emissions trading / carbon trading

[marcopolo]

Originally posted by acmotor

Are you summing up the situation there marco ? We have Arts candidates, not engineers, scientists or even economists (not accountants)? At least we don't have movie stars or journalists..... Oh... those too.Darn.[/quote]

Yeah, well of course Sen. Fielding is an engineer of sorts! The largest group of Politicians are either Lawyers, or Unionists. (or both). In recent years journalists ('specially ABC)have taken over from farmers in numbers elected. (mostly ALP)

Part of this is because these are easier profession to return to once if the member loses his seat.

Scientist miss out, probably because they usually are highly focused in one area and lack the social desire to spend years getting elected to a job that holds no particular interest for them.

Anthony Albanese has a Bachelor degree in economics, but has always been a professional ALP functionary. The same goes for Cris Bowen, and Greg Combet who has degrees in engineering and economics but has been a union or party functionary all his career.

In fact the current AlP has an overwhelming number of MP's, (more than 80%), who have had no other job after Uni, but AlP or Union politics. More than at any time in it's history, which probably accounts for it's greater discipline in recent years.

On th other side, the lib/Nats seem to have a more widespread group of businessmen,small businessmen, engineers, lawyers, farmers,accountants Doctors even the odd scientist or two. Some like Andrew Robb have degrees in economics, but mostly with a Law degree. Dr Dennis Jensen has a Phd in a Science based Discipline. The Nat have several MP's with degrees in Agri related Science.

In general the Lib/Nats have a greater spread of backgrounds and previous professions, because the professional union/party based uni to Parliament machine doesn't exist. Often this makes the Lib/Nat politicians seem more amateur and eccentric.(often they are!). In both party the trend toward younger candidates in both parties has produced more uni-to-politics politicians.

Lib/Nats do have a greater proportion of MP'S who have been Mayors or local councillors.     

So which politicians actually report being influenced by advice from scientists? A study by the University of Queensland

"Labour politicians are more influenced by scientists than Liberal/National politicians - 85 per cent of Labour politicians are highly influenced by this group compared to 44 per cent of Liberal/National politicians,"

Which party is full of scientific illiterates whose leader thinks global warming is "absolute crap" and can only be relied upon to pay it lip-service?


Well now, it's good to see that you are so unbiased!

I would say that the University of Queensland 'study' was fairly subjective. The study was complied by members of leftist associations, and one actual subsequent ALP official!

But the study could also reflect the diverse nature of the LIB/Nat's in answering as individuals, and the more disciplined response along party lines by the ALP.

The other piece of spin in this report was the phrasing of the questions. IE; The response to a question like, " Are your influenced by Scientific Opinion? when answered as "it would depend on whose opinion, and what diverse scientific opinions were available was marked as a negative".

Such reports are 'scientifically' valueless when the result has already been determined and the questions engineered to suit!

A careful study of both parties would show that they both are deficient on hard core scientists,(although the libs score with more science grads).

I realise that to an committed lefty, this maybe hard to comprehend by it just maybe that scientists by training are not good at understanding the irrational behaviour of their fellow citizens, and would therefore lack the patience and human skills to put up the onerous task of being an MP.

Most people imagine it's all about power, but in reality as Bob Hawke said its more like trying to herd cats!

[marcopolo]

Are you summing up the situation there marco ? We have Arts candidates, not engineers, scientists or even economists (not accountants)? At least we don't have movie stars or journalists..... Oh... those too.Darn.

Yeah, well of course Sen. Fielding is an engineer of sorts! The largest group of Politicians are either Lawyers, or Unionists. (or both). In recent years journalists ('specially ABC)have taken over from farmers in numbers elected. (mostly ALP)

Part of this is because these are easier profession to return to once if the member loses his seat.

Scientist miss out, probably because they usually are highly focused in one area and lack the social desire to spend years getting elected to a job that holds no particular interest for them.

Anthony Albanese has a Bachelor degree in economics, but has always been a professional ALP functionary. The same goes for Cris Bowen, and Greg Combet who has degrees in engineering and economics but has been a union or party functionary all his career.

In fact the current AlP has an overwhelming number of MP's, (more than 80%), who have had no other job after Uni, but AlP or Union politics. More than at any time in it's history, which probably accounts for it's greater discipline in recent years.

On th other side, the lib/Nats seem to have a more widespread group of businessmen,small businessmen, engineers, lawyers, farmers,accountants Doctors even the odd scientist or two. Some like Andrew Robb have degrees in economics, but mostly with a Law degree. Dr Dennis Jensen has a Phd in a Science based Discipline. The Nat have several MP's with degrees in Agri related Science.

In general the Lib/Nats have a greater spread of backgrounds and previous professions, because the professional union/party based uni to Parliament machine doesn't exist. Often this makes the Lib/Nat politicians seem more amateur and eccentric.(often they are!). In both party the trend toward younger candidates in both parties has produced more uni-to-politics politicians.

Lib/Nats do have a greater proportion of MP'S who have been Mayors or local councillors.      

So which politicians actually report being influenced by advice from scientists? A study by the University of Queensland

"Labour politicians are more influenced by scientists than Liberal/National politicians - 85 per cent of Labour politicians are highly influenced by this group compared to 44 per cent of Liberal/National politicians,"

Which party is full of scientific illiterates whose leader thinks global warming is "absolute crap" and can only be relied upon to pay it lip-service?

Well now, it's good to see that you are so unbiased!

I would say that the University of Queensland 'study' was fairly subjective. The study was complied by members of leftist associations, and one actual subsequent ALP official!

But the study could also reflect the diverse nature of the LIB/Nat's in answering as individuals, and the more disciplined response along party lines by the ALP.

The other piece of spin in this report was the phrasing of the questions. IE; The response to a question like, " Are your influenced by Scientific Opinion? when answered as "it would depend on whose opinion, and what diverse scientific opinions were available was marked as a negative".

Such reports are 'scientifically' valueless when the result has already been determined and the questions engineered to suit!

A careful study of both parties would show that they both are deficient on hard core scientists,(although the libs score with more science grads).

I realise that to an committed lefty, this maybe hard to comprehend by it just maybe that scientists by training are not good at understanding the irrational behaviour of their fellow citizens, and would therefore lack the patience and human skills to put up the onerous task of being an MP.

Most people imagine it's all about power, but in reality as Bob Hawke said its more like trying to herd cats!

[acmotor]

....Which party is full of scientific illiterates whose leader thinks global warming is "absolute crap" and can only be relied upon to pay it lip-service?
.....

The first part is factually wrong, the second part, well definitely bad politics

Then again, which party has only created 'emissions' about environmental issues and when they had the chance to go double dissolution on the policy that was "the greatest moral issue of our time" (not my words) they fell so far short of actually doing anything !
Perhaps the 'absolute ....' is in the hypocracy ?

Lip service is all that either party has shown so far.

Agreed though, more than one politician will live to eat their words !
Lets hope scientists are better at predictions than economists, since fewer economists predicted the GFC than there are scientists predict non human induced GW and look what happened !

[7circle]

It looks like the've used the a-pinionated polls to balance the ananumous ballot that we are making the effort to go to to tick some boxes and write some numbers. Oh, who's the Environment minister, it's been so long since I've heard his little/quiet voice. I wonder who's going to stand up to the plate in the next term. I wonder how many new ministries will be spread out to puppies chassing a bone, oh sorry puppets made from old bones.
Oh the democrates, are still, stumbling. I saw the SBS "News Hour" from USA do a piece on a the OZ ejection. And it was quite a "piece", I couldn't stop cringing. Eating Pies and Pushing Billy carts thats what the Gillard and Abbott are upto. Actually it's probably worth voting for mRAbbott now that he's done something for Zero-Emission Vehicles, but he's still emmiting to much bs. I certainly hope miss G doesn't last the year and is replaced by someone who cares. About a government focused on something further than running over their toes.

[EVNoob]

The Greens have a few medical doctors, so I suggest they have some clues on health care, but probably no economists.

Just trying to keep the discussion balanced.

[Peter C in Canberra]

The Greens have a few medical doctors, so I suggest they have some clues on health care, but probably no economists.

Just trying to keep the discussion balanced.

You don't have to be medical doctor to act on reputable medical advice. Similarly, you don't need to be a scientist to accept and act on reputable scientific advice. In an election you need to judge not only the advertised policies but also whether you think their heart is in it. Given how many of the lib/nats have been openly and recently dismissive of conventional scientific advice, I find it hard to believe they would do any more than the minimum they can get away with on climate change.
For the record I think Labor could have gone to double dissolution with a better ETS than the seriously compromised one negotiated with Turnbull (who understands the seriousness and tried sincerely to bring his party along), or an interim carbon tax with ETS to phase in as suggested by the greens as a stop gap. What I can't judge is whether perhaps Labor was right to think the public was not there yet to support this and perhaps it would have blown up in their face and made matters worse with a landslide to liberals after whopper scare campaign. Who knows? At least Labor and Greens unreservedly acknowledge the issue.
I guess they can untie Wilson Tuckey now and let him out of the cellar.

[acmotor]

But you need to be a medical doctor (or have one on your team) to be able to judge the quality of the advice. i.e. not all advice is good advice. FWIW, a doctor (even ex.) not a manager should run a hospital.

Taking advice from people who know better is not a strong point from the encumbent (one particular scheme comes to mind). If you have no idea yourself then just 'saying' you'll listen to the people isn't worth much. I'd prefer a smarter government in the first place (not always the case as we have seen).
Your right though, Australia was not ready for an ETS, and if we are smart though, we will never need one.
Oh well, only 4 hours to go and we can get on with other matters.

[marcopolo]

You don't have to be medical doctor to act on reputable medical advice. Similarly, you don't need to be a scientist to accept and act on reputable scientific advice.

Actually, over the years, most of 'reputable medical advice' has in hindsight proved to be disastrous! As for 'science' for some time a great many very 'eminent scientists' believed in phrenology and other quack sciences. As for global warmings more exteme predictions, most politicians can still remember the same concensus of scientists and economists who constitute the then hugely respected, and admired think tank, the 'Club of Rome'. This group adamantly predicted 1977 as 'the year the stork would pass the plow' and the world would face increasing, permanent famine conditions!

It didn't happen, in fact 1978 was a year of huge food surpluses!

[/quote] At least Labour and Greens unreservedly acknowledge the issue.
I guess they can untie Wilson Tuckey now and let him out of the cellar.[/quote]

This is a Little unfair, the are just as many Labour sceptic's, it just they don't speak out out.

PLease, please don't even think of letting Wilson Tuckey Out!It was hard enough getting him in there !

[Peter C in Canberra]

You don't have to be medical doctor to act on reputable medical advice. Similarly, you don't need to be a scientist to accept and act on reputable scientific advice.

Actually, over the years, most of 'reputable medical advice' has in hindsight proved to be disastrous! As for 'science' for some time a great many very 'eminent scientists' believed in phrenology and other quack sciences. As for global warmings more exteme predictions, most politicians can still remember the same concensus of scientists and economists who constitute the then hugely respected, and admired think tank, the 'Club of Rome'. This group adamantly predicted 1977 as 'the year the stork would pass the plow' and the world would face increasing, permanent famine conditions!

It didn't happen, in fact 1978 was a year of huge food surpluses!

All easy, tiresome, oft-repeated rhetorical points that have been repeatedly rebutted. Phrenology was never mainstream etc. The 'green revolution' staved off predictions but major players in that only ever said it was a stop gap.

[acmotor]

Darn, polling day passed and we still don't have an answer.
It is amazing how closely in two we are divided !
That's probably why little gets done, the committee mentality.

[marcopolo]

Darn, polling day passed and we still don't have an answer. It is amazing how closely in two we are divided !That's probably why little gets done, the committee mentality.

Yes indeed, an astonishing result! But sometimes you can have just a little too much democracy. It really is more efficient to have essentially two party government. The danger of small parties is that you wind up like Italy with a new government every week and no really long term planning. The other problem is, in trying to please everyone, you end up like most compromises, pleasing no-one.

But of course you will now have the greens and independents screaming to have the rules changed to institutionalise this state of affairs.Supported by a desperate and cynically hypocritical Gillard.

But some interesting events arose from the night.

The Greens scored an significant increase. Even if you factor out the labour voters protest vote, it was still significant. Curiously, the with the exception of Tassie, the green vote was almost completely urban. The Nats did very well everywhere Barnaby Joyce campaigned and the Nat share of the vote increased significantly. perhaps if the Nats adopted some practical Environmental policies, this could be the start of something.

Abbott did much better than anyone expected, except in Victoria, where the marginal womens vote and seems to have been cast on principally gender bias. (also a strong anti-catholic bias).

SBS appeared to be malfunctioning, my TV seemed stuck in slow motion all night?

The three Ex nat MP's have a real dilemma, joint support the LNP, whom the hate with a passion or answer to their voters by supporting the ALP. Tony Windsor seems able to wriggle out, as both sides will offer him speaker. Gillard courting that arch climate change denier, Bob Katter will be an interesting scene.

The AlP professional party faithful kept their seats.

Most astonishing some very encouraging history would appear to either nearly made or was made.

The odious 75 yr Wilson Tuckey was nearly beaten by an angry (G)Nat.

A 20 yr old Liberal beat an arrogant ALP incumbent.
Australia elected the first Aboriginal member of the Lower house, A Liberal!!! Come to think of it, the first Aboriginal Senator was a Liberal, the first Asian Parliamentarian was a Lib/Nat.The first Female Australian MP was Liberal. The first handicapped MP was a conservative.

Hmmm... these facts go against the ABC, AGE usual spin reporting?

Speaking of spin, this from the BBC coverage of the election (although to be fair they probably referenced ABC.

Facts about the Candidates:

JULIA GILLARD
Welsh-born popular former lawyer
Taken to Australia as a child in 1966 for the warmer climate
Known for her pragmatism and sharp tongue
Seen as intelligent, visionary and determined
Lives with her partner, a business executive
Faced unfair criticism from conservatives for not having children

TONY ABBOTT
Nick-named the "mad monk", relating to his brief training as a Catholic priest
Renowned fitness fanatic and former student boxer
Socially conservative on issues such as same-sex marriages and abortion
Known for gaffes and has frequently been caught swearing on camera
Climate change denier.


Now that seems a very unbiased description of the candidates!! No mention of Keven Rudd, or for that matter that Abbott was a Rhodes Scholar who graduated with distinction from Queens College, Oxford. It may be felt curious as to why the BBC might have felt that fact of no interest to UK viewers.

As I say, spin,spin, spin.

It will be interesting to see how Bob Katter etc, can square his/their convictions with the Greens.

So do the greens have a real message or was this just a feel good protests against the majors.

The interesting thing is that both leaders opinion early post election polls show increases, (Abbott's more so) but bob brown win for the longest election night speech!!

Poor old Wayne Truscott, was abandoned completely in favour of listing to Dr Brown!

We certainly live in interesting times.       

[acmotor]

Further along the line of how we are slip down the middle..... It is probably impossible to get an unbiased report on all parties/candidates.
JG for instance is also oposed to SSMs (though party driven? or just doesn't believe in M anyway?)

More power to wyat roy !

The issue I have with minor parties or a coalition of minor parties is that they don't have a broad range of policies and would be overwhelmed with the full gambit of government. Oh, you already said that.

Is it the media and the election campain process that lets the democrazy down ?

[Squiggles]

What I enjoyed most was the annoying women on the TV panel I was watching.
Forget what station it was, she was sitting next to Peter Costello, apparently she wrote a biography of Gillard.
She was great, a total one eyed wacko who did not say anything intelligent the whole time I watched. I'd put a fair wager on her being Julya's girlfriend. She was certainly pro women, every time a female MP was mentioned she started to sprout on about how that woman had to be a minister in the next parliament. Mind you maybe quite a few should be.
She was also completely convinced that an election where the ALP lost 14 seats was a resounding win for Julya. Every time Julya was mentioned her eyes glazed over.

Since when is a hair dresser a business executive?

Loved Julya's speech.....moving forward has been replaced with friends...she could put the worst of insomniacs to sleep.
On the other hand Tony was no better trotting out the family and pretending to kiss them....

edit: To be fare there was another one eyed wacko at the other end of the panel as well....Barnaby somebody or other...

[Squiggles]

JG for instance is also oposed to SSMs (though party driven? or just doesn't believe in M anyway?)

Or is it that the closet door is just jammed?

[marcopolo]

What I enjoyed most was the annoying women on the TV panel I was watching.
Forget what station it was, she was sitting next to Peter Costello, apparently she wrote a biography of Gillard.
She was great, a total one eyed wacko who did not say anything intelligent the whole time I watched. I'd put a fair wager on her being Julya's girlfriend. She was certainly pro women, every time a female MP was mentioned she started to sprout on about how that woman had to be a minister in the next parliament. Mind you maybe quite a few should be.
She was also completely convinced that an election where the ALP lost 14 seats was a resounding win for Julya. Every time Julya was mentioned her eyes glazed over.

Since when is a hair dresser a business executive?

Loved Julya's speech.....moving forward has been replaced with friends...she could put the worst of insomniacs to sleep.
On the other hand Tony was no better trotting out the family and pretending to kiss them....

YES! I thought I was the only one who noticed her! Hilarious! This was certainly the most entertaining coverage of the night especially   Barnaby and and Krogers attack on Swan, who responded like an indignant frog at two Guard dogs upsetting his dignity!!

Great theatre, but very unseeemly behaviour by all those involved.

To be fair to the BBC, they probably only repeated what the ABC sent 'em. I think since her elevation her 'Partner' has given up hairdressing, and accepted job in real estate.

At the risk of seeming partisan, I don't think Abbott was pretending. The love of his family and the obvious closeness of the family unit, maybe a little cheesey and unfashionable in a dysfunctional world, but I believe it's very genuine and at the core of a deceptively complex man.

Having said that,it's my personal observation that had Joe Hockey been opposition leader, the AlP would have lost between 21 and 24 seats, and the greens vote in the Senate would be smaller.

Er, .. pardon my ignorance but what is SSSM ?

[Squiggles]

Er, .. pardon my ignorance but what is SSSM ?

I figure it short messaging service code for the validation of a union between partners of non differential biological make up.

Why do people feel they have to write in this annoying abbreviated fashion? What is wrong with old fashioned English?

[marcopolo]

I figure it short messaging service code for the validation of a union between partners of non differential biological make up.

Ah, I see...Thank you! Although simply because Julia Glliard has no children, and lives with a hairdresser and had those close friendships at Uni, means no more than....Oh, yeeesss.. I see..., closet, Hmmm..

But really, who cares? Penny Wong and Bob Brown are both responsible, capable and hard working MP's.

In Penny Wong's case she had a boyfriend, Jay Weatherill, all through UNI, who is also a member of parliament and cabinet minister in the Rann SA government.

Perhaps Julia Gillard balancing the act?

More in next weeks edition of Who Magazine!

[acmotor]

Yep, SSM = short messaging service code for the validation of a union between partners of non differential biological make up.
Seems to me the former is far more efficient and taxes the BBN less to transfer !
Sorry squiggles, point taken.

[Peter C in Canberra]

SSM=same sex marriage.
Apparently some people feel their heterosexual relationships are undermined by other people's homosexual relationships. Personally I can't see how my heterosexual marriage is threatened or devalued by someone else's homosexual marriage.
Perhaps, we are straying a little off topic here?

[Squiggles]

Personally I can't see how my heterosexual marriage is threatened or devalued by someone else's homosexual marriage.

Agreed.

Perhaps, we are straying a little off topic here?

Who cares, we are having fun!!

[marcopolo]

SSM=same sex marriage.Apparently some people feel their heterosexual relationships are undermined by other people's homosexual relationships. Personally I can't see how my heterosexual marriage is threatened or devalued by someone else's homosexual marriage. Perhaps, we are straying a little off topic here?

Well, yeah I would say we've strayed, but then that's the way of discussion.

The point you make is an interesting one. Obviously there is still a small minority of homophobic bigots. However, I suspect the question of same sex marriage is more complex than that.

My suggestion to resolve this issue, would be to rename the (Contract) Marriage Act 1961 as a Contract Of Civil Union Act, and amend not only it's provisions but the Family Law act accordingly. This reform would allow Same Sex union, Altered Sex Union (sex change) etc.

Separate, but equal would be the Contact of Marriage Act. this act would provide for the parties to opt for a religious, or traditional wedding, and although the provisions would be in every other way, except the issue of same sex, identical, including family law provisions, but traditional terminology would be retained as the terminology and language of the act and any subsequent proceedings.

(Man, Wife,Husband etc.) Obviously both acts could employ the term spouse, thus reducing the somewhat confusing term 'partner'.
This would satisfy all citizens.

Tradition is important to some people. The 'grammar' of our society seems to be breaking down. It's a small point but I often receive letters, signed but omitting the gender prefix. Very, PC , but in the case of some names, very difficult to reply, as the first name (or initial) doesn't clearly denote gender.

Fine for emails, where you can just put the first name, (or none), but a little familiar for formal legal or business correspondence?

This is behind a lot of same sex based marriage resistance. Many people want to retain the traditional terminology, and traditional concept.

Why not make adequate provision to accommodate all?    

[Peter C in Canberra]

............It's a small point but I often receive letters, signed but omitting the gender prefix. Very, PC , but in the case of some names, very difficult to reply, as the first name (or initial) doesn't clearly denote gender.

Fine for emails, where you can just put the first name, (or none), but a little familiar for formal legal or business correspondence?........

In academia, where I most often encounter this problem with non-Anglo names, a simple solution to this dilemma is to reply "Dear Dr. Polo,"
People tend not be offended by the convenient assumption that they have a PhD.

[marcopolo]

In academia, where I most often encounter this problem with non-Anglo names, a simple solution to this dilemma is to reply "Dear Dr. Polo,"People tend not be offended by the convenient assumption that they have a PhD.

Heh, heh, heh, an absolutely brilliant solution! (and who said you didn't have political instincts!)

But, seriously, what do you think of my same-sex marriage solution?

I put this concept to 11 politicians, and recieved 11 different answers!

[acmotor]

This would satisfy all citizens.

   

So Professor polo, what could possibly do that ?

I'm bailing 'till the thread comes back on topic.

[Peter C in Canberra]

But, seriously, what do you think of my same-sex marriage solution?
I put this concept to 11 politicians, and recieved 11 different answers!

I wouldn't call it a 100% solution for those same sex couples who want to use the word 'marriage' but it would go a long way I expect for the word 'spouse' to be applicable in law and might satisfy 95% and would remove virtually all practical, rather than symbolic issues. If I were a politician and thought the backlash from some sectors about 'marriage' would not be worth the bother but wanted to improve the situation I would go with this proposal as workable progress.