.
  
  4 months ago report
Stephen John Ralph

carer

Hi

Ms G I was one of the critics in this forum of your term at the Age. For better or worse I was of the opinion that you wrote most negatively about the Labor party and "seemed" to belittle JG at times.

Your introductory piece for The Conversation however gives me hope that we will have the benefit of your political and journalistic expertise to look at the "whole" political spectrum with a balanced perspective.

As you say it will be an interesting political year.

4 months ago report
1. Dianna Arthur
  
  Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Environmentalist
  
  In reply to Stephen John Ralph
  
  Thanks Stephen, you summed up my feelings regarding Ms Grattan.
  
  I too await further thoughts from the pen (or keyboard) of Michelle Grattan, in fact am hoping for the reveal-all autobiography - but not just yet, have another election to get through, where I hope to find some journalistic depth.
  
  One of the comments made, with which I concur is that Labor appears to believe because it has pushed a carbon tax over the line, that's "all folks". Well, it bloody well won't be anything if the Lib/Nats win. Labor may rightly be regarded as dragging its feet on climate change, just wait till Abbott has his hands on the reins of power - talk about your bumpy ride if you are not wealthy, white and favoured by the powers-that-may-be.
  
  4 months ago report
2. Paul Andrew
  
  Retired
  
  In reply to Stephen John Ralph
  
  Hi. I agree. I was also totally turned off by the anti-JG jibes in MG's chats with Fran on Radio National. I hope that the "Michelle Grattan Medal" (see http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/life/satire/the-michelle-grattan-medal/ ) will be an anomaly by the election.
  
  4 months ago report
ABC gone to hell

logged in via Twitter

"Yet in the public mind this parliament has been largely defined by noise and nastiness, to an extent that many people just want to close their ears until it is over."

You and the rest of the sleepy press gallery are to blame for that. You choose what to cover and how to cover it. Tell me how the media obsession for personality and drama over policy could not affect the "public mind"?

Reading Mungo's brief history on Australia's prime ministers, "The Good, The Bad & The Unlikely", shows that robust exchanges and unseemly machinations in our parliament are nothing new. The only thing *new* about this "noise and nastiness" is the ease at which it can be reported by lazy 'journalists' focused on keeping their moribund newspapers afloat with titillation.

But lets just blame the hung parliament instead of holding up the mirror.

4 months ago report
1. In reply to ABC gone to hell
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
2. Tony Grant
  
  Student
  
  In reply to Dave Clayden
  
  No agenda Dave...just as directed without a conscience!
  
  4 months ago report
3. In reply to ABC gone to hell
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
4. Sally Boteler
  
  customer service officer at health & leisure
  
  In reply to ABC gone to hell
  
  Agree.
  I contend that the media almost entirely created 'The Challenge' story - and certainly succeeded in being rewarded with a spectacle the will go down in political history!
  The way they handled the scandal stories of Thomson and Slipper looked like a pack of rabid dogs leading a pitchfork army.
  I was far more offended by the viciousness of the media behaviour than anything either of those two men may or may not have done.
  As for the general media treatment of Gillard, suffice to say that her speech on misogyny and sexism was the lancing of a huge, filthy abcess that many people - not just women - could feel and smell but was being almost entirely ignored, and i fully welcome the re-emergence of an issue that harms women, men and children.
  I don't know if Michelle is right in her prediction about the hung parliament, but i would vote for it instant if i could.
  
  4 months ago report
Suzanne Arnold

Co-ordinator

the usual boring stuff. It's a great shame that the environmental catastrophes which are so prominent in this country as a result of the complete failure of the Gillard government to police the resource industry continue to be ignored by journalists and the mainstream media. Gladstone Harbour and the looming downlisting of the World Heritage Great Barrier Reef, the failure of governments to address noise issues which will be devastating to the marine environment ( our source of life) are just not up there with journalists like Michelle Grattan or others. The big question is which Party, if any will address these issues.

4 months ago report
1. Tony Grant
  
  Student
  
  In reply to Suzanne Arnold
  
  Near every policy/issue is put to the acid test by "vested interests" via the media.
  
  The attacks on policies like the poker machine reform...tobacco plain packaging...downfall of PM Rudd via the Mining Lobby are a few examples.
  
  It was Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower who first understood who would eventually take control...boardrooms and the Stock Exchange, therefore, no government by the people for the people?
  
  If we were capable of understanding Roosevelt/Eisenhower the upcoming election would not be a contest, the side Abbott represents would never have power (government) they don't serve the people!
  
  4 months ago report
Ian Milliss

logged in via Twitter

Other commenter must be reading a different article. All I can see are shallow vacuous platitudes that provide no new information whatsoever. I started reading The Conversation from when it first started in the hope of getting some real analysis, not personality journalism. I think most Conversation readers came here to get away from Grattan and similar hacks who have proven in depth that they simply aren't good journalists, just groupthink gossips, leak recyclers and right wing propagandists. By all means let her contribute occasionally but making her chief political correspondent is suicide. The Conversation should be supporting and developing young journalists who understand social media and are untainted by the propaganda and manipulations of the mainstream media. Recycling the failed journalists who have destroyed the mainstream media will destroy the Conversation as well.

4 months ago report
1. Henry Verberne
  
  Former IT Professional
  
  In reply to Ian Milliss
  
  Ian, I think you are being unduly harsh. Michelle has long demonstrated incisive insights into politics though I do believe she may have been leaned on by her former employer to write more in the tabloid mode recently. Experience also counts in this profession and it shows in Michelle.
  
  Your comments about the MSM are quite correct though in my opinion.
  
  4 months ago report
2. Ian Milliss
  
  logged in via Twitter
  
  In reply to Henry Verberne
  
  If that was the case then she had the opportunity here to begin anew by actually analysing policy. She hasn't, not one word, just the usual nonsense about personalities and maneouvering.
  
  4 months ago report
3. David Doe
  
  Videogame Producer
  
  In reply to Ian Milliss
  
  I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought this : "All I can see are shallow vacuous platitudes that provide no new information whatsoever."
  
  One thing we have to remember is that the bar has been set so low, that any old trip will count as a high-jump.
  
  I honestly could not agree with your first post any more thoroughly.
  
  @ Followed.
  
  4 months ago report
4. Tony Grant
  
  Student
  
  In reply to David Doe
  
  1984 is arriving the "mind-speak" will attempt to infiltrate our every moment...MG is just that person in this position!
  
  The Conservation is no "100k hit a day" site but all corners can and will be covered "if needed" I mean the site doesn't need a Malcolm Farr or the like!
  
  4 months ago report
5. karen mills
  
  tasmanian
  
  In reply to Ian Milliss
  
  I am new to The Conversation and am very disappointed to find that the former professional journalist Michelle Grattan has been appointed Chief Political Correspondent. I would like to ask who decided her appointment? I thought it would be much more interesting to have a range of "resident" analysts for set periods of time - suggested by Conversation writers and readers.
  
  The grand title of Chief! Political! Correspondent! sounds a weighty attempt to give that person's writing more kudos that…
  Read more
  
  I am new to The Conversation and am very disappointed to find that the former professional journalist Michelle Grattan has been appointed Chief Political Correspondent. I would like to ask who decided her appointment? I thought it would be much more interesting to have a range of "resident" analysts for set periods of time - suggested by Conversation writers and readers.
  
  The grand title of Chief! Political! Correspondent! sounds a weighty attempt to give that person's writing more kudos that anyone else. Why can't Michelle Grattan contribute to The Conversation like the rest of us/ Why does she need a special title?
  
  I find most of the comments submitted interesting and thought provoking and sometimes inspiring. We need interesting (not always politically based) analysis of issues to forward positive and hopefully useful discussion...
  
  I found Ms Grattan's analysis typical of mainstream boring talk that I can read on any of the media outlet sites...
  
  Keep up the good work to all the other writers...but I am afraid I will have to leave The Conversation if it only becomes an outlet for former professional journalists...I have heard enough from them.
  
  4 months ago report
6. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to karen mills
  
  Do not be put off by this pandering to purported political prowess of the press. It's her first day at work for chrissakes. Cut the woman some slack.
  
  New stroppy demographic ... brooding and opinionated ... a hard house to crack ... we who were driven here to the Conversation in part by the very machine of which Ms Grattan was a prominent pundit.
  
  And now - to find one in our midst - with a title no less... I am aghast!
  
  And if Michelle serves up pieces like she's still writing for the…
  Read more
  
  Do not be put off by this pandering to purported political prowess of the press. It's her first day at work for chrissakes. Cut the woman some slack.
  
  New stroppy demographic ... brooding and opinionated ... a hard house to crack ... we who were driven here to the Conversation in part by the very machine of which Ms Grattan was a prominent pundit.
  
  And now - to find one in our midst - with a title no less... I am aghast!
  
  And if Michelle serves up pieces like she's still writing for the Age then I will be sadly disappointed. Walking history this woman. With an address book that would rival if not better Gillard's.
  
  In civilised countries they treat their veteran political journalists with some respect. Many make a transition into academic life very successfully to become sage-like observers with the benefit of knowledge and history...knowing where to look.
  
  But Michelle is a hot-house flower. Nurtured in the CO2 enriched climate of the Press Gallery and the humidity of all that heavy breathing.
  
  There is a process for moving a plant from the hot-house into full sun called "hardening-off". It transforms the plant into a sturdy useful productive tree. Takes about a month in an election year.
  
  4 months ago report
David Doe

Videogame Producer

OK Michelle, challenge accepted.

"In recent times there have been calls for greater media focus on these policy issues and less on the political contest."

Not just in recent times, but all the time. That's what the media is meant to be FOR!

The current woeful standard of journalism in the country is one of the reasons we have such a disengaged population when it comes to politics, and you were a major contributor to that malaise with your divisive, partisan hackery in recent times…
Read more

OK Michelle, challenge accepted.

"In recent times there have been calls for greater media focus on these policy issues and less on the political contest."

Not just in recent times, but all the time. That's what the media is meant to be FOR!

The current woeful standard of journalism in the country is one of the reasons we have such a disengaged population when it comes to politics, and you were a major contributor to that malaise with your divisive, partisan hackery in recent times.

If you want a fresh start, fine, but when discussing this election and analysing the policies various parties have to offer, are you actually going to analyse the policies and costings (if there are any)?

Are you going to report what is true or what is untrue when it comes out of the mouths of any politician, or are you simply going to say that it was true that they said it? The he-said she-said "reporting" of the past decade has been a farce.

Here are some policy questions of interest :

With Australia breaching it's obligation to the UNHCR, which party's refugee policy is the most humane, most cost effective, and least taxing on the armed forces?
What are the reasons for each party's position on marriage equality?
Which parties want to continue taxpayer granted fuel subsidies for the richest industry in the country, the mining industry? And what are there reasons for doing so?
Which parties have inter-city transport policies that would see a reduction in flights in one of the busiest flight corridors in the world, Melbourne-Sydney?
Which parties have policies on protecting our farmers from dumping or from state-subsidised competitors? And what are they?
What are the parties' positions on HECS and highed education in general? And why do most of our parliamentarians educated with free tertiary education think it's ok to keep increasing the price of education?

There's just a start, but no doubt there are many, many more.

Let's see if you really mean some of the platitudes you've outlined above.

(Oh, and one last question. Do you think journalists covering politics should disclose their voting tickets to ensure the reading public are completely aware of what the journalist actually thinks and supports?)

4 months ago report
Regina Ewing

logged in via Facebook

Welcome Michelle! I have just read your very lusty-hearted article and am filled with great confidence that however this year's political landscape is shaped and reshaped a worthy and credible source of commentary will be found in the Conversation. I welcome and look forward to hearing more from UC this year. The Eden-Monaco project sounds incredible.
Go UC and go Michelle!

4 months ago report
Trevor Kerr

ISTP

So, having read today's View From The Hill, what do I do know? Comment here, slag it at another blog, tweet it, facebook it, go off to hunt down a factual article, sit around waiting for a clown to pop up?
We have been blessed with the soberness of the influential Independents.
There are too many ways for the national "conversation" to be perverted by idiocy and gamesmanship. We will get ahead if the media learn *not* to swing onto the next nong who shouts "Oi!". That will happen (only) if a crowd gathers around serious discussion. Whose business models, though, would be threatened by that?

4 months ago report
Dave Slutzkin

logged in via Twitter

Wasting money on Eden-Monaro? A "bellwether" seat is just a statistical anomaly, like the Redskins Rule in US politics. If the streak isn't broken this election, it will be at the next, or the one after that. Whenever it happens, it won't actually mean anything.

I really hope you can find something more worthwhile to study.

4 months ago report
1. Ian Milliss
  
  logged in via Twitter
  
  In reply to Dave Slutzkin
  
  Just another demonstration of how little press gallery journalists really understand about politics and the underlying forces at work. They simply report on the spectacle.
  
  4 months ago report
David Stephens

Writer and activist

I suspect that journalists leaving the mainstream media need treatment rather like that meted out to snails before they are sauteed and eaten - I believe the preferred diet is lettuce leaves for two weeks. This gets rid of the toxins. There are signs in Michelle's first contribution that she has at least started nibbling the leaves. In her recent Fairfax career she seemed to be a good example of pack mentality and fashion following which I complained about here: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-fashions-always-in-flux-20120917-262pf.html . Disappointing that we are still getting the horse race analogy: I agree who wins ultimately is important but this doesn't mean we need breathless but superficial analysis of every furlong. Also can we swear off "bellwether" as a simplistic tag for Eden-Monaro, please? There is a lot more to this complex electorate, especially in the Kelly era, than this aspect.

4 months ago report
Vincent Restuccia

retired senior technical officer

I am so pleased to be able to continue reading what I am sure will be the best political reporting as always from Michelle whom I have followed for many years. I agree the parliament with all it's problems has pased many good pieces of progressive legislation however there is so much ill will between the patries that this good work get lost in the constant nastiness from both side. I feel this election year will be based more around conducting a very negative focus on the leaders. I doubt much real policy will be discussed in great detail. So I shall look to Michelle to fill in the gaps for me.

4 months ago report
Robert Rands

retired science teacher

Does this mean Ms Gratton will be less of a feature on Radio National? I hope so. For me, her commentary epitomises the smug political centre-ground of the commentariat. In one word, twaddle.

4 months ago report
1. Marilyn Shepherd
  
  pensioner
  
  In reply to Robert Rands
  
  I agree, Fran and Michelle's cosy corner is appalling.
  
  4 months ago report
Narelle Matheson

logged in via Facebook

I am also very pleased to be able to continue to follow Michelle Grattan's political reporting. And yes, the next few months are surely going to be very interesting. Regardless of the successful party, it would be very sad indeed to see the demise of the carbon pricing and the mining tax. I have a sense that the NDIS is too big an issue for either party to meddle with, but the biggest issue for me is the cold seam gas exploration around Australia and the potential harm to aquifers. There is so much opposition to these procedures at a grass roots level, but no support for opposition to this at either state or federal level of parliament.

4 months ago report
Tony Grant

Student

"The old grey mare ,she ain't what she used to be"!

Unfortunately, you have become a "pack animal" of the media circus, therefore, no longer the credibility!

If you are now suggesting that "the move" will bring balance and objectivity to your subject matter, will you describe the pressure you were under to "conform and regurgitate" SSDD?

Will you now let us really know how you feel about this "minority governments policies"?

Who killed Roger Rabbit ...I mean who really dethroned PM Kevin Rudd?

Or is this new positioning just a form of "severance" or "the right's further encroachment" into a hostile take-over anything that may seem balanced?

Editor...MG is /was tough enough to handle anything I may put in her way...let her shoot me down with her truth/facts!

In the name of "democracy"?

P.S. lol in advance...democracy?

4 months ago report
Kerri Tearle

Special Education Consultant

Agree with others that this was a positive start to Ms Grattan's column. I am hopeful (although a little sceptical) that policy will drive the election campaign. I think that we all need to contribute to keeping policy at the fore of media attention by engaging in the debate as much as possible. I would very much like to see journalists such as Ms Grattan press the government and opposition for details of alternate policies. Too often politicians get away with sweeping statements or claims that are factually incorrect and sloppy journalists fail to pull them up. Claims need to be backed by credible evidence/research as well as by political belief. I look forward to following this column.

4 months ago report
Barbara Turner

logged in via Twitter

I for one look forward to continuing to read your writings. A helpful voice as I try to understand this mess called politics.

4 months ago report
Susan Nicholls

logged in via Facebook

As a pledged member of "Destroy the Joint", I have foresworn online vilification so will be ineffably polite here. May I say first, congratulations, Michelle, on the transition to your new journalistic direction, and secondly, watch your back at UC. Like other commenters here, I too hope you will try to be less relentlessly negative about JG than heretofore, and do as you promise: engage in informed, balanced and nuanced interpretations of the politics and its wider cultural and community consequences in the coming year in our rowdy and sometimes appalling political sphere.

4 months ago report
Deborah Lupton

Senior Principal Research Fellow, Department of Sociology and Social Policy at University of Sydney

I'd be interested to see coverage of the 'bellweather' seat of Eden-Monaro. I have relatives in that electorate, including my mother, who has worked as a journalist for a local newspaper for decades and knows local politics inside-out. She assures me that the local member, Mike Kelly, is very popular because of what he has achieved for the electorate. If this is the case, and if Eden-Monaro retains its bellweather status, it would seem that the prospects for Labor are good.

4 months ago report
1. David Stephens
  
  Writer and activist
  
  In reply to Deborah Lupton
  
  Yes; partly my pointy made elsewhere. Kelly's numbers booth by booth and town by town since 2007 are so untypical of trends elsewhere in Australia as to cast a bit of doubt on whether it is bellwether at all.The seat itself is not typical of most of Australia in a number of demographics. Bellwether implies leading the pack; maybe it is more that Eden-Monaro for a number of years followed the pack and that this is changing.
  
  4 months ago report
Stephen John Ralph

carer

I note that in today's age an article from one of its political writers , Tim Soutphommasane, is a political philosopher and has worked as a Labor adviser.

I'm not saying his opinion is not valid, nor was the article particularly weighted as a Labor piece, but don't newspapers hire journalists without accredited links to political parties?

You could say that might be like trying to find an honest man/woman in a den of thieves, but it might be nice tho.

4 months ago report
1. Rick Fleckner
  
  Student
  
  In reply to Stephen John Ralph
  
  You are referring to an opinion piece. A contract job. The same as something written by Costello or Berg or Keating or Kevin Sheedy. I would hope that The Age solicits opinions from vested interests across the board.
  
  4 months ago report
Elizabeth Aitken

logged in via Twitter

Ms Grattan, I A few points / comments regarding the differential in this piece between opinion and fact - something you claim to be espousing in the conclusions to your article.

"What will be distinctive about this election is that the date is known so many months out." Hardly. There are 4 states with fixed term elections, so for the majority of the country this is nothing new at all. This is your opinion and not a fact.

"in a parliament where the unexpected is the expected, that could change…
Read more

Ms Grattan, I A few points / comments regarding the differential in this piece between opinion and fact - something you claim to be espousing in the conclusions to your article.

"What will be distinctive about this election is that the date is known so many months out." Hardly. There are 4 states with fixed term elections, so for the majority of the country this is nothing new at all. This is your opinion and not a fact.

"in a parliament where the unexpected is the expected, that could change – for instance, if Kevin Rudd were to achieve the Herculean challenge of seizing the leadership." Again, you need some basis for these comments. I get the impression that this is wishful thinking on the part of the author as opposed to a measured assessment based in probability. Indeed if the unexpected were the expected then I reasonably expect Malcolm Turnbull to roll Tony Abbott, a meteor to wipe out Canberra, and Barnaby Joyce to accept the scientific evidence of climate change. On the basis of the information presented in this piece all of these outcomes are equally likely. Again I can only conclude that this is your opinion and not a fact.

"This parliament has given crossbenchers in the House of Representatives the sort of power usually only accorded to crossbench senators. It is a matter of argument whether that is the system at its most democratic or its most dysfunctional." What is your justification for this statement? It is a matter of argument for whom? The current make-up of parliament is a statement of fact, and is therefore democratic, because our system is a democracy. The implication that there could be an argument that it represents something other than a democracy is simply a reflection of partisan politics. Proof and evidence beat "truthiness" every time. Again this is your opinion and not a fact.

One of the things I have enjoyed the most about the Conversation is its willingness to publish information unblemished by the self perpetuating views of "opinion journalists" who believe that their own views and conclusions should be the story - not the actual evidence. This fluff piece is not an auspicious start to your tenure at the Conversation.

4 months ago report
1. Kevin Bain
  
  Teacher
  
  In reply to Elizabeth Aitken
  
  Well said Elizabeth Aitken. Expecting a belated makeover of MG's modus operandi seems too optimistic. It looks like being politics as a form of theatre, or "the view from nowhere" (Wikipedia). The sporting commentator approach - with none of the excitement! At least the ensuing reader debate will add value.
  Ben Eltham at New Matilda is a relatively new commentator who demonstrates how an argument derived from a judicious combination of heart with head can give insight and stimulate thinking, rather than MG's detached and descriptive model.
  My own disagreement with the reverence shown towards the Age dates back to sometime in the 90s when the Editor of their Letters page rang to say they would like to publish my letter but suggested I amend it to give credit to the Age for raising the issue. Lofty journalism my foot! And this was pre-internet, when they were only just starting to sink under the weight of their irrelevance.
  
  4 months ago report
Sidney Bloch

Emeritus Professor in Psychiatry at University of Melbourne

Refreshing piece indeed. And so many comments generated in a matter of hours. What Ms Griffin vows to do would be a welcome change from the tedium of political commentary in the general media especially the OZ in which their leader writers and columnists seem to devote most of their attention on the failings of Julia Gillard and her Government. Utterly predictable on most days.

4 months ago report
1. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Sidney Bloch
  
  Totally agree Sidney.
  
  One thing is sure - this will be an election campaign unlike another other. And even Michelle's timid prediction of a clear and decisive majority for someone - may be overconfident.
  
  Politicians (and probably journalists) don't like hung parliaments - but some of us out here are starting to quite like the idea. What a pity one can't cast a vote for an indecisive result.
  
  4 months ago report
2. Michael Shand
  
  Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Software Tester
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Vote for independent or minor party!! they usually dont get the same lobbying groups and preasure as they major parties and can to some extent hold the government accountable
  
  4 months ago report
3. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Michael Shand
  
  Nah ... independents around here would do well to scrape 12% ... no Tony Windsors on the horizon I'm afraid... too scattered to develop a base and a profile.
  
  I generally sling anyone green a vote up front before being distributed down to the ALP - just so they can work out where their support is coming from. This is stuff they actually do pick up in head office if enough folks do it. Even if you're only going to pull 12%.
  
  This will be a critical election for the Greens, particularly if Grattan is correct. There is a real danger that the Greens and the Independents will be trampled in the suggested rush for a "decisive outcome".
  
  I hope they are getting the best advice they can afford.
  
  4 months ago report
4. Michael Shand
  
  Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Software Tester
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Good comment, I too fear that if we regress back to only 2 major parties we will be locked into the same problem the USA has where the difference between the major parties is marginal and without threat from a 3rd party will stay that way - we can already see it in the so called "Race to the Bottom" on immigration and the "Race to the top" on Private school funding - aka giving special privilage to the already privilaged in society
  
  4 months ago report
5. Dianna Arthur
  
  Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Environmentalist
  
  In reply to Michael Shand
  
  Count me in for a hung parliament. Not even gonna make a joke about it.
  
  Howard showed what can happen with too much power, Gillard has managed to govern with too little. We find out occasionally she has managed to contribute a lot with very little.
  
  Where are the Independents this time around?
  
  "... one of the highlights of the past political year was an interview with a bemused Rob Oakeshott on the day the poker machine legislation, such as it was, was passed. He was surprised anything was passed at all — not so much because of a lack of will, but because the number of gambling lobbyists in Parliament House that day outnumbered the politicians. I think Andrew Wilkie should take heart."
  
  http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/fear-and-loathing-in-canberra/
  
  4 months ago report
6. Dave McRae
  
  logged in via Twitter
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  I am delighted to hear that Grattan has predicted the Greens and Independents will be trampled. - I think that should be of great comfort to the Greens and Independents as her political predictions has been overwhelmingly better than chance to be wrong.
  
  The second she predicts the minority government will continue to pass record setting number of bills for a parliament, I think then we have to worry.
  
  Does anyone find the the treatment of many people voting as a single human entity crazy? Could a mathematician at ANU explain a bit of Stats to the lady. It is statistically unlikely that the number of votes/electorates will deliver a hung parliament again for a while - shame, for it was good despite the inability of the press gallery or opposition to deal with it - but the idea of an Australian Voter, single entity, voted hung but will try something different next time is the sort of journalism a blogger in their pyjamas could come with hitting forehead to keyboard.
  
  4 months ago report
john tons

post graduate student

As far as policy is concerned there is one, largely unacknowledged, 'elephant in the room' I am referring to population growth. Why does the government have no population policy (yet a 'Sustainable Population Minister') and no responsible answer for what is the sustainable population of Australia, a nation with 6% arable land and scarce water resources?
Why does the government have no population policy, yet maintains a thriving immigration scheme to stimulate the housing construction industry and a multitude of related business and service sectors? This is a broader question which everyone should be asking, because it is the cause of
all our problems, not the panacea.

4 months ago report
Peter Boyd Lane

geologist

Odd thing is that the independents have added much to this parliament and yet the media seems to hate them. They have consistently been constructive (even though their opinions may differ from yours or mine) and have trearted parliament with respect whereas the major parties have not. There should be more of them!

4 months ago report
1. Michael Shand
  
  Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Software Tester
  
  In reply to Peter Boyd Lane
  
  I agree, more representation, more voices, more diversity. The idea the mainstream media keep pedalling that unless one major party has full control and dictate then nothing will get done is an insult to our democracy, rather they think democracy is deceiding who will be the supreme leader for the next 4 years
  
  If these politicians cant govern together in a democratic fashion then what good are they? if they require full control of government to get anything done then what sort of democracy is that
  
  4 months ago report
2. Noely
  
  logged in via Twitter
  
  In reply to Peter Boyd Lane
  
  I agree, I would love more Independents too. I think more of them would actually be more representative of the Australian public.
  
  I would say the media hate them because they can't 'predict' what they will do based on past history, and probably more important for the papers, they don't want to spend the money travelling around the country to actually get any background on the Independents, much easier just to ask each other in the Press Gallery with a few comments from Libs or ALP :(
  
  4 months ago report
Judith Olney

Ms

I read this article thinking there may be a very slim possibility that I would see a change in the type of political reporting that comes from the MSM daily. I can now say that I am thoroughly disappointed.

Personally, I do not want more "horse race" calling, I don't want to hear manufactured stories like the continuous and unrelenting garbage about Kevin Rudd possible challenges, that's one dead horse the media have flogged unrelentingly. Give it up, PLEASE.

I don't want to hear or read another…
Read more

I read this article thinking there may be a very slim possibility that I would see a change in the type of political reporting that comes from the MSM daily. I can now say that I am thoroughly disappointed.

Personally, I do not want more "horse race" calling, I don't want to hear manufactured stories like the continuous and unrelenting garbage about Kevin Rudd possible challenges, that's one dead horse the media have flogged unrelentingly. Give it up, PLEASE.

I don't want to hear or read another three word slogan, or calls for anyone to be sacked or stood down for some minor issue. Its tedious in the extreme. I don't want to hear or read anything about the personal lives of politicians, or hear or read about what their spouses think of them, who cares.

Why should we not be put off by the less attractive aspects of politics? Why should we not be cynical, this is a perfectly valid response to what the media have been doing over the last three years, and a valid response to the muck raking, personal abuse, and garbage politics that have dominated the media over the last three years.

Why should we expect any improvement in the reporting by the media, just because a reporter, guilty of bias, denigrating a Prime Minister, ignoring policy issues in favour of the nasty personal attacks on politicians, including false allegations and outright lies that get printed without due diligence in fact checking, and getting the public reaction so completely wrong many times on events and issues, says that there will be more policy discussion and less nonsense? I for one, do not believe a word of it.

There are many Australian voters that have been quite happy with this minority government, many that saw more power given to the independents and minor parties, as good for the country and its people. We are not all rabid , rusted ons, that need to feed our bias through an unbalanced biased media. There are many Australian voters who actually care about policy, not personality, and are sick and tired of the side show that parliament has become.

Here's hoping "The Conversation" does not become just another mouthpiece for the neo-conservatives of this country, it would be nice to think at least one media outlet could not be bought off.

4 months ago report
Patricia Hamilton

Retired

I stopped reading at para 3 with the Rudd/Hercules comment. Still disappointed.

4 months ago report
Jane Court

Educator

"Yet in the public mind this parliament has been largely defined by noise and nastiness, to an extent that many people just want to close their ears until it is over" So true. A parliament filled with excessive abuse of each other and campaigns to undermine public trust. Sooner over the better for this parliament.

4 months ago report
Peter le Breton

logged in via LinkedIn

I'm new to The Conversation and pleased that the first article to hit my eyes was Michelle Grattan's. I suspect the above sentence will put off some readers here who are antipathetic towards MG. That's a pity because I'm neither sympathetic nor the reverse towards MG. I find MG's piece pleasing because it strikes me as an honest, non-partisan appraisal by a senior political journalist of the political scene. And its focus is positive—on policy rather than personality, on hope rather than lament…
Read more

I'm new to The Conversation and pleased that the first article to hit my eyes was Michelle Grattan's. I suspect the above sentence will put off some readers here who are antipathetic towards MG. That's a pity because I'm neither sympathetic nor the reverse towards MG. I find MG's piece pleasing because it strikes me as an honest, non-partisan appraisal by a senior political journalist of the political scene. And its focus is positive—on policy rather than personality, on hope rather than lament. For me it is a digestible summary—not too dense, not too superficial—of the state of affairs from one commentator's perspective. A biased summary, of course, because bias is inevitable and to be welcomed. Subjectivity and objectivity coalesce.

I will reveal my bias. No it isn't political in the sense of left or right, Labor or Liberal, or some other party. My bias is for dialogue rather than discussion or debate.

While I chuckled at some of the witty commentary herein, I cringed at the attacks and vitriolic put-downs. To me, the best conversation entails respect and listening, building on what is good, adding to rather than taking from. The best conversation is not about point-scoring and slaying 'opponents' with argument or emotion. If one thinks that 'truth' is many-faceted, provisional, contingent, contextual and perspectival (as I do), self-righeousness makes no sense. Certainty, like objectivity, is an illusion.

It occurs to me that the commentary around MG's article mirrors the 'commentary' in our society. It is a microcosm of the macrocosm. This is hardly surprising. But I hope we aspire, in the spirit of The Conversation, to more dialogic conversation. The work of David Bohm on dialogue, of Margaret Wheatley on authentic conversation, of David Cooperrider on Appreciative Inquiry, and of Parker Palmer and Arthur Zajonc on collegial conversations are some resources that can guide us here.

4 months ago report
1. Geoff Henderson
  
  Graduate
  
  In reply to Peter le Breton
  
  Hallelujah Peter le Breton, well said.
  
  4 months ago report
Judith Olney

Ms

I would like to say a big thank you to all those that have commented on this article so far. Although the article itself produced little more than a "meh", for me at least, the comments have been thoroughly enjoyable, and far more insightful than the article itself.

I would also like to thank "The Conversation" for making it possible for people to post here, without politically biased moderators deleting the comments. This is was happens on many mainstream websites, and every Murdoch owned news outlet, good to see this web site is free from this cancer.

4 months ago report
1. Michael Shand
  
  Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Software Tester
  
  In reply to Judith Olney
  
  Yes, Kudo's to The Conversation for providing and allowing a place for feedback unfetted by political leanings, it is invaluable
  
  4 months ago report
wilma western

logged in via email @bigpond.com

The so-called "hung " parliament has allowed the valuable contributions of Independents such as Tony Windsor to come the fore , e.g hard work on committees re coal seam gas and the Murray Darling Basin agreement . The role of the Greens on issues where the cabinet could be influenced due to their vital H of R seat has been enhanced. How is this bad for Australian democracy?

Coalitions of minority groups emerge from democratic elections in many other countries such as Israel and Germany. Yet the Opposition has campaigned long and hard, with the assistance of the political commentariat in the main stream media , to depict the present situation as undemocratic.

If the Conversation under Michelle's guidance is going to concentrate on policy issues perhaps experts in the policy areas could be invited to contribute their views rather than have non- expert political commentary on each policy area.

4 months ago report
David Kindon

Painter and writer ex lobbyist

Fortunately or otherwise - we will certainly get the Government we deserve even if it isn't the Government we need.

4 months ago report
Helen Errington

logged in via email @iinet.net.au

Nice to see you say something positive about the government Michelle. I hope your balanced views continue and that facts are the dominate theme rather than hyperbole. Thank you. I like the Conversation for its level of integrity in r reporting which I am afraid is sadly lacking in most of the Murdoch owned old media.

4 months ago report
Adam Williams

logged in via Twitter

Just wanted to say what a wonderfully written piece, I enjoyed reading it and look forward to more.

I am saddened by the comments and their petty, snide, and rude remarks at one another. I'm not sure why intelligent people cant just debate the things they support, or articulate the ones they don't without making it feel like you're all clawing at a chalkboard, quite painful to read though and not particularly enlightening either.

4 months ago report
Noely

logged in via Twitter

Does anyone else find this paragraph a tad hypocritical considering Ms Grattan and her colleagues were the main people pushing this message, even in the face of an agreement being made & Parliament, contrary to the message from News Ltd & Fairfax, was actually running.

"Yet in the public mind this parliament has been largely defined by noise and nastiness, to an extent that many people just want to close their ears until it is over. The closeness of the numbers, the feeling that there could be a sudden election, a certain desperation on both sides, have soured debate."

I would have a lot more respect for what you have written above if you could admit that yourself and you're colleagues are partly responsible for this 'perceived instability?

Let's hope that there is more policy discussion and 'balanced' assessment in your next article.

4 months ago report
David Lamond

Pro Vice Chancellor (Offshore Development) at Victoria University

Enjoyed the article Michelle - thanks! Less enamoured though of the subsequent commentary. Regardless of "left" or "right" (and I think it's been a long time since we've seriously applied those labels, but that's worthy of its own piece), many of the responses have been less than balanced and objective, bringing a sense of The Age/SMH blogs & comments to mind. I do hope this is just a result of the flurry of excitement your piece has engendered and not an indication of the quality of responses you will receive in the future. The conversation we share over the next 8 months will be critical to the future of our country and society - let us engage the topics with a proper sense of mutual respect.

4 months ago report
1. Michael Shand
  
  Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Software Tester
  
  In reply to David Lamond
  
  Welcome to the Internet where we let all speak and be heard without demand for qualification.
  
  For the most part we at the internet do not judge the quality of the response by how polite they are as we are not children, we are grown ups and can see through bad spelling, grammer, insults, to understand what the person is actually saying instead of writing them off because we dont like their language/tone/point of view
  
  I hope you enjoy your stay and Remember, internet comments are only a reflection of what people actually think
  
  4 months ago report
margo kingston

logged in via Twitter

Hi Michelle. Yes, the hung parliament has been bitter and twisted, but only because the Coalition didn't get with the zeitgeist voters wanted. I hope there is a hung parliament next time, whichever big party wins, and that whoever is the Opposition will have learned the lesson of phase one and join the policy conversation. A quote from Not Happy John: Defending our democracy (Penguin, 2004):

"I imagine independent and minor party politicians holding the balance of power in the House of Representatives…
Read more

Hi Michelle. Yes, the hung parliament has been bitter and twisted, but only because the Coalition didn't get with the zeitgeist voters wanted. I hope there is a hung parliament next time, whichever big party wins, and that whoever is the Opposition will have learned the lesson of phase one and join the policy conversation. A quote from Not Happy John: Defending our democracy (Penguin, 2004):

"I imagine independent and minor party politicians holding the balance of power in the House of Representatives for once - ensuring some real debate, demanding some real democratic hard yakka from the cabinet, fostering some real engagement down where the legislative action should really be: in the People's House.

"I imagine the big power-players, the real elites, for a change facing a bit of stiff competition for minister's ears. I imagine their shocked faces when they realise they can't buy access and influence and power from OUR politicians with donations to their parties."

LOVE your first column, and you.

Margo

4 months ago report
Mark

logged in via Twitter

Hi Michelle :)

Great to see you're now writing for the conversation & look forward to reading your future contributions.

Just a couple of points of criticism if I may be so bold:

1) The name of this forum is The Conversation. As such it would be nice if you could join in the conversation rather than writing AT us.

2) Relates to the first point & addresses your interest in 'Citizen Journalism' ... Can we expect that you will be linking to the many citizen journalists in the 'blogosphere' ...to validate and encourage this exciting form of news dissemination & critical political analysis based on facts/evidence ...rather than the often false/misleading views of vested business interests?

Cheers, Mark

4 months ago report
1. David Stephens
  
  Writer and activist
  
  In reply to Mark
  
  Yes indeed regarding the "AT us" , a characteristic of MSM columnists, I fear. At least KMG lacks much of the pomposity of Paul Kelly. Also agree with whoever praised the lack of Murdoch politburo style "moderators". I have given up trying to infiltrate my "Guardian Weekly liberal" comments into the Australian or Tele but thought it was something wrong with my server!
  
  4 months ago report
2. Michael Shand
  
  Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Software Tester
  
  In reply to Mark
  
  I can understand not jumping into the comments section immediately, if your not prepared for the comments and not expecting them it can be quite hard to respond non emotively. There are some Authors here that are very good at it though, Patrick Stokes being one of them. its very tricky tho, you dont want to just feed the trolls and you dont want to just pander to your base but identifying which comments deserve a real response and learn or be informed from the response and which commenters are jst going to give you hell for the sake of it.....its very difficult but yes, like you I would hope Michelle would jump in at some point
  
  4 months ago report
3. Kevin Bain
  
  Teacher
  
  In reply to Mark
  
  You might be a bit ambitious to expect MG to jump into this lions' den! I don't blame her by the way - inevitably a neverending conversation rather than a selective intervention. And light rather than heat would be a wishful objective.
  But AFAICS, The Conversation, despite all its media stories, has not sponsored a physical forum on the issues around what are the best models for political reporting, although there have been others eg. on Higher Ed, the Asian Century. The manifest degradation of…
  Read more
  
  You might be a bit ambitious to expect MG to jump into this lions' den! I don't blame her by the way - inevitably a neverending conversation rather than a selective intervention. And light rather than heat would be a wishful objective.
  But AFAICS, The Conversation, despite all its media stories, has not sponsored a physical forum on the issues around what are the best models for political reporting, although there have been others eg. on Higher Ed, the Asian Century. The manifest degradation of the US media during the recent election campaign is a warning sign: we don't want the Fox News-style reportage from a "parallel universe" to dominate here. However, the "chaos and confusion" theme at News Ltd shows that the importation of this contagion has begun.
  It would be an important contribution if The Conversation was to organise such an event, and explore how an organisation free from commercial constraints - both the crowd-funded and government funded model - might deliver on some of the quality objectives which commenters have recently identified. Needless to say, it doesn't make sense if this does not include presentations from commenters as well as commentators.
  Ms Grattan's views would be of much interest (as would Margo Kingston's!).
  
  4 months ago report
Stewart Scott-Irving

Education Consultant

The faith I have in the potential for Australia to lead the world's democratic process through using its active social network and its National citizens' education syllabus, has been restored here in The Conversation comments. There is to be a 3rd alternative offered in the September election to this default by history ALP or Coalition choice. A Federal Team of Independents is proposed whose unity and oxymoron description is based upon its policy platform of having constituents vote directly on all legislation. One of the first such referenda would be to abolish State Governments, having them merge with either Federal or Local Governments. Perhaps the Productivity Commission (another oxymoron) should have planned or advocated this and their own redundancy.

4 months ago report
Sally Corbett

Jazz musician

Disappointing start, there's just nothing new. There's been endless comment on the hung parliament, but not on the main reason for its problems and that's the way the opposition treats the hung parliament. Tony Windsor's point that Abbott has deliberately caused chaos is a fact. Why not report it? The processes of parliament are consistently, deliberately abused by the opposition. eg. the obsession with the so called 'AWU' slush fund and consequent abuse of question time by the oppostion. This is why policy does not get any airing. I suggest that it's people like you, Ms Grattan, who could report this. If you think policy is important well please report on it. Take a few steps back and look at the bigger picture. Perhaps even something about morals, ethics, democracy, community, climate change and development, treatment of asylum seekers, resource extraction and coal export. There's a big world out there.

4 months ago report
1. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Sally Corbett
  
  Aaaw OK folks it's probably fair that Ms Grattan gets a stint in the stocks but don't throw any sharp or hard vegetables. Save them for Blot.
  
  If every other newspaper in town is bubbling over with talk of Rudd - if the gallery is being drip-fed by half a dozen sources - from cabinet leaks on one side to the scurrilous gossip that has become the hall-mark of the Opposition, Ms Grattan's editors will want some acreage on the issue.
  
  I reckon the real challenge for Ms G will be seeing how well she can adapt her nouse and intimidating address book into policy and substance... to move beyond the Gallery gossip and corridor whispers into the meat and potatoes of a very stodgy looking diet by her own account.
  
  And not a bloody word about opinion polls. Not one.
  
  4 months ago report
Ivan Quail

maverick

To Ms Gratton
The Media have brainwashed some 1/3rd of the public into believing that Ms. Gillard is a lier. “There will be no Carbon Tax under a government I lead”

The odds of their being a hung Federal parliament after the election were very slim. Since 1910 to 2010 there has been only one Federal hung parliament ie a 1 in 100 year chance.

Now it should be apparent to all but the intellectually challenged that all bets are off the table and that concessions are going to have to be made…
Read more

To Ms Gratton
The Media have brainwashed some 1/3rd of the public into believing that Ms. Gillard is a lier. “There will be no Carbon Tax under a government I lead”

The odds of their being a hung Federal parliament after the election were very slim. Since 1910 to 2010 there has been only one Federal hung parliament ie a 1 in 100 year chance.

Now it should be apparent to all but the intellectually challenged that all bets are off the table and that concessions are going to have to be made by one or other of the major parties for them to get the support of nonaligned representatives to be able to form a government.

The conditions for the support of the independent and green representatives were the introduction of a Carbon Tax and some real action on Climate Change. Remember that in 2007 70% of Australians wanted action on Climate Change and Co2 emissions.

Ms Gillard was prepared to agree to that condition. That does not constitute lying before the election as nobody knew what the outcome of the election would be.

Mr Howard’s “There will be no GST” was a lie and Mr. Abbott’s “Climate Change is a load of crap” and outlandish claims about the impact of the Carbon Tax were also lies but received only 5% of the attention from the Media that the Carbon Tax issue has received.

Is Ms Gratton going to address these wrongs?

Do I live in a Democracy or a Mediaocracy where the Media determines the outcome of elections?

4 months ago report
1. Michael Shand
  
  Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Software Tester
  
  In reply to Ivan Quail
  
  Excellant Comment
  
  4 months ago report
Paul Pfluger

retired

Well, sure looks to me like Grattan's taken up where she left off. Even manages to get in a bit about the Ruddstoration for goodness sake.

4 months ago report
Paul Young

Marketing Director

we all have our opinions Michelle and yours are well known. I will be watching what you say and HOW you say it. If I detect any bias, I and others will simply leave the conversation. At this stage of your career I trust your goal is to provide us with the hidden FACTS without hyperbole.

4 months ago report
Billy Blanks

logged in via Twitter

I find the tone of this piece to be a considerable improvement from that of her recent work at Fairfax. It was also nice to see Grattan acknowledge her critics regarding horse race coverage. She is a little defensive here. But that's understandable I suppose. The important thing is that she is willing to embrace the task of focusing a bit more on policy together with politics. That is good.

On the other hand this comment was funny:

"Yet in the public mind this parliament has been largely defined…
Read more

I find the tone of this piece to be a considerable improvement from that of her recent work at Fairfax. It was also nice to see Grattan acknowledge her critics regarding horse race coverage. She is a little defensive here. But that's understandable I suppose. The important thing is that she is willing to embrace the task of focusing a bit more on policy together with politics. That is good.

On the other hand this comment was funny:

"Yet in the public mind this parliament has been largely defined by noise and nastiness, to an extent that many people just want to close their ears until it is over. The closeness of the numbers, the feeling that there could be a sudden election, a certain desperation on both sides, have soured debate."

Well yes. but the obvious retort to this is that in her role as a senior doyen of the press gallery, prominently weekly columnist at Fairfax and Radio National co-presenter on politics in the mornings – Michelle Grattan had a oversized and uniquely important role in shaping that perception over time and she actively devoted most of her time to downplaying substantive conversations about the policies of the government and fixating on "The Narrative" of nastiness and a permanent sense of crisis she now tries to record as a passive observer. The government certainly earned some negative framing coverage, but it became a ridiculous feeding frenzy that wasn't coherent or fair minded and Michelle was certainly a architectural contributor. .

This is the women who gratuitously called for Gillard to fall on her sword, wrote a million and one stories about the next Rudd challenge on the horizon and missed and mischaracterised the now-famous misogyny speech as a desperate ploy because she couldn’t process it any other way. Her hands aren’t clean.

Anyway, I don't wish to end on a negative note as this is a big step up. I hope subsequent piece match the promise to focus on policy rather than trivia and optics.

4 months ago report
Wayne Burns

logged in via Facebook

Good on you Michelle for blazing a trail yet again. It is refreshing indeed to have more outlets, with more voices and commentary of the nation's most important issues.

4 months ago report
1. In reply to Wayne Burns
  
  Comment removed by moderator.
duncan mills

Social Ecologist

I would like Ms Grattan to explain how she will offer something other than the same old tired hackneyed analysis that she has practiced for many years.
It would appear to me she only kept her jobs by not aggressively pursuing the important hard questions that all in the electorate have to answer.
Questions about what sort of world do we want to leave to our children and grandchildren.
Questions about how the media are bought and channeled by vested interests who have no interest in the long term consequences of their actions.
Questions about the dead weight of received culture that shackles people to outmoded world views in the face of change.
Questions about the usefulness of existing institutions in the face of arguably overwhelming long term threats to society.

To pursue analysis of political institutions without regard to these questions is going to serve up the same old tripe many of us came here to avoid.

4 months ago report
1. Sally Corbett
  
  Jazz musician
  
  In reply to duncan mills
  
  Right on Duncan Mills. And there is somebody in the Federal govt. at the moment who attempts to say/address some of this. Rob Oakeshott - let's hear more from him, Ms. Grattan. And before I'm accused of bias/taking sides I don't live in his electorate, and don't vote for him. I just admire a lot of what he says and does. And this is the beauty of a hung parliament. http://www.portnews.com.au/story/1291404/oakeshott-v-gillespie-on-2013-election-issues/?cs=256o
  
  4 months ago report
Katherine McKay

Retired

I note that Michelle comments on the nastiness of the past couple of years in Federal politics. As most of this has been directed solely at Julia Gillard, and actively contributed to by Michelle when at The Age, I hope that it will not continue during the election campaign and that Michelle will recover her former balance and fairness on this platform.

4 months ago report
Bill Brown

Jack of all trades now retired

I congratulate Michelle for making the move to this media. I have followed Michelle for many years and like most thinking people have often disagreed with her but never with her reasoning. I have also have began the process of sourcing my news elsewhere as opposed to the tabloids (good for reading the 'photos' or pages of 'fluff'') and The Age that was serious about the news but too large and the supplements on one day of the week overwhelmed me. I am looking forward to my daily read of The Conversation and to the quality of any further reporters/journalists that may be recruited.

4 months ago report
Marilyn Shepherd

pensioner

For god's sake will all the droning media in this country stop whining about border protection?

That is code for torturing and keeping out refugees and we all know it. It is nothing to do with border protection because we don't have any borders to protect and asylum seekers are allowed to come by sea.

This is an island and unless they can swim from Sri Lanka or Indonesia they need transport.

Michelle, when are you going to apologise though to Peter Slipper? He was not the predatory pervert you claimed he was day in and day out, he was fitted up.

Yet not one apology.

4 months ago report
1. Hugh McColl
  
  Geographer
  
  In reply to Marilyn Shepherd
  
  If there are going to be apologies then start with one to Kevin Rudd. Why was it necessary, in this the very first column, to bring up the possibility of a leadership challenge in the Labor Party? Why? There is absolutely no evidence that any challenge is in the air. It is so unlikely as to be laughable. And yet the new Chief Political Correspondent makes it a feature of her first article - the very first politician mentioned - and it's all about a dead issue.
  
  4 months ago report
2. David Stephens
  
  Writer and activist
  
  In reply to Hugh McColl
  
  I refrained from comment on Michelle's remark but I admit to having a problem with the adjective "Herculean". I agree that a challenge is extremely unlikely but there might be a slight possibility of the PM tapping herself on the shoulder and Rudd being the only alternative. In this case not Herculean but quite straightforward. I am definitely not saying this will happen, mind...
  
  4 months ago report
wilma western

logged in via email @bigpond.com

I'll second those resolutions put to this small unelected "people's parliament", Peter Ormonde

4 months ago report
1. Stephen John Ralph
  
  carer
  
  In reply to wilma western
  
  Hi Wilma
  
  isn't every member of the parliamentary chamber elected.......................?
  
  perhaps many of them won't be at the next election tho....................
  
  4 months ago report
2. wilma western
  
  logged in via email @bigpond.com
  
  In reply to Stephen John Ralph
  
  Sorry Stephen John Ralph - I was being facetious and the words "this small unelected parliament" actually referred to the people who take part in The Conversation's debates and discussions. The "resolutions" were P Ormonde's suggestions that respondents lay off harsh criticism of Ms Grattan at this stage and that in return Ms Grattan brings us some better insights from useful contacts and totally refrains from mentioning polls.
  
  A historical note - parliament ( parlement in French ) is a place where people talk or speak. The original English parliament was not elected.
  
  4 months ago report
Sean Lamb

Science Denier

A new academic to hector - excellent. Although other people seem to be doing the hectoring instead of me, which is a bit novel.

Dr?Ms?Professorial Fellow Grattan - can I just say I thoroughly enjoyed the character attacks in parliament last year. This new focus on policy just involves the Coalition tossing up a ball and the Government spending 4 minutes trying to dispatch to the boundary. Its not very interesting and certainly not enlightening - I pity you for having to sit through it for so…
Read more

A new academic to hector - excellent. Although other people seem to be doing the hectoring instead of me, which is a bit novel.

Dr?Ms?Professorial Fellow Grattan - can I just say I thoroughly enjoyed the character attacks in parliament last year. This new focus on policy just involves the Coalition tossing up a ball and the Government spending 4 minutes trying to dispatch to the boundary. Its not very interesting and certainly not enlightening - I pity you for having to sit through it for so many years.

I felt the focus on Gillard and the AWU was important for understanding how power and patronage function in the Labor party. A bit like drugs in sport: it is impossible for the clean athletes to win if we don't have good compliance and monitoring regimes to weed out the cheats.

As it is, as a welcome to The Conversation present - you may be interested to know that the small building firm run by the brothers Stephen and Paul Makris in Melbourne also are the beneficiaries of a registered trust trading by the name Town Mode. They also - I think - are related to the powerful South Australian developer family headed byCon Makris.
You may be interested to know this, or maybe you would rather not. Who am I to know?

4 months ago report
1. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to Sean Lamb
  
  Sean Lamb wrote ;"A new academic to hector - excellent." Interesting .......
  Now on record as a wind up merchant and bully. Such confidence.
  
  4 months ago report
Stephen John Ralph

carer

wow Sean (you deserve a capital letter)

so mysterious - can't wait for the next episode.

hope you've left a letter with your solicitor in case you disappear.

this is the most exciting comment I've read in The Con so far.........................

4 months ago report
1. Sean Lamb
  
  Science Denier
  
  In reply to Stephen John Ralph
  
  Mr Ralph - the position of Cultural Attache to Graz should be enough to buy my silence.
  
  Styria and Australia have many historical ties and I would fill a hole in our current diplomatic corps.
  
  4 months ago report
mike flanagan

retired

Peter Ormonde;
Your pleas to offer Grattan 'slack' fall on deaf ears with me. She has given no slack over the past twenty odd years to anyone of the progressive elements of politics.
Ms Grattan should also understand that horses without riders or saddlery are disqualified and are never given accolades. And furthermore she should actually buy a mirror for when she observes that media have missed their responsbility to inform, for she has been a major culprit over the years.

4 months ago report
1. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to mike flanagan
  
  Mike ...
  
  Let's us see if Ms Grattan remains the same servile minion of Baron Fairfax in her new role - her escape perhaps.
  
  She's got a month to write something spectacular ... or I'll be joining you at the stocks with my surplus beetroot.
  
  4 months ago report
2. Jack Arnold
  
  Director
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter, down here on the farm we can generally tell the difference between a weed and a vegetable, a duck and a chook or an old cracker cow and a lot of bull. In this case, it appears that somebody at The Conversation confused kerosene with diesel for the tractor motor ... usually not a good outcome.
  
  4 months ago report
3. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Jack Arnold
  
  I reckon there are several reasons why the Conversation would be well advised to give Ms Grattan a go.
  
  First up she will hopefully bring a bit of a following and boost those unique visitor numbers from a new market segment.
  
  Second she might actually have something useful to say - in fact I'm sure she does - it's just that the old habits die hard and one feels the shadow of a editorial direction.
  
  When I picked up my mate Buster - a giveaway on a sign at the local shop - he'd been on a 12 foot chain for four years. It took him a while to work out how far he could go in his new unchained surroundings.
  
  Ms G has seen and watched a lot - whether she has turned this history into a useful narrative for us and herself is another story altogether.
  
  4 months ago report
4. Chris Saunders
  
  retired
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  My question Peter then would be why did Ms Gratton accept the yoke and stay happily working under it. She had choice and she made it. I am not saying people can’t change, but it sounds a little too opportunistic if she did, and isn’t that just one of the things we despair of in politicians?
  But unfortunately its all getting a bit like gossip, for she is not here engaging is she, unlike our kindly academics. She is not here and we are talking about her behind her back so to speak.
  Our comments can be judged hostile while her absence could be seen as manipulation, Neither interpretation is hopeful for the future 'relationship' if any.
  
  4 months ago report
5. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to Chris Saunders
  
  Chris Saunders wrote: "Our comments can be judged hostile while her absence could be seen as manipulation, Neither interpretation is hopeful for the future 'relationship' if any." Good observation, it seems to have gone unnoticed that the title of this page reads "View from the Hill", not view from the valley.
  It interesting to see so many personalising comments, clearly hoping to be invited up the hill.
  Peter Ormonde wrote:".... give Ms Grattan a go" Very sound thinking, after all this is a university portal and critical thinking is a primary premiss.
  
  4 months ago report
6. Chris Saunders
  
  retired
  
  In reply to Paul Richards
  
  In a way, Paul you have brought me full circle. My original lament was about the typical and irritating negativism of the commentariat being now brought into The Conversation. Although the adjective 'critical' can mean censorious and fault finding, I was never aware that critical thinking meant the same. I thought it had more of the meaning of skilfulness and perceptiveness of thought maybe backed by empirical evidence none of which I have seen demonstrated in this premiss of Ms Gratton’s.
  
  4 months ago report
7. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Paul Richards
  
  Paul Richards
  We all make typos, but what is meant by "primary premiss"? Unless it's not a typo.
  
  BTW, if this is a university portal, it is funded by the public. Who imagines he/she has the authority to exclude non-current university people from participation? Is this not censorship?
  
  Do you have any evidence that critical thinking is at a higher level at universities? Please don't bother to quote authority from papers like http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf
  
  Have you another source of (quantitative) data?
  
  4 months ago report
8. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to Chris Saunders
  
  Chris Saunders wrote: "....adjective 'critical' can mean censorious and fault finding, I was never aware that critical thinking meant the same." Well that depends on our values on any subject, most humans spiral back to earlier levels of thought on emotional triggers, bias is evoked automatcally. 'The Hill' brings on many and varied triggers, the critical thinker is meant to be aware of all personal biases. The fact many here are not aware of this in writing is proof on some issues 'critical thinking' is sidelined. Some are but choose to write this way, all good as those aware see it.
  [reference to Dr.Clare Graves life work on Spiral Dynamics]
  
  4 months ago report
9. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Geoffrey Harold Sherrington wrote: "Do you have any evidence that critical thinking is at a higher level at universities?" Why would anyone?
  Believing otherwise is projecting your values onto the comment.
  
  4 months ago report
10. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to Paul Richards
  
  Geoffrey Harold Sherrington wrote ; "primary premiss"? My weasel word for, purport to teach 'critical thinking' across all disciplines. Which is interesting, because those studying the environment have a different set of values to those who use of their values critical thinking about economics. Generally the bias in economics is neoliberal, and the environmentalist is a biased green thinker.
  The rate of human development is accelerating at a pace never seen in recorded history, so my language use is arcane to gen z. So apologies for the offensive 'weasel words'. In my defence the english language is far more plastic in this century, the rules are broken without regard. But then again that is a new set of values foreign to the bb/gen.
  
  4 months ago report
11. Jack Arnold
  
  Director
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Then that other old adage about "You cannot teach an old dog new tricks" comes to mind.
  
  Peter, it seems naive to believe that a well established practice of feeding off partisan political press releases and practising what an ordinary person could reasonably conclude was "yellow journalism" can suddenly let go of those professional comforts to return to objectively report events or analyse political policies ... as once occurred in former, less confrontational political times.
  
  Your Buster has been very lucky whereas Ms Gratton has been off the chain for years.
  
  Read the 200 odd comments on this perceptive blog and count the number who believe that The Conversation has made a rare mistake. The "Nays" have it.
  
  4 months ago report
Stephen John Ralph

carer

Mr Lamb

consider the post yours if we get some good goss.

And...............i'm almost too frightened to ask, but my good friend W. Pedia tells me Graz is in Styria which is in Austria. Apart from Austria hating us because we come before them in the olympic games ceremony,
WHAT do we have in common with this bundesland.

4 months ago report
1. Sean Lamb
  
  Science Denier
  
  In reply to Stephen John Ralph
  
  I would have preferred Switzerland but I have been told I may be arrested there if I ever turn up at an airport. I think that may not be true, but it seems pointless to take the risk.
  OK maybe Styria doesn't have that much in common with Australia - but think what an opportunity I am offering for the two of places to get acquainted?
  
  4 months ago report
2. Paul Pfluger
  
  retired
  
  In reply to Stephen John Ralph
  
  Nothing much. But big Arnie's from there, and "Styria men are very, very good, very, very good for Hollywood".
  
  4 months ago report
Stephen John Ralph

carer

Sean

GRAZ i

4 months ago report
JL Broadstock

logged in via email @bigpond.com

" Yet in the public mind this parliament has been largely defined by noise and nastiness, .......... people just want to close their ears until it is over...."
In my view the media appear to be telling the public what they are thinking. There is enough being said in this and various other online sites and participation in Q & A to indicate the public are taking a great interest in what is being done by government and the tone of the parliament. On that point, in my view (as a non aligned voter), the noise and nastiness has been led by Tony Abbott.

4 months ago report
Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

Boss

Michelle,
For the record, I have had a comment snipped from the record, presumably because it questions whether you have written in accordance with the Charter of this blog, or not.

You should ask the moderator for a read of it because it raises some fundamental matters, too heady it seems to the handled by our current crop of the top of the university system. Shame.

4 months ago report
1. Jack Arnold
  
  Director
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Hi Geoffrey, thank you for your perceptive insight, but I fear that the notoriety of the author in question may be used to remove two way discussion from The Conversation with any future political articles that do not denigrate the Prime Minister or Labor government policies while lauding the politically unacceptable Opposition (mis)Leader without majority in their own party.
  
  I was fortunate enough to read your superb contribution before the faceless moderator applied the blue pencil. It was fully relevant to this and previous contributions to the website and applied equally to Ms Gratton and all other card carrying political commentators.
  
  This censorship is likely the preferred course for those unelected political party hacks obfuscating & prevaricating about the absence of any Conservative Coalition policies & costings.
  
  4 months ago report
2. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Jack Arnold
  
  Most civil of you, Jack. I quoted one of the senior contributors elsewhere thus:
  
  "The only qualification for writing for "The Conversation" is an affiliation with one or more of the participating universities. At least, that's how I qualify. If I were not emeritus of the University of Melbourne, they would not publish my work. The intention, as I understand it, is an attempt to steer clear of vested commercial interest. One must also affirm a declaration to this effect which appears alongside…
  Read more
  
  Most civil of you, Jack. I quoted one of the senior contributors elsewhere thus:
  
  "The only qualification for writing for "The Conversation" is an affiliation with one or more of the participating universities. At least, that's how I qualify. If I were not emeritus of the University of Melbourne, they would not publish my work. The intention, as I understand it, is an attempt to steer clear of vested commercial interest. One must also affirm a declaration to this effect which appears alongside the article. Apart from that, I certainly signed no other legal document and certainly not an editorial direction of any sort."
  
  Then I noted the line from the Charter of this blog:
  •Provide a fact-based and editorially-independent forum, free of commercial or political bias.
  
  Next I noted that the disclaimer said to be needed by the first author here, is absent from this thread.
  
  I've been blogging since about the start of blogs. Many new blogs take a time to settle down to a pattern that is either suicidal or eminent, with most in the middle ground.
  
  A blog that snips a writer for pointing out the bleeding obvious is headed for the first path, irrespective of the quality or commentary of the original writer. If there are blog rules, the person who breaks them should be snipped.
  
  Elementary, but presumably capable of a get-around by a smart-thinking Prof., credible or not.
  
  4 months ago report
Trevor Kerr

ISTP

(turn off email notification)
Is there any easier way?

4 months ago report
Ngoc Luan Ho Trieu

logged in via Facebook

I like it! "...the price of carbon..." was the term used in Michelle's article. This is the right term to use for the ETS in its infancy when government still has to control and issue emission credits to polluters at a fixed prices with an aim to achieve the desirable emission target. Of course when the ETS matures, the emission credits will be exchanged at agreed prices mong polluters themselves. Polluters' agreed prices will also determine government revenue from issue of new credits then.
About the term '...mining tax on super profit...' Is it right conceptually when this tax is based on the resource rent tax concept? I would not think so because even when producers can fetch just normal profits from resource exploitation, they still have to share with other citizens through payment of the resource rent tax.

4 months ago report
1. Paul Pfluger
  
  retired
  
  In reply to Ngoc Luan Ho Trieu
  
  That's right, it's disturbing that the CSIRO employee above just doesn't get it when he calls the carbon price 'a broad based consumption tax'. Dawkins help us!
  
  4 months ago report
Peter Horan

Retired

What I believe is a failure of the media is that there is now a "single source", in the sense that everyone is repeating the same thing. Politicians have been very successful in ensuring that there is only one message to be heard - the one they want to be heard. The media no longer dig - they look at what everyone is saying we should do. So, policy becomes confused with facts, rather than being a response to the facts.

Facts (e.g. Human induced global warming), risks (e.g. perhaps no one will want Australia's coal in 10 years time) and constraints (e.g. the self-imposed budget surplus, the need to ensure our sea-lanes remain open) are rarely mentioned or brought to bear on policy - what should we do in the face of these facts?

Much media focuses only on policy and rarely seeks direction from the what is really going on.

4 months ago report
Bazza Hodge

Statistics Blackbelt

No Michelle we are not overly concerned with the robust nature of politics. What we are concerned about is the gross incompetence and juvenile devotion to costly policies that are for appearances, not for results. Our ever more lonely Carbon tax is the prime example.

One also has only to listen to question time to realize that the root cause is the total contempt to which Gillard hold the notion that she should actually answer a question, before getting on to spit insults and slander.

Any wonder you are now retreating to academia, having made your out of touch contribution to a ruined Fairfax.

4 months ago report
Peter Hindrup

consultant

Welcome Michelle, that is I you are still with us at this point! With such a welcome in a new job, I’m not sure that I would be.

‘It is a matter of argument whether that is the system at its most democratic or its most dysfunctional.’

I think not. The Howard years were probably the most dysfunctional politically in
Australian history.

‘How much of the bitterness of the past two years flows into the election campaign remains to be seen.’

Those who believe that they are the anointed…
Read more

Welcome Michelle, that is I you are still with us at this point! With such a welcome in a new job, I’m not sure that I would be.

‘It is a matter of argument whether that is the system at its most democratic or its most dysfunctional.’

I think not. The Howard years were probably the most dysfunctional politically in
Australian history.

‘How much of the bitterness of the past two years flows into the election campaign remains to be seen.’

Those who believe that they are the anointed, and ‘destined to lead’ will remain bitter so long as they or their chosen are out of power.

As I have written to various editors, the Australian press gallery seems to see parliament as an unmoderated debate, with themselves as adjudicators or critics.

When I started, long ago in New Zealand, political journalists had myriad contacts, some who could be quoted, many not, and selectively, their views were garnered on any proposed legislation, from which an as balanced as possible summation was reported for the readers. Generally these reporters had no byline. (Most journalists never had a byline in their entire careers.)

Anybody who submitted a report of whom they thought had won a slanging match would not have had a job!

I have read some contributors explaining to ‘commentors’ that word number limits prevented them expanding on some issue raised. Is Michelle constrained by the same requirement?

Being non party political and having no interest in who is sleeping with whom, or with what, my only interest is in what policies are being put forward, their likely effects and what objections are being raised against them. If some politician steps outside the law, let the courts handle it.

4 months ago report
1. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Peter Hindrup
  
  Peter, read point 4 of the Charter on the home page.
  
  4 months ago report
Riddley Walker

.

"Yet in the public mind this parliament has been largely defined by noise and nastiness, to an extent that many people just want to close their ears until it is over..."

Michelle you were personally responsible for promoting this nastiness with sustained attacks on Julia Gillard, and allowing the Opposition to get away with disgusting behaviour.

Your failure to genuinely criticise and analyse the politics of the last two years has been a prime example of the current laziness of the mainstream media - just regurgitating gossip and Liberal Party propaganda.

4 months ago report
Anne Powles

logged in via Twitter

Very interesting. I am one of the people who thinks having such a large number of cross benchers makes for a truer democracy. Some of the Independents can hold their heads high after these last few years. I will be looking for an upstanding independent in my electorate, as I feel the extreme two party system we have is ruining true democracy. No third party in Australia has ever had the success smaller parties and temporary coalitions have had in Europe.

But then my electorate is Dobell!

4 months ago report
Leigh Burrell

Young and Naive Redheads - Special rates for union officials. No records kept.

This government has been defined by its corrupt and incompetent conduct - the carbon tax lie, pokie reform lie, live export debacle, super-trawler debacle, border control debacle, mining tax stuff-up, the Thomson scandal, the Slipper scandal, the AWU scandal, selling out Julian Assange and the Australia day race riot incited by the PM's office, to name just a few examples. Most of us just can't wait to close the lid and push full-flush on this turd of a government.

On another note, what a ghastly photo of Michelle. Woof!

4 months ago report
1. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Leigh Burrell
  
  Leigh, read point 4 of the Charter on the home page.
  
  4 months ago report
Frederika Steen

logged in via Facebook

Yep, we are a " two chambered brain" people, for or against, whether a footy team, or a political party. Boringly narrow, too often naiive and inclined to nationalism, xenophobia, fear of "the other"...S

Simplistic tinking habits in the electorate in a compulsory voting system delivers us Tony or Julia, Kevin or Malcom, same methodology as choosing the winner of TV show.

4 months ago report
Peter Gerard

Retired medical practitioner

As already mentioned this is a encouraging start to some positive political discussion free of 'spin'.
The statement "... as disputed as the opinions on facts" caught my eye as it is this which I find most annoying about much of the debate that takes part between politicians of the several parties.
If we mean by facts, an accurate and verifiable statement of information regarding a particular subject, how can there be any real dispute?. Admittedly when it comes to such matters as climate change…
Read more

As already mentioned this is a encouraging start to some positive political discussion free of 'spin'.
The statement "... as disputed as the opinions on facts" caught my eye as it is this which I find most annoying about much of the debate that takes part between politicians of the several parties.
If we mean by facts, an accurate and verifiable statement of information regarding a particular subject, how can there be any real dispute?. Admittedly when it comes to such matters as climate change and the Murray- Darling Basin imbroglios there are differences in what scientists say and how the 'facts' are interpreted, but even in these, as in some other matters, there is a strong consensus among a majority of scientists or experts in other fields, that a particular conclusion should prevail. Politicians are allowed too much opportunity to express plainly untenable positions, for purposes of political point scoring or to satisfy vested interest groups. This would only apply to areas of opinion or policy which are subject to scientific or logical analysis, and would include environmental issues, animal welfare concerns and much in the area of economics.
I hope Michelle Grattan will use her resources to present the facts as they are supported by expert opinion and will 'shoot down in flames' stupid self-serving comment, often scripted, by many of our politicians.

4 months ago report
Jane Explane

logged in via Facebook

Hey Michelle .... Love the forum. It bothers me that all generations seem to think that the system is doing them wrong, which by all accounts seems to be the case since the first systems of governing.
Would like to see all with a realization that your thoughts are as a result of your exposure to others and that if you can try to understand others and open non attack ways of offering opinions and encourage discussion that maybe we could leap ahead in actually solving issues as opposed to this negativeness which is not helping, at local or world level. Yes I know all about the issues, but to bring it back to black or white (2 party system or haves and have nots) seems a bit sad for us as a species. If don't win together, we will lose together I feel. Cheers

4 months ago report
Michelle Adams

Senior Urban Designer

I look forward to hearing about "...the politics of the next few months through the prism of policy...". It sounds like such a welcome relief and highlights how disappointed many people are becoming with the trend towards 'he said, she said' reporting.

In terms of "feedback from readers on policy questions of interest", I'd love to hear some comment and analysis on what policies there are in relation to our cities, their growth and how we (sustainably) manage that growth.

I would also like to hear some commentary about how COAG is / can be working with the Federal / State divide currently enhanced by a party divide. In particular, is the approach to criticising other levels of government publicly (which is likely to ramp up in the lead up to an election) and then necessarily siting down at the table to negotiate with them a wise one?

4 months ago report
Geoffrey Harold Sherrington

Boss

Any bright thinker wishing to comment on the content of this blog in terms of its Charter, below? It's hard to think of more flagrant violation, especially of dot point 4.

Our Charter

We will:
•Give experts a greater voice in shaping scientific, cultural and intellectual agendas by providing a trusted platform that values and promotes new thinking and evidence-based research.
•Unlock the knowledge and expertise of researchers and academics to provide the public with clarity and insight into…
Read more

Any bright thinker wishing to comment on the content of this blog in terms of its Charter, below? It's hard to think of more flagrant violation, especially of dot point 4.

Our Charter

We will:
•Give experts a greater voice in shaping scientific, cultural and intellectual agendas by providing a trusted platform that values and promotes new thinking and evidence-based research.
•Unlock the knowledge and expertise of researchers and academics to provide the public with clarity and insight into society’s biggest problems.
•Create an open site for people around the world to share best practices and collaborate on developing smart, sustainable solutions.
•Provide a fact-based and editorially-independent forum, free of commercial or political bias.
•Ensure the site’s integrity by only obtaining non-partisan sponsorship from education, government and private partners. Any advertising will be relevant and non-obtrusive.
•Ensure quality, diverse and intelligible content reaches the widest possible audience by employing experienced editors to curate the site.
•Support and foster academic freedom to conduct research, teach, write and publish.
•Work with our academic, business and government partners and our advisory board to ensure we are operating for the public good.

4 months ago report
Jack Arnold

Director

May I start my reply to your first column with one quite blatant observation ... regional Australia has never been better served by an Australian Parliament than when in 2010 Tony Windsor & Rob Oakeshott negotiated a deal with Julia Gillard & the Labor Party to hold government for the next three (3) years.

Decades of neglect by successive governments of both political persuasions, especially the Howard Liberal Notional Coalition, concentrated infrastructure spending in metro cities to the neglect…
Read more

May I start my reply to your first column with one quite blatant observation ... regional Australia has never been better served by an Australian Parliament than when in 2010 Tony Windsor & Rob Oakeshott negotiated a deal with Julia Gillard & the Labor Party to hold government for the next three (3) years.

Decades of neglect by successive governments of both political persuasions, especially the Howard Liberal Notional Coalition, concentrated infrastructure spending in metro cities to the neglect of urban regional centres. This was supported by the Canberra Press Gallery who seemingly rarely stray too far from Capital Hill to see the impact of this policy.

The Hung Parliament has shown narrow focused politicians that regional Australia can stand up & be counted as part of the Australian community who live in locations having the clean air, fresh water, open space that metro journalists apparently abhor.

Independents get things done for their communities. Try it Australia, you will be pleasantly surprised.

4 months ago report
Steve Drummond

Retired (self funded)

Michelle, why is you have NEVER referred to Julia Gillard by her correct title "Prime Minister Julia Gillard"?

Who is the "moderator" deleting so many comments?

4 months ago report
1. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to Steve Drummond
  
  Steve Drummond wrote: "........ why is you have NEVER referred to Julia Gillard by her correct title "Prime Minister Julia Gillard"?"
  Interesting rhetorical question. Steve why are you shouting using caps? [rhetorical]
  Who is the "moderator" deleting so many comments? Another interesting question.
  Based on the values expressed in community standards there was a breech; https://theconversation.edu.au/community_standards
  Why would anyone consider who is deleting a comment important?
  http://goo.gl/5BcB7
  
  4 months ago report
2. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Steve Drummond
  
  Because moderators can. (Pun).
  
  4 months ago report
3. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Paul Richards
  
  Paul,
  That URL you reference on the correct use of English contains errors that would have failed me in my learning days.
  Couple the singular 'A very good writer will ' with the plural 'response they want to illicit' and then wonder if the appropriate word is 'elicit'.
  
  GIGO
  
  4 months ago report
4. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Geoffrey Harold Sherrington wrote: " That URL you reference ...... " It you find it offends you, can only suggest you write to the site owner they may appreciate your diligence.
  Do not like to promote friends sites, but it is doubtful Mignon's site will offend you, try that.
  http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/understanding-capitalization.aspx
  
  4 months ago report
Ivan Quail

maverick

To all concerned.
Thanks Michael Shand. Good points Peter Horan, Jane Explane, Duncan Mills, Riddley Walker, Kevin Bain and others.

Leigh Burrel. Fair go! Howard: GST, Tampa, AWB. With all the money they got from the boom years they couldn’t even fix the Sydney Melbourne rail line never mind build a high speed rail link.

Mr Abbott isn’t smart enough to jump on his bike and ride down to CSIRO and get a briefing from some of the best climate scientists in the world and you want him to run the country?

The reason I pay taxes is so that the government can provide services, not so that they can be lazy and do as little as possible for the nation and then boast that they have a surplus which is taxes they have collected from us but have not spent on us. We were short changed!

JL Broadstock: The Main StreamMedia is not a mirror. They are telling the public WHAT to think and 1/3 fall for it.
See my earlier post.

4 months ago report
1. Dianna Arthur
  
  Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Environmentalist
  
  In reply to Ivan Quail
  
  "The reason I pay taxes is so that the government can provide services."
  
  I thought there was some reason for governments, amid all the shouting of induhviduals and libertarianism-at-the-expense-of-others, I was beginning to forget the why of governments - they do things that are not economical for private business. Like much of what has been privatised thanks to successive Labor and Liberal governments which are apparently still in thrall to economic rationalism - despite GFC, AWB and other successful rorts.
  
  4 months ago report
2. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Ivan Quail
  
  If you think we have the best climate scientists in the world, have a read of a contrary view, with quotations, and data, at
  http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/australian-temperature-records-shoddy-inaccurate-unreliable-surprise/
  http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/eight-reasons-the-australian-heatwave-is-not-climate-change/
  http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/australia-was-hot-and-is-hot-so-what-this-is-not-an-unusual-heat-wave/
  
  Don't try to kid yourselves that these blog articles are written but people of lowly skill and education. There are many man-years of experience behind them. They don't go away when you close your eyes.
  
  There have been several calls for the Auditor-General to audit the past record of the BoM because the frequency of undisclosed past errors is too high for good science when you go looking.
  
  4 months ago report
3. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Too right Geoff!
  
  Every night I watch these polished little performers on TV with their flashy maps and arrows spinning their outrageous lies and deceit!
  
  The local fella Gavin is obviously deeply involved in the whole IPCC/BoM front. Constantly talking about how hot it is going to get. And all the while grinning like a cheshire cat. And you should see how disppointed he is when there's a cold front or rain.
  
  Celcius! Ha, Napoleonic nonsense. Who'd ever heard about global warming when we noted such things in decent well tempered Fahrenheit.
  
  Do what I do Geoff - call the terrorism hotline and dob the bastards in.
  
  Only trouble is I find that Jo Nova's weather forecasts just aren't measuring up. Might be better if she went back to Fahrenheit - pass that on if you like. But Jo's just hopeless with rain ... no she's worse than useless. At least Gavin gets that right 9/10.
  
  Best to believe nothing Geoff and always carry an umbrella.
  
  4 months ago report
4. Dianna Arthur
  
  Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Environmentalist
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Climate change is not exclusive to Australia.
  
  Apart from the fact that 'joannenova' is part of the Jennifer Marohasy group of climate deniers - most significantly her association with the IPA and apart from her unsubstantiated opinion regarding the BoM, where is her counter to:
  
  More frequent extreme weather events - all around the planet
  Less snowpack, shrinking sea ice
  Melting glaciers
  Thawing permafrost
  Increased ocean acidity
  Increasing sea levels
  Warmer oceans
  Changing rain and snow patterns?
  
  Yes Australia has always had heatwaves, it is the frequency and intensity which has altered significantly in the past 20 years along with a steady trend towards a warmer planet since industrialisation.
  
  I guess NASA keep getting it wrong as well:
  
  http://climate.nasa.gov/
  
  4 months ago report
5. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Dianna Arthur
  
  Dianna Art,
  There is belief and there is data. Scientists much prefer the latter.
  Can you name me a well-accepted, peer reviewed, recent paper that for each para below,
  
  1. Counts, displays and explains more severe weather events all around the planet?
  2. Shows that the Artic ice extent is currently much different to the average since records have been kept? (Hint: Try yesterday's data at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/12/sea-ice-news-volume-4-1-arctic-ice-gain-sets-a-new-record/). The Antarctic…
  Read more
  
  Dianna Art,
  There is belief and there is data. Scientists much prefer the latter.
  Can you name me a well-accepted, peer reviewed, recent paper that for each para below,
  
  1. Counts, displays and explains more severe weather events all around the planet?
  2. Shows that the Artic ice extent is currently much different to the average since records have been kept? (Hint: Try yesterday's data at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/12/sea-ice-news-volume-4-1-arctic-ice-gain-sets-a-new-record/). The Antarctic is thought to be reducing in places, expanding in others, too few measurements for certainty.
  3.Melting glaciers. Some are melting, more than are expanding. Over many centuries, this is a reconstructed pattern. But one has to laugh at IPCC chief Pachauri defending a typo that says that Himalayan glaciers will be largely gone by 2035 (the original note by a minor Indian official said 2350) then know-alls going on to say that the removal of glaciers would dry major Indian rivers (when in fact the vast amount of river water in the Himalayas comes from snow fall), There are some confused people out there writing.
  4. Thawing permafrost. So what, some thaws every Summer, somewhere. Now link it to local global warming.
  5. Increased Ocean acidity. Does it exist? Needs a study on actual ocean water with biota present, at a number of depths, using instruments capable of measuring what minute changes are observed (some rise, some fall) and separating effects of rain, river discharge, currents, etc. The book is wide open on this topic, needs years more work.
  6. Increasing sea levels. We cannot make a definitive statement on this unless we know the effects of motion on the deep sea floors. The data are too sparse. Recent satellite instruments like those on Topex have at times measured a fall in levels in the last few years, as well as some rises. Again, unsettled science.
  7. Warmer oceans. Some say the top 700m of ocean has warmed a little in 100 years, others dispute this. Again, no proper scientist would say the oceans are warming without adequate data to cover all depths and latitudes, in combination with a dynamic understanding of the effects of currents. The information simply does not exist.
  8. Changing rain and snow patterns? Yes, once they used to hold parties on the frozen Thames. The rain pattern changes at my home every year. Who knows what you mean?
  9. There is no evidence from some studies I've done recently that 5 day heat waves in Sydney and Melbourne have been getting hotter or more frequent over the last 100 years. More sites need study, but the BoM are reluctant to release data. Besides, they have at least 2 official temperature data sets that they use for different purposes. Both can't be right. At times, on a day at a place, they differ by more than 0.8 deg C, the whole of the warming Australia is supposed to have seen though the last 100 years. How do you date the start of industrialisation and how do you offset the related Urban Heat Island effect?
  10. NASA have made and corrected many mistakes. They are fixated on radiative physics to the neglect of transfer by conduction and convection. And they fiddle the temperature figures that other countries send them in good will. They admit that clouds are a major impediment to better understanding and are sending up satellites to settle the science, because it sure ain't understood now.
  
  Dianna, You can pick through what I have just written and find arguments that might hold. But for an off-the-cuff response from memory that uses data up to last week where available, it's far better than a 1980s Greenpeace flyer which would have had much the same as your list of stories to scare the children.
  
  Please note that I have expressed no opinion whatsoever as to whether I prefer climate to warm or cool, get hotter or drier, as to whether I deny that climate change exists. I simply look at the quality of data and pass some, fail some, like most scientists could do, without bias.
  
  4 months ago report
6. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Geoff,
  
  I've noticed your contributions on Jo Nova and elswhere in the skeptical blogosphere.
  
  But there you are a scientist. Here you are a boss. What sort of science we talking here Geoff?
  
  4 months ago report
7. Dianna Arthur
  
  Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Environmentalist
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Yes.
  
  http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
  
  and I will repeat:
  
  http://climate.nasa.gov/
  
  Don't trust the BoM?
  
  How about Japan's?
  
  http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
  
  Don't appreciate non WASP science, try:
  
  Canada's investment plans into mitigation of climate change around the globe:
  
  http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=714D9AAE-1&news=B45B22D6-8D59-43DF-AFB3-B9B14B9E1FBD
  
  Britain?
  
  http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/
  
  The links you give are not from climate scientists they are from people who, if you follow the background all have a connection with organisations like the IPA, Heartland Institute - even your Joanne Nova lists Lord Monckton as among her links.
  
  Anyone ignorant enough of linking to Lord Monckton is the meteorological of invoking Godwyn's law.
  
  You want to talk science? Try referencing real scientists.
  
  4 months ago report
8. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Ah that'd be this sort of science then
  
  '...I was for 20 years part of the management of the Ranger Uranium Deposits and for some years visiting President of the NT
  Chamber of Mines and Energy)".
  
  Seems a long way from climate science Geoff... still they'd need good info on the Wet and all.
  
  Or are you another one of those geology types who's decided to knock off global warming in your retirement - you know, out in the shed with a notebook and a slide rule, showing these UN/IPCC/ BoM plotters what's what.
  
  Stewth this entire denier stable is composed of folks playing on someone else's swing. Hey I'm managed a uranium mine - so I know all about weather, and ice sheets, complex systems and turbulence, and chemistry and radiation .... OK. Sure you do.
  
  Just wanted to know if we should pay any attention.
  
  4 months ago report
9. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Rigorous science. Have you encountered it?
  Have you any comprehension of the cost of getting a wrong answer for the grade estimate?of a multi-million dollar mine.
  You will not have noticed my contributions to Real Climate because they get snipped. For this ideology driven mob you blame me? Get real.
  
  4 months ago report
10. Grendelus Malleolus
  
  Senior Nerd
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  "I simply look at the quality of data and pass some, fail some, like most scientists could do, without bias."
  
  Are you qualified to do so? I try not to speak authoritatively outside my field - I will often refer to those qualified to do so but rarely make a claim.
  
  You should also look at why the land mass of Bangladesh is increasing - despite a rise in sea levels.
  
  4 months ago report
11. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  I don't know too much about proving mineral deposits.
  
  What sort of modelling do you use? How many interactive variables you playing with? Lots opf complex systems chugging away?
  
  Be lots and lots harder than these IPCC/BoM things wouldn't it?
  
  So sorting out the IPCC would just be a doddle for a geologist and a slide rule.
  
  Strewth you rock hoppers have no shortage of arrogance do you?
  
  Send me you best bit of complicated modelling Geoff.
  
  4 months ago report
12. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter, your petticoat is showing.
  
  About the first non-housing construction at Ranger 1 was the weather tower and instruments. It just happens that miners need to know a lot about climate before opening a major mine. Besides, there is a much more advanced statistical approach used in ore grade estimation than the Phil Jones "Can't draw a graph in Excel" type of thing that can be found in climate work.
  
  Several eminent statisticians (Wegman, Briggs, Jewson, McIntyre, for a start) have found serious…
  Read more
  
  Peter, your petticoat is showing.
  
  About the first non-housing construction at Ranger 1 was the weather tower and instruments. It just happens that miners need to know a lot about climate before opening a major mine. Besides, there is a much more advanced statistical approach used in ore grade estimation than the Phil Jones "Can't draw a graph in Excel" type of thing that can be found in climate work.
  
  Several eminent statisticians (Wegman, Briggs, Jewson, McIntyre, for a start) have found serious statistical problems with climate work. We had the unedifying spectacle of Stephan Rahmstorf of PIK trying to defend his stats errors in his Antarctic article that made the cover of 'Time', when rebutted by others. See Ryan O’Donnell, Nicholas Lewis, Steve McIntyre and Jeff Condon, 2011, Improved methods for PCA-based reconstructions: case study using the Steig et al. (2009) Antarctic temperature reconstruction, Journal of Climate."
  
  Do you know how to construct and interpret a cross semivariogram under geostatistics? Thought not. Do you know what a uniform prior is in Bayesian stats, even if you are not a fan of Bayes?
  
  About 1985 I had a letter published in "The Australian" noting that CO2 releases from fossil fuels into the air were likely to need attention over the coming decades and that nuclear was the most promising method.
  
  In 1990 or so I did a CO2 audit of our company of several thousand people, whose activities included large forestry/paper as well as mining, including uranium. So far as I know, this could have been about the first detailed audit for a group that size and that complex anywhere in the world. We included known detail of carbon sequestration by trees at various stages of growth and decay. IIRC, at the time were planting more trees per year than anyone else in Australia, hardwood mainly, for building homes, with a wait-for-return period of 20 years less thinnings.
  
  I was an original member of the Environment Institute of Australia.
  
  Yet you sneer?
  
  Re the uranium that substituted for fossil fuel. I've not calculated recently how much CO2 we saved from going into the air, but by now it would be several billion tonnes. Whether that's good or bad, that's up to you to judge.
  
  Also in the NT we mined more bismuth metal than any other world group. Much was exported to France to settle the tummies of gastronomes who had eaten too much cheval. On King Island we mined tungsten ore. Tungsten is important for tools that shape other metals. In WA we operated the Robe River mine, whose Mesa K extension is now providing a lot of dollars to support your university ( assuming you are a graduate). At one stage we employed 7% of the workforce of Tasmania. In Queensland we operated the Mt Morgan mine whose earlier wealth led to the establishment of the world-famous Walter & Eliza Hall Institute for Medical Research. Such monies also funded William D'Arcy who spent his fortunes in the sands of Persia before discovering the original oil that led to what is now BP. I've worked in Iran also and have had climate extremes from -60 deg C (with chill factor) to =40 deg C in a fortnight. Northern Canada to Mt Isa.
  
  Others and I were deeply involved in programs of Aboriginal employment. Ranger Uranium was and probably still is the focal point for this activity, with more local trained and employed than elsewhere. They used to tell us about climate until we realised that a lot of what was said since about the 1970s was white man dreaming taught to the locals in a quest to get more grant monies. We got on fine until the Canberra experts interfered.
  
  It's a basic in the art of debate that if you wish to show a person wrong, you produce evidence. Nobody on the Conversation has yet shown that I have produced any wrong evidence. There is one case where I conceded that two interpretations were possible and apologised for muddying the waters. By showing me to be wrong, I mean taking an assertion or observation I have made and showing disagreement with the latest data and interpretation derived from the latest instruments.
  
  Now, you do not do this by putting words in my mouth. I have never said that I understand turbulence. I have said that I fail to understand aspects of it because it is so complex.
  
  Another debating technique is not to shoot the messenger. Just because it's easy for me to write an article for the Jo Nova blog, that says nothing about the messenger, the blog, or the author, me, or the moderator.
  
  This note is a little long because you seem to question whether events actually happened. I've studies not only geology - started out with aero engineering, mucked around with surveying and mapping, bought my own take-home computer in 1970 .... Yep, people do these diverse things. In the washup, I have no money left but I'm pleased to sleep easy at nights knowing I've put far, far more into the social system than I can ever take out. Could you memorise that objective? So many entries on The Conversation are from people asking for more. Very few offer to give more.
  
  I'll fire a shot back. This blog has a charter. Have you read it? If you have, have you attempted to bring to the notice of the blog managers that there have been numerous examples of disregard for the Charter? If there are rules, you play by the rules. There is also a list of community standards. The first is -
  
  "We welcome debate and dissent, but personal attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), abuse and defamatory language will not be tolerated. Nor will we tolerate attempts to deliberately disrupt discussions. We aim to maintain theconversation.edu.au service as an inviting space to focus on intelligent discussions. Be courteous."
  
  Did you pass or FAIL???
  
  I'm sorry if you do not comprehend the significance of a polymath Like Lord Monckton. You should spend a few quid to hear him speak in Australia in a few weeks. He usually asks if he has made an error, because if it can be shown, he would like to correct it. I've left some space below here for you to infill
  
  Geoff.
  
  4 months ago report
13. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Geoff,
  
  Is that a long long way of explaining that really you don't know anything about climate or climate modelling other than a stint on a tower measuring the rain?
  
  See Geoff there's another secret hidden part of the Charter that only a few of us know about. Don't pretend to be something you're not.
  
  But don't pretend to be a "scientist" Geoff - that's called fibbing.
  
  Don't try and dress yourself up as someone who might know something about climate and complex interactive systems…
  Read more
  
  Geoff,
  
  Is that a long long way of explaining that really you don't know anything about climate or climate modelling other than a stint on a tower measuring the rain?
  
  See Geoff there's another secret hidden part of the Charter that only a few of us know about. Don't pretend to be something you're not.
  
  But don't pretend to be a "scientist" Geoff - that's called fibbing.
  
  Don't try and dress yourself up as someone who might know something about climate and complex interactive systems ... because you don't actually do you, other than the stuff you've picked up from politically conservative sites across the interweb.
  
  Stuff you cut and paste and recycle without ever checking the fine print.
  
  And you make submissions as a "scientist" to Garnaut on the strength of that! Good grief are these folks on ego steroids????
  
  See two giveaways Geoff - "scientists" don't quote Jo Nova let alone Vice Princeling (and apparent polymath) Monckton. What's next "Alan told me..."
  
  Second, scientists - real ones - tend to stick to their own turf. Even in retirement.
  
  They know how complex their own disciplines are and how the devil is buried on layer after layer of complexity and detail. But not you geologists.
  
  Off you go ... wandering off into other folks paddocks exploring with your little pick telling 'em how you are a scientist and know all about how to raise chooks. Who needs doctors when you've got a geologist with a scalpel?
  
  Why can't these sad old conservative men stick to polishing their rocks and laurels?
  
  They are ALL the same.
  
  4 months ago report
14. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter,
  It has been said many times that data trumps belief. This has been especially noted for climate work.
  You have provided no data in your post.
  You have published a diatribe of wrong belief. That is against the rules.
  When I comment, I comment within my areas of capability or with clear, logical arguments.
  
  You guys are giving me the feeling that you are getting desperate for data to use against me. So you invent it.
  
  I have never claimed expertise in complex interactive systems. You…
  Read more
  
  Peter,
  It has been said many times that data trumps belief. This has been especially noted for climate work.
  You have provided no data in your post.
  You have published a diatribe of wrong belief. That is against the rules.
  When I comment, I comment within my areas of capability or with clear, logical arguments.
  
  You guys are giving me the feeling that you are getting desperate for data to use against me. So you invent it.
  
  I have never claimed expertise in complex interactive systems. You can't show me where I have. I did however spend several years analysing in statistical detail the responses of grasses and legumes to combinations of fertilizers as part of a CSIRO initiative that assisted the beef industry through Townsville stylo or whatever it's nick-named now. That's one reasonably complex interactive system, but I have never claimed I knows 'em all.
  
  I made recommendations about whether to take an interest in Lihir Island soon after its discovery, before Ross Garnaut took an interest. We reasoned that it was not safe for workers on the available information and declined the invitation. That was a reasonably complex interactive decision. We were approached by Uri Geller, the spoon bender, to use our corporate jet to fly over the land, looking out the window, to note areas we should explore. We had reasons to decline that offer also.
  
  Can you please give me one example where I have cut and pasted for this blog, without reading the fine print? Of course you can't because you have zero idea of what I have read in fine print. Sometimes I do, when the summary meaning is adequately clear, but not often. That's simple logic at work and it's not excluded from this site by any rule.
  
  Can you point me to an error I have made? No? So what's your beef?
  
  You accuse me of doing the work of qualified medical professionals. I do not. I have however done in-vivo work on animals, with vets, sacrificing a number of sheep to determine aspects of a plant that accumulates selenium. If I admit that I pull out a scalpel that should be reserved for a medical professional, then that admission would be unethical. Therefore, I do not do it.
  
  By contrast, much of what you wrote above is unethical by any reasonable test. Now sleep well.
  
  And never, ever label me a denialist or denier. You might find that legal fees will have to be considered, though it is unlawful and unethical for me to threaten you with legal action if I do not intend to conduct it. The way is open to join class actions about which people are now talking.
  
  As for 'pretend' scientist. You don't get invited to be keynote speaker at International Congresses if you are a pretend scientist. You find it hard to get Fellowship of the Aust I.M.M or to be a Member of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute, the Association of Exploration Geochemists, The Australian Institute of Agricultural Science, among other letters.
  
  4 months ago report
15. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Oh you want me to take you seriously ... I thought you were kidding. It's always hard to tell with you leg-pullers.
  
  Now I'm sure you're an excellent engineer, chemist and project manager ... and that you've spoken at international conferences as well. The question is Geoff, how many of those conference addresses were about the IPCC, the BoM and climate change. The revelation of your work exposing their flaws.
  
  I can't actually see any evidence of "work you've done" Geoff... lots of cuts and…
  Read more
  
  Oh you want me to take you seriously ... I thought you were kidding. It's always hard to tell with you leg-pullers.
  
  Now I'm sure you're an excellent engineer, chemist and project manager ... and that you've spoken at international conferences as well. The question is Geoff, how many of those conference addresses were about the IPCC, the BoM and climate change. The revelation of your work exposing their flaws.
  
  I can't actually see any evidence of "work you've done" Geoff... lots of cuts and pastes from Jo Nova's cuts and pastes but no work.
  
  Now as a real scientist you'd know that the way to get your groundbreaking analysis into the field is through the peer-reviewed literature.
  
  Send me a copy of any paper you'd care to submit and I'll try and get it into print for you - far more effective than contributing your brilliance to Jo Nova don't you think?
  
  Not discussing data and theory yet Geoff - just the arrogance of geology types.
  
  Show me what you've got ... a link to your work will be fine. Then we'll talk data.
  
  4 months ago report
16. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde wrote : "Show me what you've got ... a link to your work will be fine. Then we'll talk data."
  Priceless .......
  
  4 months ago report
17. Ngoc Luan Ho Trieu
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Geoff
  You said
  '...Several eminent statisticians (Wegman, Briggs, Jewson, McIntyre, for a start) have found serious statistical problems with climate work. ..'
  Have you seen statisticians' comments on the way inferences were made from linear trends estimated from very long time series (100 years or more) of historical climate data? If you have, any reference will be very much appreciated. Ta.
  
  4 months ago report
18. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Paul Richards
  
  Paul Richards,
  I'd describe some of my past work as valuable, rather than priceless, but than you for the compliment.
  First, let's tackle two problems. This blog has the caption "Fresh Start to an important political year'" It has already been OT or close to that too often. Why not suggest a more appropriate place? I've been uncomfortable answering questions on this blog because they belong elsewhere. But, I'm not backing down.
  Second problem, I have absolutely no idea about the scientific level…
  Read more
  
  Paul Richards,
  I'd describe some of my past work as valuable, rather than priceless, but than you for the compliment.
  First, let's tackle two problems. This blog has the caption "Fresh Start to an important political year'" It has already been OT or close to that too often. Why not suggest a more appropriate place? I've been uncomfortable answering questions on this blog because they belong elsewhere. But, I'm not backing down.
  Second problem, I have absolutely no idea about the scientific level at which you expect, or could comprehend, an answer. Sure, I could send a small piece of work that shows some interesting results, but you might then say "So this is the best that Geoff can do?" Alternatively, I can show you some of my work that could take you quite a few hours to come to grips with, even if it was within your specialist capability. Can I please suggest that you give me a paper that you think is at the right pitch for you, so that I can usefully tailor my response? And please, don't grab some esoteric math from String Theory to set up an artificial challenge. You should have some idea of some areas of my past involvement and String Theory is not mentioned.
  
  For explanation, but not as an excuse, I worked for many years in a competitive commercial environment where it was company preference not to rush to publicise new ideas in the open literature. Much of my writing was in a near-monthly in-house Journal for a dozen years, much more was in statutory reports to bodies like Departments of Mines, where the information was frozen by other for various periods. It was not an environment of publish or perish.
  
  I have no reluctance to provide data, quite the opposite. I regret that so many climate workers have refused to provide data when it has been funded from the public purse. I was part of the meetings with Warwick Hughes about 1992 that later lead to that most anti-science comment of Phil Jones along the lines of "Why should I send you my data when all you want to do is find errors". I also know that Steve McIntyre set up Climate Audit almost principally because of a refusal of many people to provide data, a situation that still exists with too many climate workers.
  
  I await your advice.
  
  4 months ago report
19. Trevor Kerr
  
  ISTP
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Just when I'm about to switch off the email notifications. Keep it up, PO.
  
  4 months ago report
20. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Ngoc Luan Ho Trieu
  
  Ngog Luan Ho Trieu
  This is hard to answer. Many people starting on stats go to programs like Excel, where it is very easy to make graphs and to fit regressions of various forms. Therefore, many do just that. For example, if one has a time-based series of temperatures at a location, there is no guidance from literature yet published as to the theoretical form that the response should be. Almost by default, people choose a linear fit because by pressing another couple of keys one can get regression…
  Read more
  
  Ngog Luan Ho Trieu
  This is hard to answer. Many people starting on stats go to programs like Excel, where it is very easy to make graphs and to fit regressions of various forms. Therefore, many do just that. For example, if one has a time-based series of temperatures at a location, there is no guidance from literature yet published as to the theoretical form that the response should be. Almost by default, people choose a linear fit because by pressing another couple of keys one can get regression fit details in fewer terms than a non-linear fit would return. Like, slope is easier to read, as is r^2, however artificial it might be.
  I do not recall from the top of my head, any paper that analyses whether a linear fit is preferred by theory, or has a physical basis, or is shown to be less good than a more complex fit. You would have to tell me which sub-field you have in mind and even then I might not be able to put my finger on one.There are, as you would know, many papers by people of a range of skills, who add a linear fit almost by rote. In my work, I used to routinely add that this was scientifically unjustified, but was eye candy to help people see the trend. It became too repetitive, I presumed readers would understand this and now there are abundant examples of linear fits more as cartoon style decoration than as deep science.
  I though everyone understood that, but perhaps it needs more prominence.
  My concern has been more with the quality of the data. It the data are wrong, or have been fiddled beyond reality, the type of regression hardly matters.
  
  4 months ago report
21. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Thank you for addressing the comment made to Peter Ormonde, has a command of english and a use of words that is dying, 'priceless'.
  Geoffrey Harold Sherrington wrote: "problem ....... no idea about the scientific level at which you expect"
  Nothing expected, 'stages of human development' are interesting.
  Value systems within 'stages of human development' are worth noting and remembering. Most Australian's spiral between blue / orange levels and some are even red on this GCC issue, unable to grow through to the next levels of thought. Without establishing personal values and life conditions of a writer their information has little meaning. So reading your writing in comments is interesting, they establish your value system. This is distinctly different from depth of experience, academic or any type other intelligence.
  [stages of human development is a reference to Dr.Clare Graves lifetime work]
  
  4 months ago report
22. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Paul Richards
  
  Paul Richards,
  At age 6 I was ordered by my parents to create an exhibit containing a motto for the local Show. I chose "Only the best is good enough". It remains. If you are asking for value system information, there it is in 6 words.
  Many people seem to oscillate between blue and orange tablets. Are you making an oblique reference to that? Frankly, I have little comprehension of what the heck you are writing about.
  
  4 months ago report
23. Peter Blackwell
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter, what puerile and unbecoming diatribe. A well meaning, well informed contributor is having his say. You have had your say,,, then spent the next 30 entries being abusive to someone with whom you disagree.
  
  I found detail provide by Geoffrey of interest, with consideration and credibility from his experience and perspective.
  
  Grow up, be fair, respect this forum for its intended use, state your case, then leave it alone.
  
  4 months ago report
24. Ngoc Luan Ho Trieu
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Thanks Geoff.
  If I am not wrong, the climate change sceptics said that global temperature have been following a cyclical pattern fo centuries. Current climate may be generally warmer than what it used to be 50 years ago but the cooling down period will come and so on. This is disputed by the climate change camp who said that there is convincing evidence showing that there is a clear increase in global temperature at two points far apart in time as indicated by a statistically significant positive…
  Read more
  
  Thanks Geoff.
  If I am not wrong, the climate change sceptics said that global temperature have been following a cyclical pattern fo centuries. Current climate may be generally warmer than what it used to be 50 years ago but the cooling down period will come and so on. This is disputed by the climate change camp who said that there is convincing evidence showing that there is a clear increase in global temperature at two points far apart in time as indicated by a statistically significant positive linear time trend underlying global temperature data between those two time points despite its cyclical movement (ups and downs to be more correct). Furthermore, they also found a statistically significant positive relationship between that increasing trend in temperature with green house gas emissions. As far as I can see, global temperature follows a trend which is a combination of cyclical movements around an 'upward' linear trend over time and testing for the statistical significance of the latter is more involved than the usual R square or the statistics that you allude to in your response because: (i) as you may have been aware, a linear trend is a special case of a cycle with period tend to be larger than the number of observations ie number of periods included in the observation, and (ii) testing for its statistical significance involves testing of nested hypothesis as the up-down of temperature between two points in time can be expressed as the result of many 'mini' cycles and the exclusion (or inclusion) of one 'mini' cycle can change the estimated coefficient for the linear time trend in regression analysis.
  I hope this is clearer for you and will appreciate any reference to the above points in your work or studies on climate change. Thanks for responding.
  
  4 months ago report
25. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Geoffrey Harold Sherrington wrote".... I have little comprehension of what the heck you are writing about." Yes, this is understood. It is a complex issue the value system of individuals.
  Biases mean it is impossible to see others perpective unless a personal level of development is reached. Our cultural values are part biased meritocracy based on science, part christian based on biblical rules. Most oscillate between the two. Those stuck at one level of thought, cannot even imagine why anyone could possibly think differently. until they reach the next stage of development that is. From your comments your values are clear, appropriate and understood by those who have been where you are.
  That is evolutions story of humans and development, but very brief. As referenced previously;
  [stages of human development is a reference to Dr.Clare Graves lifetime work]
  
  4 months ago report
26. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Fiddled beyond reality. ...
  
  Not a name - not a paper advocating simple linear arithmetic... despite all the hard work, critique and allegation.
  
  One minute it's the mthod of analysis ... next it's not that - much more the quality of the data .... and not a citation or an example...
  
  This is because all you've got is the usual list of denialist rubbish from the likes of Jo Nova ... and a pile of worthless pseudo science from geologists and engineers branching out into climate science.
  
  Some links to your work - we'll have a look at it and get back to you.
  
  But meanwhile you're just kicking up dust and blowing smoke Geoff.
  
  4 months ago report
27. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde,
  Recently we lost a dear medico friend, a dedicated and clever GP, who was absolutely hopeless at concepts involving mechnanical devices. He would drive his car 15 km to get the tank filled because they had driveway service and he had not bothered to learn self serve.
  
  This says something about his life value choices, but is that something good or bad, should it even be judged?
  
  For reasons that follow fairly logically, it matters little whether I was exposed to this experience…
  Read more
  
  Peter Ormonde,
  Recently we lost a dear medico friend, a dedicated and clever GP, who was absolutely hopeless at concepts involving mechnanical devices. He would drive his car 15 km to get the tank filled because they had driveway service and he had not bothered to learn self serve.
  
  This says something about his life value choices, but is that something good or bad, should it even be judged?
  
  For reasons that follow fairly logically, it matters little whether I was exposed to this experience or that in my career. The outcome was that an independent person would probably find a favourable review. Indeed, a world-wide study by a large accounting firm found that the team I helped manage was ahead of all others, by their selected criteria, in mineral exploration. This is not bragging, it is seldom mentioned. But, you have to accept the reality that some people produce better results than others.
  
  As to your comment on papers involving the IPCC, climate change. the BoM, I regard these of little relevance. The blog has overtaken peer review in efficiency, time and audience. I suppose, if I counted, I'd have blogged about 1,000 times on those 3 topics combined. Keep in mind that I retired in the mid 1990s, before the IPCC was formed with its charter to prove what it stated to be correct. That type of bias in science is repulsive. As for the BoM, David Jones intercepts my email communications and censors responses. You might ask him if he has better qualifications than I do, for his position, and you might read some of his papers for value.
  
  Finally, climate change interests most people, especially those away from city ghettos. However, it's such a broad topic that many sub-disciplines like stats overlap with it. A scientist from an apparently distant field can have useful overlap. BTW I have never claimed to be an engineer. I'm not. You guys are forever making straw men.
  
  It is not my fault if your reading has failed to find my work. Perhaps you are reading what you want to read, rather than trying to get an overall view. Go look, it's not hard. The nanny State does not yet compel me to do your work for you, just to help pay you.
  
  4 months ago report
28. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Peter Blackwell
  
  Can't agree Peter.
  
  See most of these cranks content themselves with sitting at home swearing at the weatherman on TV but some of them - geologists in droves - feel themselves obliged to venture out here to spread the word of their personal statistical epiphanies and insinuations against the Bureau of Meteorology and all the other conspirators they've uncovered.
  
  And when you ask and dig a bit you find they don't actually know anything about climate science, complexity and interactive systems…
  Read more
  
  Can't agree Peter.
  
  See most of these cranks content themselves with sitting at home swearing at the weatherman on TV but some of them - geologists in droves - feel themselves obliged to venture out here to spread the word of their personal statistical epiphanies and insinuations against the Bureau of Meteorology and all the other conspirators they've uncovered.
  
  And when you ask and dig a bit you find they don't actually know anything about climate science, complexity and interactive systems modelling. But apparently thery know enough to know all these climate guys are wrong wrong wrong.
  
  The arrogance of it is astounding. And it is invariably in inverse proportion to their understanding of the issues. I wonder how he'd go if I wandered over and offered my totally uninformed criticisms of his ore estimating at Ranger?
  
  This is not about the science Peter - these guys neither care about nor understand the science - otherwise they'd be off reading the science on upper atmospherical interactions and the like ....this is all about the politics.
  
  So no free rides here - no claims of being a "scientist" - with the insinuation you might have some knowledge of the subject matter - not if you're a only a rock hopper who digs holes for a quid.
  
  If Geoff wants to impugn the integrity of scientists, the IPCC, the BoM or even Gavin the Weatherguy... he'd better bring his notes.
  
  4 months ago report
29. Jack Arnold
  
  Director
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  HI Geoffrey, like the motto ... can't see the relevance of climate science to the discussion about a new appointment to The Conversation. Seems that the trolls have diverted attention away from the main topic, pity.
  
  4 months ago report
30. Jack Arnold
  
  Director
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Good comment Peter Ormonde. As a Biology undergrad we considered that geologists had rocks in their heads ... and some went on to make a good career with them in both academic & commercial sectors.
  
  But you forgot the self appointed 'expert' nay-sayers paid by corporations to protect their vested interest in products that pollute the environment to biological extinction. One so called English lord comes to mind.
  
  However, the data does have a geological basis; oil corporations increase petroleum…
  Read more
  
  Good comment Peter Ormonde. As a Biology undergrad we considered that geologists had rocks in their heads ... and some went on to make a good career with them in both academic & commercial sectors.
  
  But you forgot the self appointed 'expert' nay-sayers paid by corporations to protect their vested interest in products that pollute the environment to biological extinction. One so called English lord comes to mind.
  
  However, the data does have a geological basis; oil corporations increase petroleum production & refining to meet the demand of an increasing market for fuel products and the consequent amount of waste products, including CO2 released into the environment also increases proportionately, having a greater impact on biological processes than before the production increase occurred.
  
  An optimal solution would use a different fuel for principally locomotion between geographic centres to minimise subsequent pollution ... however, this does not suit vested corporate interests.
  
  4 months ago report
31. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter, go to the BoM home page. Look up past climate data. You will find that there are 2 official records. One is historic temperatures that have been fiddled a bit. One example of a fiddle is that is temperatures don't always agree with what the BoM supplied to some newspapers of the time. The other is a 2012 job called Acorn-SAT, which has large differences from the other official version.
  Why do you mention blowing smoke, when I have already pointed this out. It is hard data, unaltered by me…
  Read more
  
  Peter, go to the BoM home page. Look up past climate data. You will find that there are 2 official records. One is historic temperatures that have been fiddled a bit. One example of a fiddle is that is temperatures don't always agree with what the BoM supplied to some newspapers of the time. The other is a 2012 job called Acorn-SAT, which has large differences from the other official version.
  Why do you mention blowing smoke, when I have already pointed this out. It is hard data, unaltered by me, but produced by a confused BoM. It is verifiable. It is independent of anything I do.
  
  Suppose you found a method that produced a proxy that allowed estimation of temperatures before thermometers were useful. Proxies have to be calibrated against (usually) thermometer records. How to you known whether to pick BoM A or BoM B? Until recently, there was a third choice, called the High Quality data set, but that's been dropped now - full of errors.
  
  The BoM send some data each month to oversea institutions like the British Met Office and NASA/NOAA. These groups have been known to make further adjustments of their own invention. Those who have followed global warming from the start are well aware of deficiencies like this and do the public a service by publicising them. For this we are criticised? Why do we get criticised for trying to correct errors in Science?
  
  Go pick on the culprits and send me an apology, it you have any grace.
  
  4 months ago report
32. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Geoffrey Harold Sherrington wrote: "Those who have followed global warming from the start are well aware of deficiencies like this and do the public a service by publicising them."
  Why are you doing a 'public a service' and publicising perceived deficiencies you see in GCC data?
  It would be interesting to have your reason, if you are comfortable explaining. This is a question about your motive, not why others are wrong.
  
  4 months ago report
33. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Jack Arnold
  
  Jack, All of us have vested interests, be they fragments of wishful thinking or globally important actions. It's not wrong to have vested interests. Problems arise when people try to force their interests on others who disagree with them, unreasonably and/or for the sake of dogma.
  
  You might know that I had a background in (mainly) exploration, mining, forestry & government policy.
  
  You might imagine that a person with 20 years of hands on work with major mining projects might be able to help…
  Read more
  
  Jack, All of us have vested interests, be they fragments of wishful thinking or globally important actions. It's not wrong to have vested interests. Problems arise when people try to force their interests on others who disagree with them, unreasonably and/or for the sake of dogma.
  
  You might know that I had a background in (mainly) exploration, mining, forestry & government policy.
  
  You might imagine that a person with 20 years of hands on work with major mining projects might be able to help manage a mining business. Yet, not only are we often abused for being miners, we are given an avalanche of gratuitous advice, often wrong, from one or more of the following, sometimes most in unison: the mass media, university researchers, actiivist groups like Greenpeace, politicians, economists, the IPCC, lawyers, judges and tribunals, parts of the United Nations, politicians from outside Australia, overseas competitors, the ATO, the ACCC, various Ombudsmen, people favouring alternative energy generation, transport corporations/companies, local and global charity collectors, a good handful of Life's failures .... and so on.
  
  Over the years, the biggest problem has been bog ignorant unionism, the type with Communist overtones. About 1986 this got so bad, with unions striking for reasons like of our companies not supplying enough flavours of ice cream in the free mess. One day, the Boss, Charles Copeman A.M., a Rhodes Scholar, sacked about 1,000 people and offered most of them them back jobs on out terms. Most returned, many feeling better that they did not have to carry a library of excuses for rorts in their minds, to explain for example why they were stealing company property. See "The Power Switch at Robe River", by lawyer Patrick Gethin. Or read http://www.hrnicholls.com.au/archives/vol8/vol8-5.php
  if you seek a narration free of my input, which people who can't face reality seem to think is invented. It's not. It's part of documented history.
  
  Many of the bright solutions that pop up on blogs like this one were evaluated by the industry 30-50 years ago and rejected on grounds that still stand. If you think you are an original thinker, take your theories to bother a brain surgeon, especially an eminent one. make a video of the encounter that we can all share.
  
  4 months ago report
34. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Jack Arnold
  
  Yes Jack, I wrote similarly some days ago. This is not the right place for these comments, but others keep asking me questions, or worse, make quite untrue allegations that require correction.
  If the moderators choose not to create a better space, don't kick me. I noted the problem before you did.
  
  4 months ago report
35. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Paul Richards
  
  Paul, If I see blatantly bad science thrust before the public, I have a public duty to good scientists and the public to point it out. I explained some of the poor outcomes that arise.
  Not doing this is like leaving the scene of a crime you have witnessed.
  Do you have a problem seeing the moral similarities?
  
  4 months ago report
36. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Geoffrey Harold Sherrington wrote: "I have a public duty to good scientists and the public to point it out"
  Why do you have a public duty, not why 'others are wrong'?
  Geoffrey Harold Sherrington wrote: "Do you have a problem seeing the moral similarities?"
  Moral similarities?
  Geoffrey Harold Sherrington wrote; " Do you have a problem.......? No quite happy to read your perspective, its valued. Some what understood and respected, your life conditions are another matter.
  Just to reiterate, why do you have a public duty to point out others are 'wrong' in your perception, not why 'others are wrong'?
  
  4 months ago report
37. Ngoc Luan Ho Trieu
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Geoff
  With reference to BoM A and BoM B.
  From your analysis of the data of the two data sets do you know the reason for the difference? Is it due to 'mistakes' stemming from uses of wrong approaches, methods or techniques in data collection? Or the difference is due to 'errors' made due to measurement? Statisticians can quantify and assess the severity of both types, although taking such action for the former kind may involve analysts from non-statistical fields like engineers. Perhaps you can shed more light on the problems. Ta.
  
  4 months ago report
38. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Ngoc Luan Ho Trieu
  
  Ngoc
  
  Ohh I don't think Geoff would to interested in explaining why BoM's evil scientists correct and adjust their historical data sets. Rather it suits his worldview to suggest a conspiracy and a plot and leave it at that.
  
  Had he wished to discuss the BoM's methodology he would have found a pretty useful description and discussion here: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=2
  
  But Geoff is honour bound - as a public duty - to criticise and accuse BoM scientists, the IPCC…
  Read more
  
  Ngoc
  
  Ohh I don't think Geoff would to interested in explaining why BoM's evil scientists correct and adjust their historical data sets. Rather it suits his worldview to suggest a conspiracy and a plot and leave it at that.
  
  Had he wished to discuss the BoM's methodology he would have found a pretty useful description and discussion here: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=2
  
  But Geoff is honour bound - as a public duty - to criticise and accuse BoM scientists, the IPCC - anything and anyone that dares suggest that the future is not going to look like the past. So much a scientist he is.
  
  This is the big one: "Since Australia is so large, and contains a rich variety of climates, changes in the network need to be carefully accounted for by climatologists. They need to make sure that the expansion of the network into the hot desert interior and tropical north have not produced biases in Australian-average temperature over time."
  
  But changes in method, technology and initial errors are all included as factors.
  
  Really disgraceful these old cranky geologists... for god's sake find them a hobby that doesn't involve demonstrations of public idiocy. Or bring him here to Woolibuddha where it's always 1957.
  
  4 months ago report
39. Peter Blackwell
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter,,, I see you as a zealot, a crank and particularly narrow minded. Afraid of an alternate view you either do not understand or agree with, you choose personal attack to attempt to stake your claim on the moral high ground.
  Geoff has not undermined or belittled your view, merely stated his own.
  You have your say - others have theirs - let "us" decide, based on the strength of the argument and the quality of the evidence, our preferred position.
  Your personal attacks are unbecoming, indeed unprofessional, and unnecessary.
  
  4 months ago report
40. Ngoc Luan Ho Trieu
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter
  So it is just a definitional issue.
  Thank you.\NLHT
  
  4 months ago report
41. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Peter Blackwell
  
  Unprofessional - mois? I'm a farmer Peter. Not a "scientist" ... not even the manager of a uranium mine pretending to be a scientist. I grow nectarines.
  
  But I do actually like science - and I do read up when I don't know something.
  
  Geoff here didn't belittle me - not that I noticed anyway - what he did was insinuate both incompetence and dishonesty in the BoM and the way it records historical data. He makes these allegations on a regular basis. As a "scientist".
  
  So I decided to have…
  Read more
  
  Unprofessional - mois? I'm a farmer Peter. Not a "scientist" ... not even the manager of a uranium mine pretending to be a scientist. I grow nectarines.
  
  But I do actually like science - and I do read up when I don't know something.
  
  Geoff here didn't belittle me - not that I noticed anyway - what he did was insinuate both incompetence and dishonesty in the BoM and the way it records historical data. He makes these allegations on a regular basis. As a "scientist".
  
  So I decided to have a look. At them and at him - and I don't like what I have again found... yet another right wing crank spreading half-baked criticisms of a complex subject about which he knows absolutely zilch.
  
  There's been a lively discussion here for a few weeks headed "No you're not entitled to your opinion" ... well worth a read Peter... in essence arguing that an opinion is worth what goes into it - facts, analysis and observation. No facts, no analysis, no observation = a worthless opinion.
  
  None of these are present in Geoff's opinions - rather they reflect a particular world view ... of fighting the good fight against the forces of darkness. Used to be unions and the Comintern (via the ACTU) ... but now the enemies of freedom and free enterprise are dressed in lab coats and carry clip boards. Clipboards issued by the insidious IPCC and the UN!!!!
  
  Seems you are far more concerned to protect Geoff's delicate sensitivities than the professional reputation and ethics of folks like BoM, CSIRO and the IPCC.
  
  I'm sure Geoff, having cut his teeth sacking folks in the fight against gawdless carmewnizzum in the NT, would be tough enough to wear some robust discussion. Sometimes that's all they can understand innit? I'm not accusing him of plotting, lying or conspiracy after all. He's doing that.
  
  Frankly I'm fed up with these undercover right-wing geologists wandering all over the place pretending they are omniscient... making allegations and insinuations against serious science and scientists.
  
  I have no time for this pussy footing around with these cranks Peter... they have empty opinions, suspicions and fears.... nothing else whatsoever.
  
  I think it is necessary to defend science and scientists from those who would attack them for political reasons. Don't you?
  
  Far more becoming I think If Geoff and the like just confined their allegations to agreeing with themselves on Jo Nova's websites rather than venture out here into the real world. We're fed up with them.
  
  History - like the Cold War - has moved on ... so has the debate on Climate Change. Sadly folks like Geoff seem far more attached to the past than the future. And they'd like to keep us there too.
  
  4 months ago report
42. Peter Blackwell
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter,,, by your own admission you are not qualified to criticise, merely state an alternate view.
  This is a forum of academic debate. No place for name calling and insults.
  That you think Geoff is a crank is merely a view from the alternate argument.
  I wouldn't mind being around in 50 years to watch the climate change zealots and doomsayers eating humble pie as they wonder why their logic was so flawed such that the theory did not become reality.
  
  4 months ago report
43. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Peter Blackwell
  
  Admission?... no I just said I'm a farmer - didn't say what else I've been or studied. Been a lot of things actually prior to becoming a horny handed son of toil.
  
  This is not a forum for "academic debate" ... it is a forum for informed opinion. INFORMED. And I'm afraid the denialist claptrap and conspiracy theories just don't make the grade as either academic debate or as informed opinion. But you'd know that already.
  
  Now if you denialists can find me a qualified working climate scientist…
  Read more
  
  Admission?... no I just said I'm a farmer - didn't say what else I've been or studied. Been a lot of things actually prior to becoming a horny handed son of toil.
  
  This is not a forum for "academic debate" ... it is a forum for informed opinion. INFORMED. And I'm afraid the denialist claptrap and conspiracy theories just don't make the grade as either academic debate or as informed opinion. But you'd know that already.
  
  Now if you denialists can find me a qualified working climate scientist or two willing to throw their reputions onto the line to attack the BoM or the IPCC we might have the grounds for a discussion. Even a working academic would be good. Or a working anything. But these allegations from the likes of retired engineers and geologists like Geoff here are just the howling of dinosaurs in the tar pit I'm afraid mate.
  
  Anyway glad to see you've come out and explained your views - for a minute there I thought you were really worried I was being too tough on Geoff here. Glad to see it's just another "critical scientist" barracking for the forces of niceness.
  
  My goodness - as if serving up a heap of references from Jo Nova and Prince Monckton is "academic debate"... or in any way informed. When do we start quoting Alan Jones?
  
  4 months ago report
44. Peter Horan
  
  Retired
  
  In reply to Peter Blackwell
  
  In my earlier post, I wrote "policy becomes confused with facts, rather than being a response to the facts". To say (and you are not the only one) '... your view, merely stated his own' and 'You have your say - others have theirs - let "us" decide' is to fall into this trap. One CAN NOT decide what is going on by voting. But, of course, one CAN decide what to do by voting - that is policy. So, let's not make policy in the ignorance of the facts.
  
  4 months ago report
45. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to Peter Blackwell
  
  Peter Blackwell wrote " .... logic was so flawed ..... " If this was a reality, the insurance multinationals would not be using the same data for actuarial calculations. They have a primary purpose as corporations to make profit, following flawed science data is just not profitable business.
  This verifiable logic is never discussed, by those who cannot accept the investment in public risk management.
  
  4 months ago report
46. Peter Blackwell
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Paul Richards
  
  Lets not cloud climate science with insurance risk management.
  
  Insurance companies are required by their shareholders to consider and mitigate against ALL potential risks, regardless how small.
  
  I am not saying we should be we shouldn't be sympathetic to our environment, taking positive steps for the long term good.
  
  What I am saying is don't slug me with a tax and a scare campaign which does not contribute in any way to sensible balanced debate, and affirmative action, and exaggerates the likely effect in the medium term to the extent the argument is implausable.
  
  4 months ago report
47. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to Peter Blackwell
  
  Peter Blackwell wrote: "Lets not cloud climate science with insurance risk management."
  So in your opinion using logic and 'clouding' your perspective is wrong. Hmmm ....... interesting.
  So the fact the global insurers watch their back for financial loss over any other consideration is totally irrelevant. That could be seen a cognitive bias.
  Ergo; any public investment in risk management for the coming generations future is not making you happy. In short; you would much prefer if they looked after your financial considerations first, before the environment.
  That's ok and understandable, as it is the premiss of the neoliberal in both major parties.
  
  4 months ago report
48. Grendelus Malleolus
  
  Senior Nerd
  
  In reply to Peter Blackwell
  
  "Lets not cloud climate science with insurance risk management."
  
  Peter, insurance risk management is the commercial expression of concern around data that indicates the presence of a risk requiring mitigation. You are correct when you express a view that insurance companies seek to mitigate against as many risks as possible, but the costs of mitigation never exceed the cost of the risk itself. I suggest that a valid measure here may be the extent of effort that insurance companies place into analysis and mitigation strategies for climate change compared with other risks they insure.
  
  Insurance companies are positioning themselves at the forefront of climate adaption and risk mitigation strategies.
  
  If they did not consider the issue significant they would hardly be investing so heavily in that side of the insurance business. It ia absolutely about protecting shareholders - against what insurers perceive as real risk.
  
  4 months ago report
49. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Paul Richards
  
  Others are wrong, not merely in my perception. One cannot have two data series that are so different without one being wrong. The value analysis is to state which is wrong, which I have not done.
  My life conditions are irrelevant.
  
  4 months ago report
50. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Peter Blackwell
  
  Excellent - clouding the issue ... very good.
  
  Facts - don't you go bringing your facts in here - expecting a bloke to go changing his mind just because of facts.
  
  If the facts are uncomfortable and disconcerting - they are obviously wrong. Simple really.
  
  Oh yes - and it's a plot. A UN, IPCC, BoM plot not to mention the BPM with their accursed centigrades and kilopascals.
  
  Welcome to the fact free world of climate change denial.
  
  Academic debate indeed! And these fellas want to be treated seriously.
  
  See they just know - Alan told them.
  
  4 months ago report
51. Grendelus Malleolus
  
  Senior Nerd
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  "Not doing this is like leaving the scene of a crime you have witnessed. "
  
  I like this analogy - so let's work with it. You see a man in an alley raise a gun, fire at a person at the end of the alley and then run off.
  
  When police arrive do you tell them "One man shot the other man because he was cheating on his wife" Or do you report what you actually observed - one man raise a gun and fire at the other?
  
  Your problem is that what you think you may be observing is not what really occurred…
  Read more
  
  "Not doing this is like leaving the scene of a crime you have witnessed. "
  
  I like this analogy - so let's work with it. You see a man in an alley raise a gun, fire at a person at the end of the alley and then run off.
  
  When police arrive do you tell them "One man shot the other man because he was cheating on his wife" Or do you report what you actually observed - one man raise a gun and fire at the other?
  
  Your problem is that what you think you may be observing is not what really occurred, and in putting a conspiratorial spin on top you are aggrevating your original error (if there is one).
  
  In the case of the analogy - what if the man who fired the shot was a police officer, who having shot - had for some valid reason, run off?
  
  Your describe the science as "blatatly bad". I think it is valid then for people to question whether or not you are qualified to judge whether or not it is so - no one questions your right to raise what you think is an issue, only your capacity to do so impartially.
  
  4 months ago report
52. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter, I read that on release. Despite its excuses, it does not change my criticism.
  
  4 months ago report
53. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Geoffrey Harold Sherrington wrote: "Others are wrong, not merely in my perception........" One cannot have two data series that are so different without one being wrong. [ ..... we get that : / ]
  Just to reiterate the question earlier, why do you have a public duty to point out others are 'wrong' in your perception, not why 'others are wrong' or why 'others' believe as you?
  Difficult question for you clearly. Interesting.
  Geoffrey Harold Sherrington wrote: "My life conditions are irrelevant...." So true.
  Still, we can make a fair assumption this comment was not made from a water threatened small island.
  
  4 months ago report
54. Jack Arnold
  
  Director
  
  In reply to Peter Blackwell
  
  That is an unfair and incorrect comment Peter Blackwell. Sitting through boring lectures for years doesn't make you a Scientist. Being actively involved in an area of study, creating experiments, analysing results of self & others, thinking about the implications of those results is what is important.
  
  Darwin never completed his formal academic studies yet wrote the most important scientific work of the 19th century, "Origin of Species" and a later classic reference tome on earthworms.
  
  Watson & Crick never finished their formal academic studies yet, as "amateur" biochemists, wrote the most important scientific paper in "Nature" in the 20th century describing the structure of DNA based on results obtained by others.
  
  4 months ago report
55. Ngoc Luan Ho Trieu
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Geoff
  May I intercept here:
  1. Even if two data sets are so different due to difference in data definition both can still be accepted, but analysts need to take care when using findings from analyses based on the two data sets in practical situations eg policy formulation of implementation.
  2. If all else being equal and their difference is due to measurement errors then statisticians have tests to assess the significance of the difference. If the difference is statistically significant, one has to check the data collection processes for both data sets to find out an explanation for the difference.
  
  Perhaps we need to do more work here, especially the 'value analysis'. Good luck to you Geoff!
  
  4 months ago report
56. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Paul Richards
  
  Paul,
  In return I ask why you have decided that there are two views of climate change, one held by "experts" and one by "Skeptics".
  There are 2 official sets of climate temperature data for Australia. When I say that one must be wrong, you ask why I feel I have a duty to point this out?
  ............................................
  Perhaps, Richard, it is is a similar duty that causes you to join in a blog that discusses two versions of climate interpretation. There is a difference, I tend not…
  Read more
  
  Paul,
  In return I ask why you have decided that there are two views of climate change, one held by "experts" and one by "Skeptics".
  There are 2 official sets of climate temperature data for Australia. When I say that one must be wrong, you ask why I feel I have a duty to point this out?
  ............................................
  Perhaps, Richard, it is is a similar duty that causes you to join in a blog that discusses two versions of climate interpretation. There is a difference, I tend not to state a personal preference for which explanation (in both examples) is right and which is wrong. You are far faster to rush to judgement based on that ever-worrying little devil named imperfect information.
  The question and its answer are not at all difficult for me. They are about the level of knowing a leg side from an off side in the game of cricket.
  ............................................
  I do not know what you mean by a water threatened small island. I would have thought some aspects of this description were self evident and redundant.
  
  4 months ago report
57. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter, go swallow a nectarine pip. I know you are playing a game and I've been patient and civil but the stumps can be drawn nom, eh? Sorry you made a duck, though.
  
  4 months ago report
58. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  No there are no skeptics ... just old right wingers who see lies and plots and conspiracies ... Gavin the weatherman has become the new red menace.
  
  What don't you understand about corrected data sets. "Hard data" taken out of context and hauled over into a more accurate and comprehensive observation system can be hard and wrong. Like Copeman and the HR Nicholls society.
  
  Why do you reject the explanations and analysis provided by the BoM regarding the need to homogenise the data to match an…
  Read more
  
  No there are no skeptics ... just old right wingers who see lies and plots and conspiracies ... Gavin the weatherman has become the new red menace.
  
  What don't you understand about corrected data sets. "Hard data" taken out of context and hauled over into a more accurate and comprehensive observation system can be hard and wrong. Like Copeman and the HR Nicholls society.
  
  Why do you reject the explanations and analysis provided by the BoM regarding the need to homogenise the data to match an expanding network of temperature measurement? Have you even read these explanations? I somehow doubt it.
  
  Or do you reckon - like a geologist - that it was 102.5 degrees on Tuesday or it wasn't? Is that really what you're trying to say ... that there cannot - simply cannot - be two sets of numbers. One is true and real - and the other an IPCC lie?
  
  I won't discuss Jo Nova's madness - but I will discuss this with you if you're up for a serious methodological chat ... here's the BoM rationale for what they do to make the numbers coherent and consistent over time.
  
  http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=2
  
  Read that and tell me why you reject standard statistical methodology.
  
  4 months ago report
59. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Geoffrey Harold Sherrington wrote: "In return I ask why ....."
  Your comments are unintelligible, what are you talking about? There is no reference to our comments in this thread!
  Geoffrey Harold Sherrington wrote: "In return I ask why ....." Is this a reference to a question posed several times that was not answered?
  Please be more concise, your multiple comments and interjections to numinous people is running together. Please make your last 'comment' readable and it will be answered.
  
  4 months ago report
60. Paul Richards
  
  strategic foresight
  
  In reply to Paul Richards
  
  Geoffrey Harold Sherrington: "I do not know what you mean by a water threatened small island" That's alright, just let it go.
  
  4 months ago report
Ngoc Luan Ho Trieu

logged in via Facebook

Climate change
For the second time since inauguration day, Obama reaffirmed the science behind climate change and described climate action as a moral duty. “For the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change,” Obama said.

If we think that climate does not change then we have to undertake the hard work of proving Obama's scientific advisers are a bunch of idiots. That's tough!

4 months ago report
Chris Saunders

retired

Oh no, just when I thought by coming on to The Conversation I could escape the pontificating political commentariat and here you are Michelle. Sounds unfair, un Australian even not to give you a go, but here you are repeating the same old act.
Just so you know where I am coming from, the type of opinion piece I deplore includes fantasies perhaps even personal beliefs of the power of one. Or has this been researched and you forgot to name the reference? “Yet in the public mind this parliament…
Read more

Oh no, just when I thought by coming on to The Conversation I could escape the pontificating political commentariat and here you are Michelle. Sounds unfair, un Australian even not to give you a go, but here you are repeating the same old act.
Just so you know where I am coming from, the type of opinion piece I deplore includes fantasies perhaps even personal beliefs of the power of one. Or has this been researched and you forgot to name the reference? “Yet in the public mind this parliament has been largely defined by noise and nastiness, to an extent that many people just want to close their ears until it is over etc.” Or, do you really know how the rest of us think?
“How much of the bitterness of the past two years flows into the election campaign remains to be seen.” Thank goodness you don’t claim to know the future but what an unpleasant one you glimpse on our behalf. But then, you do see the future, ‘this campaign will be policy heavy’. But then you go on to state that Mr Abbot is negative policy heavy.
You say you will be covering the ‘horse race’ aspect of the election over the next few months. The election is not until September, I won’t even be interested in the horse race then. It’s the policies I want to know, that’s what I vote on. I don’t care what anyone else is voting that’s their business.

4 months ago report
Ivan Quail

maverick

In reply to Geoff Sherington

News Ltd and other media outlets including Television and Radio beholden to Big Coal, Oil and Gas have done a good job of brain washing some of the public through a concerted campaign of misinformation, untruths and withholding important information.

It is a fundamental, cold hard peer reviewed scientific fact that Co2 is 62% better as a thermal insulator than air is. Therefore 390ppm +62% =631 effective =2.25 times greater than 280ppm.
As Dr Bindschadler (NASA…
Read more

In reply to Geoff Sherington

News Ltd and other media outlets including Television and Radio beholden to Big Coal, Oil and Gas have done a good job of brain washing some of the public through a concerted campaign of misinformation, untruths and withholding important information.

It is a fundamental, cold hard peer reviewed scientific fact that Co2 is 62% better as a thermal insulator than air is. Therefore 390ppm +62% =631 effective =2.25 times greater than 280ppm.
As Dr Bindschadler (NASA) pointed out we know how many million tons of coal, oil and gas are burnt each year. We know fairly accurately how much additional Co2 is released into the atmosphere each year on top of the Co2 emissions from nature. Dr Bindschadler states 1 Gton from nature and 7 Gtons from fossil fuel.
Could anyone put 7 times more salt or sugar on their food without risk to their health and wellbeing?
Just old fashioned logic. That upon which all science and physics is based.
We burn 86 million barrels of oil a day; 21 million tonne of coal a day and 9 billion cubic metres of gas every day. Plus fugitive gasses caused by mining, CSG, shale gas etc. ... all contributing to the C02e plus Methane emissions which as a greenhouse gas is 20 times worse than Co2.

4 months ago report
Barbara Cain

logged in via Twitter

I look forward to reading more - is so good to see the great things that the Government has started. If only the public could accept individual voices in the House - voting would not have to be on party lines - it appears very few like compromise - Julia, it would appear, is a great negotiator - interesting how so many look to Toni Windsor for 'the truth'. Rudd a great talker - short on action...unreasonable to work for - Julia has vision, passion and a great sense of equality and humility. Her resilience is amazing.

4 months ago report
1. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Barbara Cain
  
  Barbara,, at the base of this page is a red block with headings like "Our Charter". Dot point 4 is
  •Provide a fact-based and editorially-independent forum, free of commercial or political bias.
  
  I find it strange that a motto of the blog, "Academic rigour, journalistic flair" seems disregarded by many contributors, some of whom are supposed to have the said "Academic rigour". This is not consistent with the rules of the blog.
  
  Did you read the rules of engagement before writing?
  
  4 months ago report
2. Peter Blackwell
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Barbara Cain
  
  Barbara, clearly I live in a parallel Universe - where Julia the lier, manipulator and bully prevails over a group of people so concerned about self interest ahead of the greater good they are afraid to challenge her or disagree with her ridiculous decisions.
  This forum does allow for contrary views so in time one of us will see our view prevail at the ballot box.
  
  4 months ago report
Stephen John Ralph

carer

Hi Geoffrey H.S

thanks for the insight.

I am one who in my zeal to criticise the mining and minerals industries "may" often forget that I drive a car, use a PC to reply in this forum, use electricity as a driver for goodness knows how many appliances.

In the modern age we should acknowledge these industries for providing us with the comfortable and priveliged existence we experience.

But hopefully individuals and companies will never cease trying to improve the way we do things to enable the world to be passed onto to future generations in a worthwhile state.

4 months ago report
1. Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
  
  Boss
  
  In reply to Stephen John Ralph
  
  Thank you Steven. My wife and I have a family we love and we share the same sentiment. But I have a parental duty to resist their material and moral impoverishment by impositions based on false data and lies. "There will be no carbon tax ....."
  
  4 months ago report
Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren is a Friend of The Conversation.

photographer, blogger.

It is a pleasure to continue reading your work, Michelle.

1)To what degree has your recent negativity (not meant as a criticism) in The Age been influenced by the problems at that institution?

2) Historically, has there ever been such a one horse race of an election predicted? (apart from losing the un-losable election by John Hewson)

A) Accurately
B) Inaccurately
C) John Hewson wasn't actually loathed by the voters, was he?

3) Has anyone discovered a correlation between on-line users and voting trends?

4 months ago report
Jillian Carroll

PhD student at Victoria University

Michelle
Why have you waited until you left The Age to go beyond reporting the day to day political gamemanship in parliament which most people I know have been sick of for years and finally start reporting policy progress to date / policy objectives/ obstacles in the future etc in a broader context. To be honest,
I was beginning to think, for example, your relentless negative reporting of the of this labor government despite its major achievments in trying circumstances made you part of the…
Read more

Michelle
Why have you waited until you left The Age to go beyond reporting the day to day political gamemanship in parliament which most people I know have been sick of for years and finally start reporting policy progress to date / policy objectives/ obstacles in the future etc in a broader context. To be honest,
I was beginning to think, for example, your relentless negative reporting of the of this labor government despite its major achievments in trying circumstances made you part of the problem yourself. For example, I couldnt help but LOL at the fact that OBAMA has just come up with the idea of linking the minimum wage in the USA to the CPI .. something Australians have just taken for granted because it happened so long ago (so a bit of international perspective on some basic issues like the minimum wage would also be appreciated)

Therefore, I look forward to reading more contextualised comment on policy ideas, development and success in terms of major breakthroughs for this country like the carbon tax and the NDIS. Yes, we have all had more than enough of the superficial news we can see and read for ourselves. However, what we can't readily pick up, for example, is the quality of the input from treasury in framing the minerals rent tax. i.e Instead of us all jumping on the hysterical bandwagon of blaming Wayne Swan for not having the combined competence of a Treasury department, why aren't we holding these public servants to account.???? As Foucault would say, governmentality is wider than the apparatus of the highly visible state apparatus which unfortunately is all that is mostly reported in Australia. Therefore, can we switch the spotlight to the hidden policy drivers/makers/analysts in the arms of government as I think most of us have realized by now that poor old 'Swanee' is not a one man Treasury Department and why should he be????. So let's extend the 17th century concept of governent to the 21st century when we know from doing our own jobs that power is wider than that represented by talking heads type cabinet ministers on the TV every night.
Jillian Carroll PhD student on Contemporary Governmentality

4 months ago report
1. susan walton
  
  logged in via email @live.com.au
  
  In reply to Jillian Carroll
  
  Because, at the end of the day...the buck stops with the treasurer. Treasury did not leap up and spout every 5 minutes that they WILL deliver a surplus and that the mining tax will rake in billions...Swan did.
  
  Swan is the man in charge..and, as always, is the one who takes the blame. Perhaps if he, and Ms Gillard, (Ms Gillard touted the surplus just as strongly) were a little more careful with their mouths, this wouldn't have been such a deal.
  
  4 months ago report
Peter Gerard

Retired medical practitioner

Peter Ormonde, not only do I agree with most of your opinions, I also feel that the great kindness you showed to " Your mate Buster" shows that you are not only a person of considerable intellect but also have the ability to empathize with animal suffering. I wish there were many more like you.

4 months ago report
1. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Peter Gerard
  
  Thanks for the nice words, Peter. Buster reckons I'm pretty cool too... but he's far far to sanguine about global warming I'm afraid. I'm working on him.
  
  4 months ago report
2. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  ... too sanguine of course.
  
  4 months ago report
Ivan Quail

maverick

To Susan Walton & Peter Blackwell
You apparently have not read my post of 8 days ago regarding Ms Gillard.

Did you see that wonderful 4 Corners programme on ABC last night?
Repeated on ABC 24 at 5 on Sat. Don't miss

4 months ago report