So...
The Honourable (ahem) Member for Fisher, Mal Brough, has survived, for now, the 'Misleading Parliament' scandal.

I wouldn't mind betting that the PM has had a word with him - along the lines of...
'Look Mal, I'll get you through today so that you can go home and have a lovely Christmas with your family.
Then, when you come back after the break, you'll have prepared a perfectly-worded short speech to make to the House, won't you?'

See if I'm not right.

Malcolm T is looking even more like Kevin R the longer he goes on.

The question is whether he'll last as long as Kevvie.

His accession seems to have also stuffed the long term prospects of Julie B and Scott M. How quickly a reputation can change.

Albanese seems to be doing a good job in the media. I was listening to him on AM this morning and thought he was sounding like someone you could almost vote for. Made a nice change from the usual party line crap.

Well Cooda,
I think Malcolm had these chessboard moves worked out a long time ago.

As for Albanese, he's just again trying to set himself up for a crack at the leadership.
IMO, he's a dangerous, unprincipled piece of work that Labor, and the country, would be better off without.

I have always viewed Albanese at Labor's 'attack dog.' ie subtle as a sawn off shotgun at point blank range and always goes for the throat!:eek:

Him as Labor leader would make Keating look like a Choirboy in comparison.:ugh::ugh:

Stanwell; Second that!:ok:

climate science
 

Flying Binghi

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-cause, Global Warming], 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

See also http://www.garnautreview.org.au/upda...redibility.pdf - which refers to "the consensus" and has some (mainly negative) comments on "The Climate Caper"

Not a climate scientist, but of the papers I've read from peer-reviewed publications, I have seen lots of discussion but not much to derail the view as expressed by Sherwood.

On the other hand, I've seen multiple articles selectively using information from peer-reviewed articles. For example, I was pointed to an article by Don Aitken which referred to an article by Bjorn Lomborg deriding electric cars as emission saving artefacts. Unfortunately Lomborg (and Aitken) only discussed the most negative of the findings from the original (peer-reviewed) article and did not mention any of the findings which potentially support the use of electric cars.
Don Aitken's article: One cheer for the electric car « DON AITKIN
Research article: Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles - Hawkins - 2012 - Journal of Industrial Ecology - Wiley Online Library

I can't speak for the climate science area, but the reviewers in the research areas in which I was involved seemed to delight in finding issues with the research method(s) used, holes in arguments, gaps in sources, grammar/spelling, etc, in papers offered for publication. Papers were double-blind reviewed and only in one instance was I able to pick the author and on two occasions the institution. Much like anonymous internet discussion forums, anonymous peer review assessment is not for the thin-skinned.

Can't comment but see note above

regards
layman

What if they're all dangerous, unprincipled pieces of work... ? :uhoh:

As for Turnbull, he self-destructed last time he got near the top. What if the leopard can't change his spots, and we're seeing him do it again with his personal agendas (eg hammer Abbott, prioritise personal popularity etc) getting in the way of good policy?

RJM,
1. Good question.
2. Abbott didn't need any hammering - he was doing it all by himself.
3. That's a fair point. We've already seen him favour personal agenda (Prime Ministership) over good policy (the NBN).

"The pressure on university scientists to publish research papers in great quantity is relentless; and the motive behind it is clear. More papers mean more prestige for a researcher’s department—and the prestige will translate, department heads hope, into more financial support from the university. Unfortunately, this pressure is likely to prompt disreputable, unethical, and even fraudulent publication practices..."
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articl...table-Science/

"Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges...""

""Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.""
Scientists threatened for 'climate denial' - Telegraph

Hmmm... I think we can leave Cook, Doran, Zimmerman and Oreskes to the mirth of WUWT..:)

An example...
"Tonight, I’m surprised to find that Gleick, who stole documents under a false identity, and then likely forged a fake memo sent to MSM outlets is apparently still on the editorial review board of the Institute of Physics, Environmental Research Letters which published the now discredited Cook et al. 97% consensus paper..."
Further research: Self admitted cyber thief Peter Gleick is still on the IOP board that approved the Cook 97% consensus paper | Watts Up With That?

Oreskes wrote a book about our climate future...
"...The loss of pet cats and dogs garnered particular attention among wealthy Westerners, but what was anomalous in 2023 soon became the new normal. A shadow of ignorance and denial had fallen over people who considered themselves children of the Enlightenment."
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/...ttens-puppies/


Now, Anderegg looks interesting and half way sane. We'll have a look-see next post...:)




.

Those with doubts about Malcolm Turnbull as Liberal leader should read this article by Hal Colebatch, the author of 'Australia's Secret War', the (largely ignored) expose of the union movement's near traitorous behaviour during WW2.

Turnbull is no turncoat? ? News

It's long, but well worth reading in full - and perhaps the people who should really read it are those who don't have any doubts about Malcolm Turnbull being leader of the Liberal Party.

Albrecht wrote a good piece in The Australian earlier this week, told him to use his brains and not get confused by all this short term fawning adulation that is comeing his way, particularly from Fairfax media!

On another site, one poster suggested a rather fantastical scenario: if Tony Abbott switched to the National Party and stood for - and won - leadership, he'd become Deputy PM to Turnbull. Then, if enough Liberal MPs followed his example to make the Nationals the senior partner in the Coalition, he'd become PM and Turnbull his deputy.

It'll never happen, but it would be sooo interesting to watch:-

(a) the smirks on the faces of conservative voters,

and (even better)

(b) watch the ABC talking heads like Jon Faine et al explode in rabid indignation.

Also Korea and Vietnam.

Poor old Tone, still acting like the 100lb weakling who got sand kicked in his face at the beach. I don't think he ever emotionally left the 3rd grade..

Tony Abbott unleashes public attack on Julie Bishop, accusing her of telling falsehoods

Why does he not just give her the old shirt fronting. She is a woman after all !:ouch:

Meanwhile Turnbull's performance should be a worry, regardless of Abbott's existence.

Where is the great communicator, the adroit businessman with the remarkable people skills? Turnbull made a lot of money from his timely investment in and sale of Ozemail, but other than that, although his great skills have been common knowledge, on analysis it's hard to actually find examples of these great skills in Turnbull's career.

He talks a lot about mediation, consultation and conciliation, but he can't seem to keep his parliamentary party together and he seems not to be aware of the growing discontent in his broad conservative base. He's been accused of poor consultation with his Cabinet (agreeing to the Greens' corporate tax affairs exposure policy) and surprising his Liberal base by committing Australia to a $100 billion donation to a UN climate change program.

If Turnbull's remarkable team-building skills are more than a myth, now would be a good time for him to start using them.

I think you're on the money, Binghi. IS has now seized control of part of Afghanistan. The beheadings etc have started and are on YouTube.

The great threat of global warming is looking less of a 'clear and present' threat than IS.

I wonder if the West has the guts to respond, or whether the excuses about promoting Islamophobia, IS being weak and contained etc will continue?

I thought this comment, taken from the Andrew Bolt site, gives lie to the attempts by Liberal backers that the North Sydney by-election result isn't a slap in the face for Malcolm Turnbull.

Heh, i bet Labor is wishing they'd run a candidate now..:)



==============================================

Me-thinks it'll get worse before it gets better.
I see they found references to Inspire magazine at the home of them bonnie and clyde terrorists. Australia gets several mentions in Inspire magazine.....




.

What happened to me last post :confused:

Somebody don't like my reference to the government initiated Garnaut climate report ???




.

Perhaps you are simply stretching the relevance of your climate change posts a little too far for the Australian politics thread?