And it tracked groups – including the so-called aspirational voters who helped elect Mr Howard in 1996 – who have shifted to Labor.

Nationally, the defections have been led by what the report calls “new Labor” – voters aged 18 to 24 whose numbers rapidly increased when Kevin Rudd took over from Kim Beazley as labor leader.

Part-time workers, voters aged 35 to 49 and “lower white/upper blue” collar workers – the middle income bracket – also were moving to Labor.

In NSW, voters who had dumped the Government included those aged 35 to 49, part-time workers, and the critical “lower white/upper blue” sector.

Any sort of advertising, political or otherwise, has to effectively target particular segments of the population. Given that the initial impetus from the ads was said to come from disgust among biz leaders at the ACTU ads that showed board members cackling over their pay rises while plotting to cut workers’ wages, I suspect the audience is actually the people who commissioned the ads. It’s feel good stuff. For them. If I were a shareholder in one of the companies indirectly funding this ineffective and self-indulgent propaganda, I’d be asking some questions.

A group of denialists hazily associated with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, (the organization responsible for the unintentionally hilarious CO2 – We Call It Life advertisements) and including Patrick Michaels (who can’t tell the difference between degrees and radians), and Chris de Freitas (who publishes papers without telling his peer-reviewers), put together an amicus curiae brief in support of the EPA’s position not to regulate CO2 emissions.

Professor Ian Enting, from the University of Melbourne, was one of the lead authors of the Chapter “CO2 and the carbon Cycle” in the 1994 IPCC Report in Radiative Forcing of Climate. He has provided me with an excerpt from his forthcoming book “Why Greenhouse Denial Isn’t Science”. As he explains, it’s fascinating not so much for what it says, but what it’s not prepared to say…

In the form brought to the Supreme Court, the state of Massachussetts and others were seeking remedy from the US Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its failure to act certain greenhouse gas emissions. As part of this process, with the permission of the court, various Amici Curiae (friends of court) briefs were lodged, one by a group of climate scientists (in support of the plaintiffs — Massachussetts) and by a group of climatologists and scientists (in support of the respondents — the EPA). In this book, this latter brief will be termed “the sceptics’ brief” and is examined in this section. Those named as the climatologists and scientists in the sceptics’ brief were Sallie Balinas, John R. Christy, Chris de Freitas, David Legates, Anthony Lupo, Patrick Michaels, Joel Schwartz and Roy W. Spencer, with counsel from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

In the context of the `pretend debate’ about the reality of human-induced climate change, the sceptics’ brief, like the case as a whole, is most remarkable for what was not said. With the prospect of having their views tested in court, the brief differed greatly from their various statements in the media.

The sceptics’ brief emphasised the uncertainties in the issue, particularly with respect to net costs. The effect of this on the case would seem to have been reduced by the failure of the respondents (EPA) to invoke this argument. Issues of complexity were noted in a dissenting opinion. Perhaps the greatest departure from earlier sceptics’ positions is the statement

A far better estimate of future warming comes by reconciling climate model projections of the future with real-life data — that is, with the known historical behaviour of climate as greenhouse gases have increased. This is because models are more plausible when they are in agreement with actual observations. As is shown below, the expected warming from such increases then becomes 1.8 degrees Celsius for this century, which is clearly below the low end of the National Assessment’s range.

If you look at the summary for policymakers from the latest IPCC assessment report, 1.8 degrees isn’t all that different to the IPCC’s various warming scenarios – as best I can tell, the “A1B” scenario best represents the “business as usual” scenario. 1.8 degrees is below the IPCC’s expected value, but it’s within the confidence interval.

Microsoft and PR firm Edelman have been sprung in an embarrasing pseudo astroturf operation intended to promote the forthcoming operating system Vista.

Microsoft gave $3,000 laptop computers to a number of generally inexperienced bloggers, ostensibly so they could review Vista. The action was unusual because software firms don’t usually provide computers to reviewers. Even computer makers, who do, generally require them to be returned. So Microsoft was clearly providing an unusual and expensive gift to the bloggers. Second, the campaign excluded normal reviewers and journalists.

It thus seems to have been designed to develop enthusiasm and loyalty among a seed group of bloggers that were seen as pliant and gullible, and who could be used a foil against any criticism by professional reviewers.

Edelman has been involved in other blogging astroturf operations, including one for low-paying US retailer Walmart, where the firm funded a cross country trip by supposed bloggers that regularly featured interviews with happy Walmart workers. Edelman employs well known blogging consultant Steve Rubel who, in 2005, told Business Week that:

companies have to learn to … pinpoint influential bloggers, and figure out how to buttonhole them, privately and publicly.

The early posts of Microsoft’s laptop recipients seemed to bear out this strategy. Blogger Brandon LeBlanc, on receiving his laptop on 23 December 2006, wrote as if he had bought the new computer himself. He made no mention of the fact it had arrived in the post from Microsoft. LeBlanc wrote:

During the holidays I’ll be busy playing with my new laptop – the AcerFerrari 5000. Yup, I traded in my Dell XPS 1710 for a little something different.

We would never have known that many Vista enthusiasts had received generous freebies if one of the recipients, Long Zheng, hadn’t told us, and if reporter Dan Warne hadn’t drawn international attention to the campaign.

The international attention brought condemnation from slashdot and renowned software industry writer Joel Spolsky, who described the campaign as a bribe to bloggers.

Spolsky wrote:

I’ve been thinking long and hard about this, and the only conclusion I can come to is that this is ethically
indistinguishable from bribery. Even if no quid-pro-quo is formally required, the gift creates a social obligation of reciprocity. ….The blogger will feel some obligation to return the favor to Microsoft.

These gifts reduce the public trust in blogs…This is the most frustrating thing about the practice of giving bloggers free stuff: it pisses in the well, reducing the credibility of all blogs. I’m upset that people trust me less because of the behavior of other bloggers.

Microsoft itself clearly understands the dangers of free gifts, because it warns intending suppliers that they must not offer gifts of more than $200 to Microsoft employees. Its instructions to vendors warn that:

… the Vendor and/or its Representatives will refrain from giving Microsoft employees an individual gift or a combination of gifts with a value greater than $200.00 and never offer a bribe, kickback, bartering arrangement for goods or services, and/or any other incentive to a Microsoft employee in order to obtain or retain Microsoft business.

With its campaign having been exposed, Microsoft has now instructed the bloggers to return the laptops, confirming that it sees no legitimate defence for its campaign.

If nothing else, Microsoft’s behaviour exposes rank hypocrisy.

Much of the popular discussion of the campaign misses the point, concentrating on the bloggers’ behaviour, and excusing the campaign as normal marketing. But the behaviour of the bloggers is not the main issue because they didn’t initiate the campaign. Microsoft and Edelman did, and they did it with the intention of compromising the independence of those bloggers.

Many of the bloggers don’t seem to understand this ethical subtlety, and the way they themselves are victims of this campaign. Consultant Mitch Denny, for example, has written several self-serving justifications.

Similarly, firms are free to market any way that’s legal. But as customers and citizens we also require that marketing not be deceitful. Many corporations also hold to those practices, and Microsoft in the old days was one of those companies. Microsoft’s involvement in a campaign like this suggests those days are past.

Enjoy reading it. Comments and questions are welcome on this thread.

Timber company, Gunns Limited, has won a national environmental award for the management of grasslands and an endangered butterfly species in Tasmania’s north-west.

The award was given out by the Australian Environment Foundation, which was launched last year.

The foundation promotes itself as a science and evidence-based environmental movement. It has links to the Institute of Public Affairs and the timber industry.

So let me get this right, a new enviro org is launched and a year later two of it’s three awards goes to a timber company and a hunting group?

Don’t tell me, the AEF took an evidence-based, solution focused approach to the award process.