Archive for February, 2010

Election? What election?

The South Australian election: a personal view

South Australia has an election on 20 March. But I’m finding it hard to detect any election excitement anywhere about the place. Candidates’ posters are up on all the stobie poles, including some mightily offensive ones from the local anti-choice crowd, and bumf is starting to pour through my letter box, but no one seems to be talking about the election. South Australians posting on Larvatus Prodeo have declared the election boring, as have some of my articulate, well-informed colleagues, and there’s not a word about it in the after-school chatter as parents collect their children. It’s all very, very dull.
Continue reading ‘Election? What election?’

Lazy Sunday!

Since we don’t live by politix alone (I sincerely hope), what did people get up to this weekend? Join in, share some tales, regulars and lurkers all!

Lead buried

Drum Editor Jonathan Green appears to have capitulated to braying demands for a false balance.

Next week: The Drum-Unleashed will feature a series of pieces commissioned from noted writers on the sceptic side of the climate science debate. Included will be Alan Moran, Tom Switzer, Mark Hendriks, Bob Carter and Jo Nova.

My questions to him are these:

Will the commissions be drawn against the ABC’s editorial policies that demand information be factually accurate?

Or will he give these already widely published writers a pass and allow them to disseminate their speculative theories without them having been drawn against the scientific facts for accuracy prior to publication?

Will this opinion at the Drum defy gravity; somehow exempt from objective fact?

Update I: Alan Moran is first cab off the rank and sure enough there is at least one big misrepresentation. A total misquote of Phil Jones’ position on the pace of warming.

Warming itself has appeared to have stopped, perhaps temporarily, a fact that even the defrocked high priest of the rising temperature trend, CRU’s Professor Phil Jones, has been forced to concede.

Moran cops a hammering from the smarter commenters but the usual denialist trolls come out to play, and Green cynically gets what he wants, with 498 comments to date.

Update II: John Quiggin gives us a whole post centered around Phil Jones’ quote. Another reason why Green should pull Moran’s post and abandon his misguided “project balance”.

Update: [by Mark] Bernard Keane takes aim at the ABC’s “balance without judgement” and rebuts Moran and Tom Switzer’s Drum post today.

Big quake in Chile

If you haven’t heard the news, there’s been a massive earthquake in Chile. Take your pick of the news sources – maybe the Beeb is your best bet.

Geologically, this one is far, far bigger than the Haiti quake – magnitude 8.8, compared to Haiti’s 7.0. That indicates roughly 500 times the energy has been released. However, Chile is a far wealthier country, and well prepared for earthquakes.

There’s a tsunami warning current for much of Australia’s eastern coastline. Initial reports across the Pacific indicate that the tsunami isn’t a big one, but if you live on the coast obviously take heed of the warning and stay away.

We learnz important lesuns in Victorian primary schulz

They learn all the important stuff at Victorian government primary schools, as indicated by this propaganda from the Brumby government:

Continue reading ‘We learnz important lesuns in Victorian primary schulz’

Saturday Salon

An open thread, where at your weekend leisure, you can discuss anything you like.

Garrett’s job shrinks again

According to ABC News:

Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett has been stripped of responsibility for the household insulation scheme and other energy efficiency programs.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has announced he is establishing a separate, stand-alone department for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

The department will be headed by Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, but her assistant minister, Greg Combet, will be given direct responsibility for winding up the insulation program and rolling out its replacement.

Discuss away.

I won’t add my condemn to your condemn XLII (Belated 2010 edition)

Well, we haven’t condemned at all in 2010, so it must be long past time to condemn again. Here’s a 42nd open condemnation thread. What’s been worthy of condemnation this year so far? Which evil political, cultural, social, musical, religious, and other phenomena need condemnation? (Or loud denunciation?)

You can condemn anything you like except French po/mo vampire movies and their soundtracks.

John Quiggin’s Agnatology and the end of ideology

There’s been a bit of word play on another thread about John Quiggin’s discussion of the coinage of the term ‘Agnatology’ to describe “the study of the manufacture of ignorance”. There are resonances between his diagnosis of the political right and Geoffrey Barker’s take on “bogan politics”, discussed on LP early in the week. What hasn’t attracted so much comment is Quiggin’s view on ideology.

The long struggle of left and centre-left parties to maintain their relevance in the face of the resurgent market liberalism of the late 20th century gradually eroded any belief in the possibility of a fundamental transformation of capitalism, to the point where such ideas no longer receive even lip-service, let alone serious and sustained attention. Instead, these parties have found themselves lumbered with the task of managing the mixture of social democratic and market institutions that emerged from the conflicts of the 20th century, tweaking them sometimes with market-oriented reforms and sometimes with marginal new interventions. This is broadly consistent with the ‘end of ideology’ story.

[Incidentally, I think there's an interesting story to be told about the right's turn to the manufacture of ignorance, and its new-found populism - having to do with, among other things, profound social changes - but that's a tale for another time.]

I recently read Donald Sassoon’s magisterial One Hundred Years of Socialism. Sassoon tracks the history of the European left, and while there’s much to take away from his discussion, one conclusion to be drawn is that the project of social democracy lost its transformative edge because of its reluctance to make institutional changes – both in governance and in the broad field of political economy. Where such changes were made, and where there was a hegemonic cultural space for social democracy, as in some of the Nordic democracies, social democracy, even at the height of neo-liberal reaction, retained a strategic capacity to think long term about the shift to a different form of society.

It’s sometimes argued that the left won on the terrain of culture, and lost on the terrain of economics. There’s some truth to this, but not much comfort can be taken from it, because the social shifts towards a greater liberty to choose one’s style of life largely bubbled up from below, rather than being intended by left parties (in which there’s always been an authoritarian stream matching that of conservatives). And the post-materialist politics of liberation has shown a remarkable capacity for co-optation into consumerist capitalism, mistaking civic for collective action, as Nina Power has recently remarked.

It’s also somewhat questionable that Australian Labor has ever really had a strategic and transformative dimension. There’s good reason for the ideological distinction between labourism and social democracy.

Quiggin concludes his post: Continue reading ‘John Quiggin’s Agnatology and the end of ideology’

Noise about the Bloom Box

It’s been a while since a piece of green energy technology got so much hype – a story on CBS 60 minutes, a launch attended by Arnie, and with Colin Powell on the board of directors. So it’s worth having a look at Bloom Energy’s Bloom Box, or to give it its proper title, the “Bloom Energy Server”.

Continue reading ‘Noise about the Bloom Box’

James Hansen is coming to Australia

Via BraveNewClimate, Dr James Hansen, one of world’s leading scientists on climate issues, is giving a talk on the 11th March in Adelaide.

Which raises the question as to whether he is appearing elsewhere in Australia.

His first gig, as far as I can find out, is participating in a debate on Nuclear energy in Melbourne on the 4th of March.

Then he’ll be at Sydney Ideas on the 8th of March.

Continue reading ‘James Hansen is coming to Australia’

It would give people something to talk about on Twitter?

Years ago, many political scientists in the US used to critique their rather free flowing party system for not offering voters a definite programmatic contest. In post-war normative democratic theory, parties were seen as able to organise and coalesce a range of interests and measures into a competing platforms which would enable citizens to make a rational choice in voting.

Of course, now that one of the two parties has started to act much more like the disciplined parliamentary caucuses found in Westminster democracies, not everyone is so enamoured of this notion.

But it’s interesting to see a bit of momentum building for a Question Time in the US, which would represent a distinctly different relation between the executive and legislature.

I wonder, though, whether many of its proponents have taken the time to watch Australia’s Question Time, or Britain’s Prime Minister’s Questions.

Tony Abbott’s Ideas Summit

Business Spectator reports:

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott will hold an ideas forum on Friday in much the same vein as Kevin Rudd’s famed 2020 summit.

But he insists it will be more than a glorified photo opportunity.

The roundtable is set to feature some high-profile Australians, such as former defence boss Peter Cosgrove and indigenous leader Noel Pearson, who will lend their views on future public policy.

Mr Abbott wants to take on the government intellectually, and told coalition colleagues they must be willing to fight the “battle of ideas”.

Each contributor has been asked to come up with no more than five big ideas to shape Australia in the medium- to long-term.

Unlike the 2020 summit, there doesn’t appear to be an opportunity for citizens to have input. So, perhaps, we can fill the void. What ideas should Tony Abbott consider?

Barnaby befuddled

I don’t think Barnaby Joyce likes to think he might be wrong.

He’s followed up yesterday’s ‘net gross debt’ clanger with an incoherent op/ed in The Australian today. It’s described by Dennis Shanahan in what appears to be a news article (news is what’s published by News?) as using “his homespun analogies and simple arguments”.

False analogies and basic misunderstanding might have been a better characterisation.

Joyce continues to be obsessed with defending his claim that Australia might default on debt.

But, in so doing, he seems to have no comprehension of the difference between sovereign debt and private debt.

Glenn Dyer in Crikey today:

Most of this foreign debt – in fact the overwhelming proportion of it – is private foreign debt raised by companies large and small, from our big banks, to BHP, to CSL, to Caltex, down to smaller companies with trade finance arrangements in place offshore.

Australia cannot “default” on this debt. Only the holders of that debt can default.

As Dyer goes on to point out, this debt is actually investment in income-generating assets. It’s the import of capital, and has nothing whatever to do with Joyce’s rant about ‘Labor spending’:

In other words, money we owe the rest of the world has been invested in productive assets and in creating wealth in the future, unlike the US and UK where it was used to finance housing and current consumption (some in Australia has been used for that purpose, but not the majority).

Barney doesn’t understand that point: we are borrowing from offshore to invest in assets (Gorgon LNG, iron ore mines, gold mines, infrastructure, Queensland coal seam gas) that will generate income in future years to both meet the interest cost and repay the debt.

We can pay our way. There is rising concern that the likes of Greece might have trouble doing so on a continuing basis. That’s why there’s a tinge of default about these countries, and not about Australia.

Barney apparently doesn’t get that, either out of political calculation, or plain ignorance.

Elsewhere: Brian Matthews in Eureka Street.

What is truth?

The other day, I mentioned Clive Hamilton’s series of posts on climate change denialism at The Drum. In today’s edition, Hamilton comments:

Indeed, those who study the climate itself rather than the bogus debate in the newspapers and the blogosphere understand that climate science and popular perceptions of climate science are diverging rapidly, not least because the news on the former is getting worse.

Indeed. But there’s something of a perception lurking around here that ’science’ is one thing and ‘politics’ another, which I think is false.

It’s certainly the case that whatever ammunition denialists use against climate science is not itself part of the ’skepticism’ which is said to be integral to the scientific method. Rather than proposing an alternative hypothesis which would better explain the range of observations made, any line of attack is used, no matter how contradictory with others it may be. So, what we have in denialist discourse is all politics, and no science. No scientific method.

It’s important to underline this point. What denialists cannot provide is anything which can approximate to a truth statement. Methodological doubt, Cartesian style, is supposed to be a prelude to the uncovering of a truth, not a rhetorical strategy of dismissal. Climate change skepticism, contrary to the claims of some of its proponents, has absolutely nothing to do with ‘The Enlightenment’. Quite the contrary.

Their other classic move is to hold science itself to an impossible standard. Somehow the findings of climate science have to be unequivocally true. What we actually see, then, in this contre-temps is a debate over what constitutes truth. Statements made by the IPCC, for instance, are couched in terms of Bayesian probabilities, rather than ‘predictions’. It’s the same form of statement as with genetic predispositions individuals may have to particular diseases; having such a predisposition does not imply that one will necessarily develop the disease. Probability is not destiny or fate. But probabilities of 90%, as in the IPCC’s Fourth Report, are very strong indeed.

But asking science to articulate truth, if truth is understood as incontrovertible knowledge, is asking it to do something it cannot do.

Continue reading ‘What is truth?’