Sounds like a “natural upper bound” theorem. Still, 57:43 at a general election, were it to occur, would be spectacular in its consequences.

He also said that Liberal warfare only seems to affect the Libs’ primary vote, rather than the overall 2PP. (Does he mean Lib voters scurry away to minor parties, then drift back when a new, steady hand is on the tiller?)

Possum?

Nickws@96: I’m touched that you’re looking out for my sake, even if you must be ungrammatical in doing so.

Grammar folks. That’s what done gets a response from teh last liberal!

Though in my defence I think the poor grammar Andrew E thinks he identifies is just common post-19th century English usage.

What is happening now is that the Libs are basically defining it – Joyce and the far-right Libs as a tax grab and the end of capitalism in Australia, and Turnbull and Hockey in attempting to counter these perceptions (and of course the idea that the CPRS is basically the same as that proposed by Howard largely off the cuff in 2007). Adding to this has been the whole line from Rudd, Gillard and Wong that the Liberals “have a responsibility” to pass the CPRS. Keep that up and you have an issue that the Liberals own.

What the Libs then do is what Labor Premiers have been doing since Carr in the mid ’90s, and run against Labor governments. Labor’s nightmare scenario is for this legislation to be passed, for it to have a few teething problems and for Turnbull to represent himself as the only one who can be trusted to tweak it a bit and run environmental policy “properly”, while Rudd is left defending a status quo that nobody wants.

Jane@115: well then don’t vote Liberal. What I’m asking there is for you to get over yourself enough to imagine that you’re paying less attention to the issues than you do, i.e. the sort of person who voted Labor in ‘07 but who voted for Howard beforehand, and who may be susceptible to voting Liberal again.

I suppose that was irony about releasing all the data and code in the spirit of open enquiry, as opposed to climate modellers at UEA CRU.

FYI. Data and code availability indexed here

Your 100% probability of disaster forecast – is that gloabl or local? Just wondering, because on a global and continental scale there are going to be winners and losers from climate change, natural or manmade, just as in most things in life. And as for the ability of Academics, Governments, Bureaucrats and the UN to pick winners -there is one born every day.

Your second point would appear to nullify the basis of the CPRS – the Garnautt Report (and even he thinks the CPRS is manure.)

And your third point is exaectly right – wjy should little old Australia commit economic Hari Kari when the likelihood of the rest of the world following suit so slim? We can’t get all nations to sign the UN Convention on Refugees or the Doha round of trade talks yet the NDCs want us to pump billions their way?? How is that rational??

* probability of disasters if no action: 100%

* probability of economists having anything useful to say about cost of doing what’s needed based on probability that science can give them sufficiently accurate numeric parameters: 0%

* chance of rest of world being any better than us at resisting vested interests: pretty slight, but better if we ante up

* point of multiplying odds of above three factors, or similar: none

Just sayin’

But still, why not pop those probabilities on the back of a napkin and leave them on Ken Henry’s regular table in his favourite restaurant? You just might save us all from economic DOOM!!!1!!11!

And just in case you forget, please remember, these are the rules

No I don’t have any certainty except that both the economic and climate modelling will not be accurate. I professionally live and die by economic forecasting and hasn’t that been fun recently!

I suppose that was irony about releasing all the data and code in the spirit of open enquiry, as opposed to climate modellers at UEA CRU.

The push for anti-carbon climate change action is reliant on climate modellers being right, economic modellers being right and from Austrlia’s perspective, the rest of the world doing something. If we apply a probabilities based approach, and assume the probability of climate modellers being accurate as 70%, economic forecasters being accurate of 70% and the rest of the world actually taking effective action as 30% then the probability of getting a “correct outcome” is 14.7%.

I think I have been very generous in my probabiltiy assumptions. In my opinion those odds suck, and I am a betting man.

The hyperventilating by the Coalition is out of all proportion with the actual economic cost.

I assume you’re alluding to John Hewson’s embarrassing performance over the GST in the ‘96 election. That was a issue because small business people across the contry are involved in the collection of the GST. Unless a small business person happens to own a coal mine or power station, they won’t be caught up in red tape in the way they have been with the GST. It’s a nice try by the Minchinites, but it’s a silly analogy. Sort of like the idea that a big advertising campaign by business would save Work Choices – wishful thinking.

I don’t think the Govt should be content with current polling on ETS. Having said that I don’t the next election will be fought on this one issue, nor do I think the Govt will not be returned, but I do think they need to start countering the the ETS spin..like six months ago.

Like the Republican debate, the ETS has become a confusing technical three/four way issue with the Greens coming from the direct election model side and this doesn’t automatically mean that Labor is perceived by voters as being responsible & in the middle etc..it also translates as purely ‘negative’ noise for the Govt’s ETS position by swinging voters who don’t and won’t ever get past headlines/30 sec grabs.

Polling wise, like the Republican debate, the further you get from the GPO, the more the anti-vote increases.

I was going to post the the other night, and then yesterday morning, before I got quickly re-acquainted with the NSW public hospital system vis my old mum taking another tumble, in respect of Hartcher’s piece in the Sat. SMH on the falling support for ETS falling since 2006 and blaming the Govt for not prosecuting the case, preferring to play politics. Although Rudd gave a substantial speech last month and it was reported merely as a hissy hit over denialists(!)…..but I agree that the Govt needs to climb down.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/floundering-against-the-global-current-20091127-jwwb.html

The other side have their ducks lined up esp. for city voters – it’s a just a tax, it’s the wrong model that doesn’t cut emissions, and it won’t come into operation until 2011, so no need to pander to Rudd’s need to strut world stage and pass it quickly … and they have only started their campaigning full-on over the past few months (aside from Bolt and the Nats who’ve been hammering away for much longer) and the polling as per Possum’s mid Nov post and Hartcher’s reveals significant slides in the AGW position across the entire electorate, not just in the Liberal base.

Of course, it doesn’t help having an ABC where denialists are given more than equal time, however this Govt has often been slow to react on a number of issues, and overly reliant on justifying their actions on purely technical grounds well after the horse has ‘bolted’, rather than setting the agenda.

As far as I’m concerned, this was Howard’s not-so-secret strategy of winning four elections. Every afternoon with a gaggle of eager microphones with John on the fourth step working up opposition talking points before the opposition had made them, total straw men city and then countering them with his suburban plain speak agenda. (The media would then troop off to attack the Opposition using Howard’s rebuttal of his own straw men talking points)….. and it went on like this for frigging years….ahh, flashback……..ok forget Howard, basically the Govt needs to climb down and starting KISSing some voters.

The strong and rising voices of the doubters and the relative passivity of the advocates has gradually whittled away public support for action on global warming.

The percentage of Australians who say that climate change is a threat to Australia’s vital interests has declined from 68 per cent in 2006 and 66 per cent last year to 52 per cent now, according to the Lowy Institute’s annual poll.

Even more telling is the trend in the Nielsen poll. In July last year 67 per cent of Australians supported the scheme. By June this year it was 65 per cent. But by August, after the scheme had been rejected by the Senate, 55 per cent said they wanted the Government to try again to enact it. …..The movement is not so pronounced in Newspoll, yet the trend is the same, with support for an emissions trading scheme tapering….

“…one of the greatest tax and transfer systems to the economy since Federation.”

Razor, re: CPRS you project an air of certainty about the CPRS and what it will cost and what it will do. I do hope no computer models were harmed in the forming of your opinion.

Perhaps you have some pretty data and models tucked away in your computer’s hard drive to have such a high confidence level about your predictions? Would you, in the spirit of open enquiry, share the data and source code that lead you to this conclusion..?

And while you’re at it, would you care to explain the basis of your belief that climate computer models are junk, but economic analyses predicting DOOM are to be treated as holy writ?

In fact, no, don’t answer that. This is way too important to waste your time explaining it to us on a blog. Quick! Go and apply for Ken Henry’s job. Your country needs you!

Yes, that would be nice if the ALP (and the Lib supporters) actually did explain to the public what the CPRS will do and cost.

Not much to ask really for it to be explained before they impose one of the greatest tax and transfer systems to the economy since Federation.

Might be nioce to do before it was actually made an Act of Parliament.

Anyone got a Birthday Cake handy?

However, I think he will retain the leadership simply because there isn’t anyone else, not because of his so-called principled stand.

@89, I thought that was the libs original position, but it appears the Munchkin couldn’t contain himself.

I think what’s happening with the libs at the moment is the bloodletting they had to have after eleven-odd years in the Rodent’s thrall, to paraphrase a certain former PM.

I do think everyone is getting unnecessarily excited at the prospect of the Libs copping a massive hiding in 2010, delightful though that prospect is. A week is a long time in politics, let alone a year.

I also think the meeja’s still unable to reconcile itself to the fact that the Rodent Party no longer rules. As for the architect of the current unseemly cannibalism, I don’t think he gives a rodent’s.

From online Dictionary.com:

“tax  /tæks/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [taks] Show IPA
Use tax in a Sentence
See web results for tax
See images of tax
–noun 1. a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2. a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.

–verb (used with object) 3. (of a government) a. to demand a tax from (a person, business, etc.).
b. to demand a tax in consideration of the possession or occurrence of (income, goods, sales, etc.), usually in proportion to the value of money involved.

4. to lay a burden on; make serious demands on: to tax one’s resources.
5. to take to task; censure; reprove; accuse: to tax one with laziness.
6. Informal. to charge: What did he tax you for that?
7. Archaic. to estimate or determine the amount or value of.”

The CPRS is a Tax.

“There is a level of GHG reduction that would make a long term difference”

. . . and even if Australia completely closed down today we wouldn’t make an ounce of difference.

“There is no evidence that the proposed CPRS will not “cost jobs” or “stop investment in new baseload power” especially as there will be a continuing demand for baselaod” . . . which is why the ALP had to agree to significantly increase the assistance to power generators (and require continuity of supply legislation) and trade exposed industries in their negotiatioons with the Libs. Why did they do that if it wasn’t needed? You must be reading very different economic analysis to what I am, as well as have a very different understanding of how commerce and international trade works.

You are not comparing apples with apples in your discourse on the use of computer models. Models of climate require super computers and even then they are inaccurate because the scientists do not fully understand how the climate works. There is clear evidence of confidence intervals being relaxed to try and match real world experience to the output from the models. Tim flannery finally admitted last week to the uncertainties in the wake of the UEA CRU hacking scandal.

I doubt the government is willing to waste billions prying deeply into the lives of the huge number of people receiving those payments. Try to use a bit of common sense people.

There is anecdotal evidence that the scheme is working in the NT. Combinded with the idea that Bob Debus has put forward about subsidizing nutrious food for these communities, and Labor might actually start to make inroads on health in these communities.

On denialism, there’s an interesting ariticle in the NY Times in the book review section under the title “Battling the Skeptics” (it would be great if someone could provide a link).

The reviewer makes the point that people just don’t trust those in authority anymore, and that includes scientists. Nowadays we have people like Andrew Bolt and Nick Minchin making twits out of themselves by appointing themselves scientists.

If Rudd had already explained that it wouldn’t be news.

Or am I too cynical?

I’d be delighted to be wrong , of course: 12 year minimum stint in the wilderness if the the LNP go denialist.