This is such a change. It used to be that the best a skeptic could hope for was a politician who “believes the science” but spoke in a code about wanting more evidence. But here’s a candidate openly wooing skeptics — no pandering to political correctness. Imisides is equipped with a PhD in chemistry and he wants a debate: Look at me as a type of scientific Dirty Harry, he says. He explains why lawyer-politicians use the wrong reasoning and we need scientist politicians (like him, obviously). His points are not just about Australian politics but all Western governments. He skips the scientific details here (we all know them), but I can vouch that from his past emails he’s not only done the homework on aerosols, hotspots, ice cores, and different IPCC reports, he’s even familiar with the devastating Thompson’s case (skeptical farming family). This man is a serious skeptic. Well informed, and he understands how to reason. In a double dissolution election, he’s tackling a big vacant niche so he has a real chance (and with a lucky #1 spot on the ticket to boot). I wish there were more like him in every state — scientifically aware and unapologetic skeptics.
There are a million odd “Delcons” voters out there — many of whom are skeptics in this election, and almost no one is speaking to them in this Australian election. A turning point? Looks like. If you don’t live in WA, but you like the looks of this candidate, you can still help him by sending this info to your West Australian friends. I’ll be posting more info on other parties climate stances in the next day or two. I figure skeptics would want to know this kind of candidate exists. — Jo
Guest post: Dr Mark Imisides — Senate Candidate for WA
Christian Democratic party
Despite the fact that there is increasing mistrust of the increasingly shrill warnings about climate induced disasters of every kind, it seems that none of this scepticism has made its way into the Federal Parliament.
Federal politicians seem unaware of the fact that the more recent the survey of the public, the lower down the list of priorities “taking action on climate change” is. There is a reason for this, and it is explained by the type of people who make up our Parliament.
Overwhelmingly, the most common profession on both sides of the house is law. It makes sense that lawyers would become involved in the lawmaking process, so a career in politics is an understandable progression. But on any scientific issue, however, and there is none bigger than this at the moment, they are the people least qualified to deal with it and make sensible decisions.
There are essentially two reasons why we know everything to be the true – two reasons why we believe everything that we do. Either we have seen evidence for it ourselves, or we trust the opinion of an authority on the matter. The first of these is known as “argument by evidence” and the second is “argument by authority.” For most people, our opinions are a cocktail of the two. We may like a particular car because we drove it (argument by evidence) or because we read a review of it (argument by authority). Usually, we have done both.
But there are two professions that operate at either ends of this spectrum. Science works exclusively by “argument by evidence” and law works exclusively by “argument by authority”. For scientists, precedent is nothing and evidence is everything. For lawyers, precedent is everything, and evidence – well, in a case like this, they never even get as far as looking for it.
So that, for example, when we look at a Will Steffen – someone that is paid to believe in climate change – we view his opinions with a great deal of mistrust. We understand that his employment is dependent upon the climate change thing being true, and he is not free to voice an opposing opinion. When we hear him being interviewed and making increasingly shrill predictions, we never hear him providing any evidence for these predictions. The lawyer, however, sees none of this. All they see is that an eminent professor has expressed an opinion, and it doesn’t enter into their head that he may be wrong. This is exactly how the law works. If a particular legal case comes up, they will scour the books for a similar case in the past. If they find one, they quote the outcome in this case as gospel truth. It never even occurs to them, even for a moment, that the judgement may be seen to be wrong if it were subject to re-examination. It is accepted without question, without scrutiny, and with no shred of doubt.
So when the lawyers in Parliament read the latest report from the IPCC or BOM or CSIRO they swallow it whole. And given the nature of the profession, not only do they not question it, they make sure no one else does. I discovered this recently when I tried to have a chat with Linda Reynolds (Lib WA) about it at a branch meeting. I didn’t even get to finish asking my question before she cut me off with “oh, I think we all accept the science.”
And the tragedy of this is that there are a number of sceptics in Federal Parliament, on both sides of the chamber, but they are unable to speak their mind because of party discipline. They feel that they must toe the “climate change” line.
So what do we do about it? Well for a start, get me into Parliament. I am standing for the WA Senate for the Christian Democratic Party (CDP). I chose this party because it was unashamedly Conservative, has a deep mistrust of the Greens, and allowed me to run my campaign as I wished. To this point, it has had a very rural focus. As a chemical consultant to the farming sector I am attempting to champion myself as someone who can overturn the influence of Canberra bureaucrats and departments (like the APVMA) on their farming practices – banning pesticides and herbicides without good science. This has involved a number of circulars to farmers in which these issues are discussed. I haven’t said much (although I’ve said a bit) about climate change scepticism, simply because given the current political climate, a lot of well-meaning people may have been duped by the propaganda on this and this might turn them off.
But not on this blog. On this blog I can let rip. And let rip I will if I get into Parliament. I have a Ph.D. in chemistry and have studied the art of the polemic for years. I would walk in there knowing that I was the most qualified and knowledgeable person on the topic by a country mile. And I know how to use it too. Also, as part of a minor party, I am able to do and say whatever I want. And I can place this front and centre on the national agenda. And I am hoping that this will encourage other politicians to come out of the closet, and we can begin to change the national dialogue on this. Indeed, one possibility is that I may be part of a group of Conservative senators holding the balance of power.
One idea that I have is to announce a national summit on this just like Kevin Rudd did – except it won’t be about bright ideas, it will be about the science behind climate change. It would be an open event, speakers will be invited from both sides, and the media, of course, will cover the event.
But I think we all know what would happen. The believers wouldn’t front. It would be some lame excuse about not wanting to give scepticism oxygen or something like that. If I had a national voice, this is the exact kind of situation that I am very, very good at. I am very good at exposing motives and motivations and calling these self-conflicted frauds to account. I would make sure that their unwillingness to front would have the very opposite effect – it would most certainly give the topic more oxygen.
This is a once in a generation chance to get a serious climate sceptic into Federal Parliament, and one with the cojones to make it stick. Look at me as a type of scientific Dirty Harry (I’d love to say “a man’s got to know his limitations” to Adam Bandt or Richard Di Natalie).
Anyhow, as luck would have it, I am number one on the Senate ballot paper so I’m easy to find. So at this election please vote one Christian Democratic party. And tell lots of people.
“So when the lawyers in Parliament read the latest report from the IPCC or BOM or CSIRO they swallow it whole. And given the nature of the profession, not only do they not question it, they make sure no one else does.”
This might also be relevant to the subject of qualifications to be a political candidate……….
“Wake-Up Call America: Iceland’s New President Has Never Been A Politician”
“Guðni Jóhannesson, a professor of history, has just been elected president of Iceland, ousting the 20 year incumbent, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, with 39% of the popular vote. The political newcomer also beat chief opponent, businesswoman Halla Tómasdóttir, meaning that the office of president will not be held by a career politician or businessperson.
From http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-28/wake-call-america-icelands-new-president-has-never-been-politician
130
It’s mostly policy based science? http://www.perc.org.uk/project_posts/thoughts-on-the-sociology-of-brexit/
10
Mark, I wish I was in WA so I could vote for you.
I wish you all the luck.! 🙂
One major tactic you should consider if you get in, is to get into Greg Hunt’s ear.. constantly.
Break him down scientifically.. turn him into a climate realist.
Make him see what a waste of time and money the whole AGW agenda is, and how bad “unreliable” energy supply systems really are.
He has strong barriers to accepting the truth, but it can be done.
401
http://www.mirror.co.uk/science/sun-gone-blank-could-another-8303600
The sun has ‘gone blank’ and there could be another ice age on the way
“The sun has gone “completely blank” for the second time this month suggesting that Earth could be heading for a mini ICE AGE.
Earlier this month, there were no sunspots on the massive star’s surface for four days – something which hadn’t happened since 2011. This has since happened again.
A lack of sun spots is totally normal, but it does hint that the sun is heading for its next “solar minimum phase”.
The next solar minimum phase is expected to take place in 2019 or 2020, says meteorologist Paul Dorian of Vencore Weather , who expects to see an increasing number of spotless days over the next few years.
The last time the sun saw a such a long phase with no sunspots, it ushered in what scientists refer to as a the ‘Maunder Minimum’ back in 1645.”
131
I’ve only had one attempt with Greg Hunt. His reply was polite but, well, let’s say that he is typical of the lawyer mindset. But if I get elected I’ll try again….
230
I think I will emend my vote now to 1 CDP (Mark), 2 ALA, 3 LIB & Greens last. Mark good luck on Saturday.
100
I needed this before I voted early as I’ll be out of my electorate on Saturday. However I did vote for you after ALA as I was looking for conservative people to vote for.
10
I live in WA and in the Senate I will be voting 1 ALA, 2 CDP, 3 LIB & Greens last. And soon skeptic Boris Johnson will be British PM – I can see most of those hideous giant wind turbines being torn down, including those of ex PM’s David Cameron’s other side of the family – the Sheffields. The new Britain won’t tolerate subsidizing “hopelessly uneconomic RE” – leave that to the EU and let them continue on their path towards self destruction.
71
KG
Thanks for the tip, will do the same
11
one BIG hurtle here is that recent studies have shown that “belief” tend to turn off the logical section of the brain, so one needs to approach the topic in such a manner that does not trigger a belief curiosity response. Then again, I’m assuming lawyers and politicians have brains
161
What A great couple of weeks this has been.
First Brexit and images of Watt Tyler and now, of all things, a candidate running on the promise of introducing Real Science into Parliament.
Bring on the referendum to leave the U.N. It would be easily replaced for all the good it does.
KK
211
May the good fortune of your ballot draw be an indication of how your political fortunes play out. You are desperately needed in the Senate. Godspeed.
130
There is another aspect to Lawyers apart from the argument from authority. They are generally innumerate. This is tragic in many cases like divorce as few can add and multiply let alone understand taxation and the arguments are almost always about money. Compound interest for example is a complete mystery, as are graphs of every type. Pictures of sad looking Polar Bears however carry great weight, even allegedly from Antarctica. The argument from emotion, something Aristotle did not even consider.
Will Steffen in particular is an embarassment to Science, one of the many scientist/engineers who push Global Warming in denial of his own PHD also in chemistry. I wrote to him about Henry’s law and the C14 bomb graph with categoric science proof that there was demonstrably no fossil fuel in the air and he just referred me to the IPCC reports. The half life of C14 in the air is only 14 years but he just ignored it. His absurd public claim that the Sun provides twice the power Victoria needs ignored the consequence that we would have to completely cover half the state in solar panels at a cost of trillions and live somewhere else.
The worst are quite inappropriate scientists, like Sir Paul Nurse, a Nobel Prize winning geneticist and head of the Royal Society who suggested that you treat people for cancer with deadly drugs in case they might have it. The precautionary principle he called it, as if it was part of Newtonian science. He would be thrown out of medical practice.
So good luck with the Senate. It is our only hope of stopping the Green monster from consuming our country.
181
Roll on the Climate Nuremberg Trials….
It will be a case of bring the popcorn and deck chairs….
41
Shaken Baby Syndrome is another very strong example. Perhaps dozens of innocent people in prison having already suffered unimaginable emotional trauma due to a weakly challenged consensus polarised into black and white by the legal system.
30
Good luck, wish we had someone who knew something standing in SA.
The level of “expertise” you would face is shown by the EU Commission’s decision that replacing the 2.2 kW element with a 1kW one in an electric kettle would result in less electricity being used to boil water. That is the level of Green “thinking”.
190
someone exactly like him is standing in SA
http://www.cdp.org.au/state/sa/
10
Well maybe not exactly like him. Dr Imisides has strong views on Climate Change.
The CDP charter of 14 points does not even mention Climate Change.
http://www.cdp.org.au/about-the-cdp/principles-of-the-cdp/
I am not voting in WA. Therefore I will not be putting CDP first on my ballot paper (but not last either)
20
What’s wrong? Are you so full of propaganda that you think nobody reading this blog would vote for a refugee? He’s a Christian who likes the conservative Australia that he migrated to.
Too much ABC, me thinks. See if you can pick find the bias. There is you’re problem, Dr Imisides.
10
Your – I usually stuff up the other way.
00
… the EU Commission’s decision that replacing the 2.2 kW element with a 1kW one in an electric kettle would result in less electricity being used to boil water
That’s not their point, I’m afraid.
Rather, the increase in time boredly waiting for a kettle to boil will discourage people from wanting a “cuppa”. Ergo, lower consumption of base load power. Now THAT is greenie thinking – silly and spiteful.
Brussels deserved Brexit … in spades.
190
No problem at all, because in the future the EU will have robots to make your tea and stand about waiting for the kettle to boil, all part of the kollectiv insanity that ‘Remainers’ want a slice of…
Reuters Health Information © 2016
Europe’s Robots to Become ‘Electronic Persons’ Under Draft
Plan. Medscape. Jun 22, 2016.
30
Hmm!
I suppose that the next logical step would be
programming themto give them the vote!!Say, when humans need to recharge their batteries, they don’t just plug themselves into the nearest wall socket either, so there’s another drain on, umm, reducing electrical power consumption.
Tony.
40
Put them in parliament, I say.
20
Aren’t they already?
Their robot counterparts in the MSM (PC low wattage version), programmed to provide the required ec[h]o-chamber have been notably strident in NZ of late, particularly since the memorable success of Brexit, quite understandable I suppose when one considers that NZ probably holds the UN’s personal uphill gardening award. The NZ Fourth Estate dereliction of duty is utterly astounding as it is contemptible. There is no pretense as they peddle between eco-globalisation and climate change, Green policies and regulations to micro-kontrolle peoples lives. They have damned Nigel Farage in perpetuity and given endless air time to disgruntled MEP’s wailing in Brussels and leftist luvvies pulling out their colourful hair in Trafalgar Square.
In this insane World, sanity thankfully lies at least temporarily in the flick of the ‘off’ button.
60
After all, this is the 21st century …
Intelligent robot that ‘remembers and learns’ could be scrapped after escaping a lab for a second time
World’s first ‘robot lawyer’ overturns 160,000 parking tickets in London and New York
EU Moves to Tax Robots as “Electronic Persons”
20
There was a discussion about that in 2014. But still we can buy 3 kw kettles in Germany.
40
Doubling the time it takes to boil a kettle simply wastes more energy by heat loss. The trendy (at the moment) stainless steel kettles have no insulation at all.
Smaller jugs would be far more effective at limiting energy use, for cuppas as most of the water boiled isn’t used , not for drinking anyway.
Most guages on kettles showing 1cup, 2cup … fill levels etc always tend to leak long before the kettle would otherwise be done.
Tumble driers are the biggest waste of electricity domestically. All that drying by evaporàtion
rather than wringing or a centrifuge, followed by natural or waste heat to finish off. Crazy…!
10
The EU experts working group have a few appliances, systems, and other items in their sights…
http://www.ecodesign-wp3.eu/sites/default/files/Ecodesign%20WP3_Task%201_Draft%20final%20report_17092014_0.pdf
Welcome to the world of bureaucratic micro managers!
70
Hey if they outlaw those awful high pitched electric blowers that lazy people use to clear leaves from a driveway on a saturday morning, I wont complain….
That said, to the EU – best of British…( ha ha !! )
If something isnt powerful enough , people wont use it, commerce will die, the EU will collapse…
I shake my head….
60
Jo covered this back then:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/eu-to-change-climate-with-hair-dryers-kettles-lawn-mowers/
10
A bit like a car engine. The smaller it is, the more efficient it is because less energy is wasted as … heat?
10
Actually for most applications the reverse is true.
00
Actually for most applications the reverse is true.
00
You have Bob Day to vote for
00
Not a lot of mention of Christ in that long speech. I wonder what else one is voting for when voting for him? At least, gauging from the above letter, you know you are voting for someone clever enough to only highlight the things that concern a particular audience.
oh look, here we go http://www.cdp.org.au/media-releases/building-better-communities-federal-election-2016/
here are the priorities your vote supports
So no mention of climate. The dot points that follow are all vague but do include “action on the environment”. So they are not headlining or targeting climate change at all as a party or any notion of the taxes or science pertaining to it.
Their detailed policy position is on p32 and 33 of this http://www.cdp.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CDP-Building-Better-Communities-FE16.pdf and begins with their underpinning postion on climate change…
ie they are not even lukewarm. More of a “meh climate” sort of position.
That is the party line, the man himself is a bit more explicit http://www.cdp.org.au/state/wa/ about climate. He mentions not kowtowing to greens and not banning pesticides and a few other things plus this.
What carbon tax? I wonder if he forgot to edit this since the last election? On the second sentence, I hardly think that “addressing misinformation” is something he will achieve better by being in parliament but that is the call of the WA voters.
117
One of the great things that appealed to me about democracy as a child was the potential to pool our resources in the best interests of all.
As the Climate Science Scam has illustrated, that ideal of my childhood is a lost cause.
If the best scientific minds in our country could not work out that CO2 does not control “climate” I would be amazed.
Of course it is always possible to get the “correct” answer to the problem from a special individual, say Will, who is acting in a completely altruistic way, for no other reward than to know, deep in his soul, that he has done the right thing.
BREXIT roars.
KK
111
What carbon tax? The one that starts this Friday. Get with the game.
It’s a CapNTrade scheme that is forced on the public through 150 companies which produce half our total emissions. Customers must pay and the government provides no good or service in return. Looks like a tax, sounds like a tax… could be elevated to be the main way to pointlessly reduce a beneficial gas.
PS: You want Sharia? You think plebiscites are bad (never let the voters choose eh)? You want the unmeasurable “offended” to stay in our legislation?
PPS: The reason I posted his letter — I figured skeptics would want to know about him. I have not come across a better informed candidate in the Senate on the situation in climate science.
301
thanks for replying. I don’t want Sharia but it is not an issue (like I said). I don’t want a tattoo either but that is not something I would try to get people to vote for. No forced tattoos!
I questioned why a referendum was mentioned in that rather muddled sentence of theirs. I did not question the plebiscite.
I did not comment on their other points so I don’t know where this You want the unmeasurable “offended” to stay in our legislation? comes from. Mind reading?
113
In the spirit of your “headless and stoned” comment and your suggestion that “someone exactly like him” (who is not much like him) was standing in SA — I assumed you were posting those points because you thought they were a negative.
161
that is a reasonable logical progression although the first was an opportunistic joke to someone who partakes in such things him/herself and the second was a reminder that the candidate is not all about one thing.
19
You really are a twitter and bisted dried-up little leaf, aren’t you, GA !
41
lol
00
Look in the mirror and laugh at yourself.
You life.
00
You = Your !
00
lolol
00
regarding the carbon tax. His press release makes no mention of what he is referring to. It just says carbon tax – if he is trying to appeal to the general voter, he might want to consider informing them of what he means by that.
113
I think most people understand the generic term “carbon tax”, even Julia Gillard did.
140
I like what you have done Jo. Dr Mark Imisides has made a clear statement on his position regarding climate change. For me that is more than good enough and if I was able to vote for him then I would. To have just one person in the Senate who is unafraid to speak out out on this matter gives me some hope. Hi religion is not the issue and as an atheist I have no problems with the CDP.
GeoffW
120
Thanks Will.
I have a small comment relating to my last paragraph above.
Unfortunately it may be taken in two ways, each equally valid.
The first is as written in relation to our resident EMR expert. It reads as written. The second is in relation to Emeritus Professor Steffen. This is unfortunately sarcasm.
KK
10
I certainly hope you were not accusing me of having any remembrance/resembelence to ‘the executive director of the Australian National University Climate Change Institute and a member of the Australian Climate Commission until its abolishment in September 2013.
I try not to profess! I much prefer ‘hey lets go fimd out’! 🙂
All the best! -will-
20
[Snip duplicate]
00
He had my vote anyway. After the Dennis Jensen debacle I figure the only voting I will be doing this Saturday will be below the line on the white paper…
70
Jo Nova June 29, 2016 at 12:24 pm
“What carbon tax? The one that starts this Friday. Get with the game.”
Joanne, I guess you were replying to Gee Aye not KK.
KinkyKeith June 29, 2016 at 10:39 am
“If the best scientific minds in our country could not work out that CO2 does not control “climate” I would be amazed.”
Keith, You nailed it! Those scientific minds do indeed know that atmospheric CO2 levels do not control “cilmate” or even local weather!! Perhaps this very artice by hostess Joanne is a starting point for examining in detail just this political point!
Why is it that the very large majority of government funded “science studies” publish only what the current government sponsor desires, often expressing certainty, where there is none, rather than reporting something, anything useful? Perhaps this is the question; Dr Mark Imisides, needs to as himself, his constituents, and every elected government official!
Is it the science; or instead the intended goal that really needs serious investigating?
Consider “Here have a large wad of cash”:
1) Go find out how/how-much variation in atmospheric components affect weather? v.s.
2) Find out how/how-much an increase in man made atmospheric CO2 will increase “the global average temperature”?
The scam is clearly evident in the desired intent stated! #2 is not even a subject of scientific inquiry!! Average temperature whether spatial or temporal can have absolutely no scientific meaning whatsoever! Temperature itself (however defined) can only be a piss poor indicator of something else going on! To even suggest such average has meaning, is but evidence of gross intent to deceive for political or financial gain?
Have fun guys with this politics! 🙂 I shall try to limit my comments to the generation and transmission of thermal EMR flux, something I have some experience in trying to measure!
All the best! -will-
70
Well put Will. Your item #2 is the IPCC and it is the root of the political deception. Theoretically an easy piece of maladministration to fix.
30
Thank you!
I hope Dr Mark Imisides, and many others posting here notice the same!
Perhaps someday, when this scam has been extinguished, we can all learn just what some radiometric terms may mean, best we know! Such is very straightforward with only a maximum of 5 sharp knives in the air at one time to keep track of. 🙂
The fluid dynamics of this compressible atmosphere have a minimum of 29 such knives. Few knives seem to have any handles whatsoever!
All the best! -will-
20
As a lifelong non-believer I have grown to accept and acknowledge the positive influences Christianity imparted onto Western Democracies, mostly it’s ability to move with changes in our societies structures, much like any good constitution that is essentially an open document with allowance for laws to be altered when needed without effecting the basic principles.
Lets just say Iv’e never had Christians try to stone or behead me for eating meat on a Friday or drawing a picture of Jesus.
140
But you give a good impression of someone who is headless and stoned
119
Why you even bother in attempting to communicate with other people is a mystery.
Like a certain religion your personality is not compatible with civilised discussion.
190
I am just grateful that you bothered yourself to reply
19
Better than #8.2.1 Gee Aye
00
For the first time in my life I voted Christian Democrat at pre poll.
My reasons are as follows.
According to Green on the ABC http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2016/guide/snsw/
‘You would expect the Coalition vote to improve on its 2013 result of 34.3%, but getting to a level where it can hope to re-elect its six members will be tough. Preferences with the Christian Democrats and other conservative minor parties may be important in either delivering either a sixth Coalition seat on less than a quota, or Coalition preferences could deliver a seat to the Christian Democrats. The Christian Democrats polled 1.7% in 2013 and 1.9% in 2010, but the party has polled better at NSW Legislative Council elections where there are fewer columns on the ballot paper. Another minor party to watch with a good record of winning election to the Legislative Council is the Shooters Fishers and Farmers Party, who polled 1.3% on the giant 2013 Senate ballot paper, and 2.3% in 2010.’
So as the herd will vote for ALP, Coalition or Green, the vote that counts is Shooters and Fishers or Christian Democrats.
Since I do not want to potentially arm people, and am yet to be bombed by a practicing Christian Democrat, I voted CD.
80
Totally agree – give me anyone other than those greens!!
GeoffW
60
Note this only applies in NSW, don’t know about other states and territories.
10
Until this election I have always voted Liberal.Had Abbott still been leader the Libs would have been my first preference. As I live in Victoria I cannot vote for this candidate. When I vote on Saturday I will be aiming to put the ALP, the Greens and the Turnbull Liberals “equal last” for the Reps and not vote for any of them for the Senate. I will vote only for candidates in the Reps and Senate who are opposed to anthropogenic climate change and also are opposed to same sex “marriage”. Pity I don’t live in WA.
30
That pretty much sums up my position, saving me a lot of typing
30
How interesting Gee! Planning on handing out Lib How To Vote cards Saturday, as I have done every election since the ALP adopted “Saving The World From Industrialisation” as their campaign slogan, but You have given me something to think about. Do not like Turnbull, as went to same school, and no one liked him(except the headmaster, who thought sun shone from his derriere}. Will have to check out the thoughts, if any, of our local Christian Democrat candidate.
30
I’m a paid up member and sometime employee. Maybe I should disclose that given the election is upon us
00
CDP
I would say that by rejecting the “Science is settled” meme, CDP (as a party) is at least lukewarm. In fact Lukewarmers accept that the Greenhouse theory is valid so maybe CDP goes beyond lukewarm.
50
I didn’t get to write party policy on that. I’m a newcomer to the party. I’d have have worded it veeery differently
70
Thanks Mark,
You look a bit like me, except with wry smile! 🙂
30
Separated at (blog) birth?
10
It would be great to have a PhD scientist in parliament. Only 10% of people go to university (perhaps 20% now that there are degrees in everything which used to be diplomas). Of these only 10% do Science, so 1% of the population. In parliament we would have one scientist representing 1% of the population who have science training and 0.1% to postgraduate level and one Jewish person Michael Danby representing 0.5% of the population. Both are tiny minorities. However all politicians presume to know what they call strangely ‘The Science’ and the truth in Israel and Palestine, which shows that they have no idea about either. Good luck. It would be a great relief after our usual Senators.
30
Of course you also have that famous scientist, Australian of the Year 2007, Professor Tim Flannery who has used his degree in English to extrapolate study of the bones of long dead kangaroos into profound and detailed comprehension of the physics, meteorology, mathematics and computer modelling, a feat akin to augury from entrails. A real scientist in Parliament would be a valuable resource for the majority of politicians who do not understand graphs.
61
A finger problem on my part. Please feel free to correct if possible.
I tried to give Mark Imisides article a 10 vote, but suspect it was registered as much less. Can a mod please correct.
Thanks and keep up the good work.
50
The name Christian Democrats was carefully chosen, as it is a well-established political philosophy in Europe.
The scientific approach to farmers and skeptics was selected simply because there is no one else representing these demographics in parliament. All our candidates were selected because of their professional careers, not their church involvement. In other words, as politicians, “christian” is an adjective, not a noun.
180
Thanks Mark,
In the European context that is a good explanation. Over all I like the political philosophy.
30
‘They feel that they must toe the “climate change” line.’
Yep, which is why I’m voting informal.
22
No need to vote informal el gordo. You have strong views on Climate Change. Therefore you should use your vote as best you can. Please vote. Every vote counts as one vote!
40
Whilst having somebody like this ‘in the tent’ might be useful, I doubt that he will make even the slightest dent in terms of persuading our politicians to drop support for dodgy climate science. You see, I suspect that many in Parliament and the Senate cannot get around their own self interest when they are thinking about climate change. This is because, like the EU, climate change serves the purpose of providing both a means to increase taxation AND provide politicians with a post-parliament career as highly remunerated meddlers. Climate change, again like the EU, is a means to build even more bureaucracy and fund boondoggles, lavish lunches, chauffeurs and business class travel for an army of has-been pollies. Oh and let’s not forget that those aforementioned taxes are the means to pay for the social engineering programs that the Left are so very fond of.
So, knock yourself out. Show them the evidence. Organise a summit and appear on every news program. It won’t make the slightest difference until we stop putting politicians in charge.
50
You may be right but one should always try. On matters of importance giving up is not an option.
70
I am mindful of the challenges. The AGW colossus is the result of a perfect storm of circumstances. At about the time the IPCC was being set up (1988) scientific research was going through a revolution. Driven by the “recession we had to have,” funds for pure research were drying up and being diverted into applied research and industry assistance schemes (this is when most CRCs were set up) – in other words, scientists were being pushed into research that had commercial value, and could make money that could contribute to the (struggling) economy
For people doing PhDs in analytical chemistry, like me, this wasn’t a problem, as that’s what I wanted to do anyway. But for many physicists in particular, this essentially spelled the end of their research career. And, with the setup of the overtly political IPCC (Maggie set it up to break the power of the coal unions) suddenly a career path was available that would pay them well to produce an expected outcome.
The result of this is that there is now more money in the climate change industry than even the oil industry (don’t have the link to that handy) so to go up against it is to go up against lots of money and lots of political clout (as we all know that if the population is scared of something they cling to the incumbent government).
But I’d rather try and fail than not try at all.
271
Good luck to you Mark we need a voice like yours in Parliament.
GeoffW
60
I didn’t even get to finish asking my question before she cut me off with “oh, I think we all accept the science.”
Nonetheless, your quote above is what you will get from the Parliamentary population and the MSM.
I used to imagine, fondly, that minor but unexpected power loss (ie. base load failure) would change voting patterns. Both Adelaide and Tasmania have experienced just such recent losses but voting patterns are not changed.
If physical damage cannot convince the majority of the population then it’s clear that jawing the Parliament will generate yawning.
01
ianl8888:
The SA interruption was fairly short and limited in area even though it affected a lot of people. That passed off because there was an explanation and supply was resumed. It would take a lengthy blackout or a series of annoying ones to gain peoples attention. That is probable in the coming summer and almost certain in the 2017/18 one – unless a cooling climate saves them.
The Tasmanian one didn’t involve much in the way of blackouts because the Government acted as quickly as it could and installed a lot of diesel generators and restarted a gas fired plant. Had it happened in SA or Vic under their present Premiers then any response would have been unlikely (except the press releases saying “it wasn’t their fault), as they would frantically try anything but the obvious rather than release any CO2.
In the nick of time it rained and Tassie ‘was saved’ from the stupidity or cupidity of Hydro Tasmania who won’t run down the dam levels at the wrong time for many years. They may, of course, commit some other stupid act but people will be watching now.
20
… That passed off because there was an explanation …
Not an explanation, an excuse! In fact, Weatherill then claimed it was a “national” issue, as if people in the other States were somehow involved in his silliness.
But this excuse was accepted by the majority of the SA population. So I don’t have your optimism – this test run confirms my view.
I’ve just driven across SA. The people I spoke to are aware that their “safe” grid backup comes from LaTrobe’s lignite power plants, but they are generally unaware of the Vic Govt’s threat to this. Once the grid is damaged to the point of destruction, we have no way back – and we are getting constantly closer to this.
The MSM is the key here. Without its’ propaganda power, nothing much changes. I know Brexit was successful despite the weight of meeja propaganda (and the exploding heads were fun),so one may draw cold comfort from this … but Brexit has yet to be implemented without dilution.
10
An attempt to shut down Hazelwood this summer could be the best demonstration of the stupidity and futility of the “shift to renewables” that is gripping this nation. Being 8 x 200MW units will allow for a staged shutdown that would minimise the extent and damage of the ensuing South Australian grid collapse (you can be assured that Victoria would throw all interconnector requests in the bin once our grid starts experiencing distress).
The brown out of the Heywood substation on a calm afternoon, leading to a collapse of the South Australian grid should occur when around half the Hazelwood units have been taken offline. The investigation after mayhem, economic loss and possibly loss of life in South Australia will not be ignored by the public despite all the rhetoric that the greenwash will inevitably come out with.
30
ianl8888:
I think we are close to agreement. Weatherill got away with a ridiculous claim that it was due to Qld. not building an interconnector; where to? Down Cooper’s Creek? South Australians have been conditioned to believing that other States must help them. He got away with it as the media moved onto other stories (although Channel 10 gave him 2 days of flak).
ANY reduction in power from Victoria this coming summer will result in blackouts. I met my local member early this month and spoke about this. I was a little surprised because when I put a bar graph in front of him he grasped the situation immediately – he immediately switched to talking about his own generator (& asked to keep the graph). Hitherto I’ve thought him a nice bloke but I didn’t expect him to be so quick on the up-take. My impression is that most MP’s are mathematicly illiterate.
Analytik:
I’ve had a reply recently. SA turbines aren’t stopped at 38℃ by law or regulation. Most shut down at 40℃ anyway because of possible fires from overheating, and computer battery performance.
This means that on a hot day in SA there will be NO wind power available.
10
NO IDEA what you are referring to Graeme No.3 😉
But good info to know for getting the generator ready as that means it won’t require a calm hot day – a windy, very hot day will make things pear shaped as well.
Well done on educating your local member – hopefully he will use your graph to start educating his colleagues.
10
Very accurate depiction of the time. I worked in a University when the Dawkins plan did this. Pure research was defunded and only research with commercial (or perceived social) value was to be funded. The Small universities were also combined into mega multi-campus institutions in the name of “Efficiency”, but this led to an old-school group-think.
The biggest problem was that application for ARC funding had to define the outcome the research was going to achieve – and still does. What this means is that researchers apply to do research they have already done, and use the funding to do the research they’ve yet to do – It was very dishonest. The Dawkins Plan killed higher education in Australia.
I have a plan for this, separate funding for pure and applied research a strict apolitical allocation based purely on technical merit with the assessors being blinded to the names of the researchers applying. Easy to do really and would make a big difference to science
40
Ah yes! The law of unintended consequences.
It’s what bureaucrats achieve when they think they’re smarter than they actually are.
10
Dr. Imisides,
Please replace your avatar (symbolic image) with something better than a trinangle wearing sunglasses! A nice carbohydrate of moderate complexity would indicate your profession. I am sure most all here would offer actual examples of whatever you would like to to choose to express as you! I can offer an image of V. Putin if you would like! One no nonsense guy!
Best wishes for your political success! -will-
20
Says Will.. who uses a deer, stuck in the headlights. 😉
20
AndyG55 June 29, 2016 at 10:38 pm
“Says Will.. who uses a deer, stuck in the headlights. ;-)”
That is a UN-retuched nighttime trail camera photo! His name is Ralph.
The 0.9 micron flash is 92% retro-reflected, in perzactly the reverse direction to the camera by deer eyes, lotsa blooming! I have not seen much of Ralph in the past few years. This time of year one can enjoy the prancing and cajoling of his many offsprouts, ’bout 8PM. Momma is always cautioning, “beware of the large two legged chicken thingy carrying a stick”!
RobK June 30, 2016 at 12:50 am
“You mean as opposed to a dear caught in the night vision scope 🙂 ”
The Raccoons now ignore the stupid trail camera! They remain very wary/aware of the night vision scope.
Big round of applause for Ralph, who admits “I am not as good as I once was, but still as good once, as I ever was”! 🙂
All the best! -will-
10
You mean as opposed to a dear caught in the night vision scope 🙂
10
Remember Dennis Jensen PhD MP?
Dennis who, you say?
Yep. That went well didn’t it.
He’s now running as an Independent in the electorate of Tangney having been dumped by Turnbull’s team (even though he turned against Tony Abbott and voted for Turnbull’s coup d’état). Karma at work. Love it!
Notwithstanding Dennis Jensen, the Turnbull team has given Australia a wasteful, expensive and useless Cap and Trade deadweight tax – courtesy of what’s his name Hunt.
Nevertheless Mark Imisides has my good wishes and I’ll consider giving my Senate first preference to him. However, the Nats and ALA are still also on my shortlist for the Senate. At the moment I’m favouring the Nats.
ALA will be getting my vote in the House of Reps (Curtin electorate). David Archibald is top of the ballot paper.
http://australianlibertyalliance.org.au/candidates/western-australia
I will place Julie Bishop last.
120
ALA candidate Kirrralie Smith is Number 2 in the conservative Senate voting recommendations however the writer does not endorse Angry Anderson for the following reasons;
*Update 3: With regard to Angry Anderson’s exclusion, he is on record supporting homosexual so-called “marriage”. Those non-leftists who support that cause reveal a profound ignorance of the leftist agenda, of which it is a core component. The ALA give a conscience vote on social issues, so the views of the individual candidates are important.
20
Dennis Jensen was the first person I spoke to several years ago when I was considering a tilt at politics. I think his biggest problem was that he was part of a party machine, and was therefore muzzled somewhat. Also, as a lower house rep he didn’t have a lot of power anyway.
This election is over in the lower house. Odds with the bookies are now out to $7 and the market has never been that wrong before. The Senate is now the great unknown. Minor parties are almost certainly going to have BOP, but the only question is who will they be?
BTW the #1 Nat Senate candidate is a former Green. He’s an aboriginal activist, and from what I can see they are chasing the aboriginal vote. But at the last election they had the much higher profile David Wirrpunda and it didn’t work then
20
Abbott promised Jensen the world and then Peta locked him out of the PMs office, so naturally Turnbull promised Jensen that he would be more inclusive, then helped to orchestrate his dumping. Pathetic.
Anyway the gods are smiling upon Dr Jensen, top of the ticket.
http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/breaking-news/jensen-gleeful-on-top-of-tangney-ticket/news-story/377ee2b1b626e45da257e8cbaf5b3de1
50
Split your senate vote below the line between ALA and Family first, EG 1 ALA, 2 FF, 3 ALA, 4 FF etc.
10
As long as I’m willing to accept that Richard di Natali, as a doctor, has some training in science, I can also insist that David Leyonhjelm (DL), as a veterinarian, has training in science.
I can’t understand why anyone would support the small-minded folk who represent the ALA or the Superstitious Party or whatever when there is already a competent cosmopolitan sceptic in the Senate, seeking re-election. Surely there’s someone almost as good as DL in WA?
02
With the larger parties, its an insidious ever tightening circle ( that – as the water goes down the gurgler…) the larger parties want someone with “common” views, and if MSM is infected fatally with the climate chnage voodoo, then guess what? They want someone with “common” views also.
So the MSM has the great unwashed tied up pretty well ( well, the great unwashed pay the price for being ignorant of such things, but you get that on big jobs…) and so the MSM to a degree control the great unwashed. As such, when someone who thinks differently ( I wont say “out of the box”, becasue its not and only supoorts the CAGW meme ) they wont come out of a “MSM-compatible” party.
20
gnome:
Neither Doctors or Veterinarians are scientists but David Leyonhjelm should be in the Senate because he knows how to treat Donkeys.
30
gnome: A doctor or veterinarian has a scientific background it’ s true. But studying for a PhD in science gives you something quite different, whatever your field.
Here’s my ‘take’ on the subject.
Once you have your first degree and are registered as a doctor, vet, or in my case, a nurse, you are qualified to practice. I’m a Registered General Nurse in the UK. I trained in the days when it was more of an apprenticeship – ward or department based work for a few weeks interspersed with lectures. I then took a degree in Human Biology, and switched to hospital laboratory work, gaining a PhD.
Studying for a PhD is quite different to undergraduate work. You become a full-time researcher, and your undergraduate student short project days are over.
There was no formally taught (i.e. no classroom lecturing) element in my PhD work, although this now seems to be creeping in. I don’t agree with this, but back to the subject. You’re on your own as regards following up what you wish to investigate and why, plus of course you have to keep your project supervisor and departmental professor informed as to what you’re doing, what your results are, and of course keep proper records so that anyone can come to your data and appreciate what’s going on and duplicate your work. The laboratory assay central to my work was in fact used by someone else working in a related area. No fudging or hiding the results here!
A PhD changes your mindset. You become very critical of what you’re reading – who said this, why, and what views do others old? Is it plausible? As my professor said to me, it’s the scientific method that counts – critical evaluation of the material in your field, the methodology of your experiments, and whether your conclusions are reasonable. Tongue in cheek, whether you’ve succeeded in building a time travel machine or not by the end of your PhD doesn’t matter – have you broached the research in a systematic manner?
The ‘viva’ or oral examination of your thesis is where you have to justify every word if need be. It’s your opportunity to listen and learn from knowledgable scientists in an area related to your studies. The examiners can take their time – I spent about three and a quarter hours with no break defending my thesis – and I enjoyed the interview because I was well-prepared.
Another concern is that second rate institutions not worthy of being called a university can dole out PhDs like confetti provided a fee has been paid – but I’ll let others comment here, since I am long retired!
70
C500 – in addition to working alone and the critical thinking that was necessary I also had to provide updates on my research to the staff and other PhD candidates every 3 months where I would present for 45 minutes and they would tear the work apart for another 45 minutes. Nothing like that for honing one’s arguments. this approach provided the arguments I needed to address collegial concerns about method and findings in my write up and made me almost ready for my viva. Although at my viva one of the examiners had a bee in his bonnet about something no-one else had ever bothered about. Eventually one of my supervisors spoke up for me and effectively told the examiners it was a non issue.
But now with course work PhDs there is less chance of exploring how we know things and coming to conclusions that really just might contribute to human development. And we couldn’t have that in the politically correct academic climate of the present day.
10
Retired Now: thanks for your comments, which jogged my memories somewhat! I also had to present research updates – as you say, nothing like that for honing arguments. Writing up took a fair amount of time. I reasoned that I didn’t wish to bore anyone reading my thesis, so I wrote it in a conversational style – which the examiners noticed and (I think!) appreciated. They were wonderful years – I couldn’t wait to get back into the lab and have a look at the results of my experiments. I was fortunate in having two first class project supervisors and a professor who took a real interest in his PhD students. About three weeks before my ‘viva’, I was ushered into his office, ostensibly for a general chat just before he went on holiday. This turned into a ‘mini-viva’, and he questioned me in some detail. At the close, he just said ‘You’ll be alright – see you when I get back.’ How kind and thoughtful this was, I thought. It gave me a real confidence boost. Communicating and getting to know scientists in other labs was also a pleasure – everyone was so very helpful. It was truly a privilege to work among so many gifted and friendly, helpful people.
10
Family First seems to have a good grip on reality. From their Policy statement:
“Climate Change”
Climate change has been occurring since time
immemorial. Many hundreds of eminent scientists
have strongly criticised both the ‘climate change
doctrine’ and the predictions made by the
International Panel on Climate Change. Claims that
‘there is a scientific consensus’ and ‘the science is
settled’ are simply not true.
http://www.familyfirst.org.au/FamilyFirst.pdf
Note, I have no connection to the Party and simply pass this info on out of interest.
110
GrahamP:
Senator Bob Day is heading their ticket in SA. I am not a member and haven’t met him, but a number of locals in Mayo electorate speak politely about him (as distinct from what they say about Jamie Briggs. It takes an unusual talent to turn a 12% margin into probable defeat in 3 years).
On the other hand I, and everybody whom I have spoken to, have been bombarded with phone calls – 3 Turnbull, 1 Howard, 1 julie Bishop – and letters. I got one from Malcolm Turnbull which I was thinking of framing until I wrote my shopping list on the back and that destroyed its value.
But as a safe Liberal seat whe have been ignored by both parties, State as well as Federal, until now when we are being bombarded with pork in barrels. One or two of us are wondering if having Jamie back in Government, but worried about losing, might not be better than a nice person with no influence, but we shall see.
10
I agree, I’m voting Family First because of their good grip on Australian culture and clear common sense.
20
I says: How about we in Aus (and everywhere else) have a referendum on whether CAGW/CACC is real ?
Simple, vote: Yes for Action(?) OR vote No for No Action!
If the recent CSIRO survey is correct, then our national vote would be to ignore the so called climageddon.
Then why are we forced to squander money and resources to this fraud?
And why are our ignorant and arrogant politicians and co (criminal elite), stealing our tax money towards this end?
Why are we handing 1 billion to this UN climate scam fund at the recent Paris Climate Hajj, money we have to borrow and pay interest on?
Who wants this unreliable and expensive, pretend to be renewable, extravaganza besides a ratbag self proclaimed ruling MINORITY? (loser of the unloserable election Hewson and co-racketeers)
What BS agreements have True B’lvers Hunt and Bishop been signing us to under the radar?
Very suspicious that Abbott (the last holdout) got ousted just in time for the Paris Climate Kumbaya Hajj! (as Accurately warned by Monckton over 6 months prior).
Also, how convenient it must be for this ‘planet saving global venture’ to be so profitable for big banks, multinational corporations and great big new tax advocate governments!
How somehow, great big new airtaxes will save us all from continually predicted catastrophes that never eventuate and/or have been spectacularly wrong!
How many suckers fall for the Old ‘white steam from the chimney pictured/filmed at sunset in the background, to make the harmless steam appear black’ Trick?
We are being treated as dummies to be fleeced financially and manipulated to accept this political correctness disease (closet Marxism/Totalitarianism), from those that should be confined to prisons,mental asylums, or both.
We need to vote for the few that stand against this BS agenda and thievery,and reject those that are part of this scam.
It is our only reasonable chance to escape this form of enslavement!
20
Classic. Climatapoliticians exclude all those not qualified in climaskience from participating, but claim to accept the ‘science’, even if by their own criteria they’re excluded from participating in the climate “debate.”
I am sorely tempted to emigrate to Australia, if only to vote for a rational beacon in the Progressive firmament of politically correct mediocrity that is the pure darkness of deliberate ignorance.
80
If Imisides becomes a member of Australia’s senate, I know it would be to Australia’s disadvantage but is there any way, and I mean any way, we could trade Barbara (Box-of-Rocks) Boxer, a US senator from California, for Imisides? Come to think of it, could we work out a deal where we exchange Boxer for Australia’s most loathed criminal? No matter who that is, it would be our gain and Australia’s loss.
60
Update;
http://conservativevoting.com
10
I have a pretty involved question here, so bear with me, and while the question might seem on the surface to be specific to just my electorate, the same question can also be asked generically in tight seats.
I’m in the Electorate of Capricornia, perhaps the most marginal of seats in all of Australia. We are currently represented by Michelle Landry, from the LNP, but in Canberra, she sits with the Nationals, so she didn’t vote in the Abbott/Turnbull coup, so I’m comfortable voting for her again, even though she will probably lose her seat to Labor, in what is traditionally a Labor seat.
From the link provided by Dennis above, here is the link to the how to vote for that seat, and my question arises from that.
If you vote for someone outside of the Major Parties, there’s every chance your vote will be one of the votes eliminated at some time during the process to get to the two party preferred end result.
So, here in Capricornia, voting as per this guide, there’s no chance that The Family First candidate, listed here as the Number One choice, will be elected, so, at one stage or another, all his votes will be eliminated
When that happens, all votes will then go to the Number 2 preference.
Here’s the question.
If that Number 2 preference is already eliminated, does your vote then drop automatically to the Number three preference, or are they added back to the (now eliminated) Number 2, and that being the case, does that candidate re-enter the race, until eliminated totally.
See the problem here for correct counting.
I’ll be voting for Landry, so my vote will stay active the longest.
The Senate is an entirely different matter. I’ll be following this provided guide, printed on my home computer and printer, and at the polling station, I’ll be happy when asked to take a guide from the plethora of them, I’ll just say that I have my own guide thank you very much.
Tony.
20
The NSW Senate “guide” has Conceita as number 12.. that’s not happening,
Apart from that my self compiled list is pretty similar.
40
Tony, it’s my understanding that if your second pref is already eliminated, your vote flows to choice #3 and so on. We really do need to decide if the Liberal goes in at #7 or the Labor one does. Ultimately your preference will flow to one or the other unless a Nat/Green/Ind gets elected first.
30
Yep, that’s right. And if someone voted with 1 & 2 opposite to you (but the same 3) the same thing would happen. The sequence of who gets eliminated when is immaterial
20
Mark Imisides , you seem to be saying that you are willing to take on the alarmists over the science via the courts and the legal system , tackling what you describe as scientific fraud , but are you , on behalf of the Aussie tax payer , prepared to tackle the international financial irregularities such as the millions given to the Clinton Foundation ( tax payers money ) that was never properly audited by your tax office and was most likely never used for the alleged purposes that it was given . There is an American investigator with impeccable credentials named Charles Ortel who has investigated the Clinton foundation for around sixteen months and has unearthed thousands of documents with evidence of the financial miss doings against foreign countries such as Australia and your tax payers , Charles has offered his services to anyone from any country that wishes to bring the Clintons to account for the alleged offences against foreign nations , are you prepared to contact Charles Ortel to at least discuss the evidence that he claims to have and do you have the courage to bring this to light when in government and call for an investication on behalf of the tax payer , Charles Ortel has his own blog with detailed evidence and there are interviews with him on the web including youtube videos , check out his impressive CV
30
I want to stick around and watch the B-Doubles pull up to cart away the Senate boxes for the completed Senate bedsheets.
There’s 121 people on the Senate Ballot this time round, just here in Queensland.
121 Names.
Good luck if you plan to number all the squares, and they’ll need a lot of boxes for them.
In my time, I had to wait until I was 21 to register to vote, and that application was posted off the morning following my 21st Birthday.
I was in the RAAF, and, as a single person, I was allowed to register in my home electorate, and that was McPherson centred around Queensland’s Gold Coast, and that electorate was the largest by population in Australia, now split into around ten separate seats.
The first election I got to vote in was the Queensland State election held in May, and I took leave from my unit at Williamtown, near Newcastle to travel home to vote.
The Federal Election was held in December, and as a keen cricketer, I was playing Senior Grade Cricket. So, I had to vote absentee, and that was done at the Maitland Town Hall a couple of hours before the game started, and I was given 2 ballot papers.
In the Senate, I can say I filled out every number on arguably the shortest ballot paper for the Senate in Australian History, and there were only 7 names on the Ballot, the same as for the House of Reps for McPherson.
Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin (Liberal) had retired around 18 Months or so earlier, and Joh appointed Neville Bonner to fill the casual vacancy, but, as was the convention in those days, that casual vacancy had to be ratified at the next Federal Poll with a full vote for that apointee. As this 1972 election was just for the Reps, then there was just that One Senator to be elected, from Queensland, and Neville Bonner was duly elected, quite easily.
I filled out the Senate paper first, and the very first person I voted for at a federal level was for Neville Bonner, the first Aboriginal member of Parliament. I then voted for Eric Robinson for the House of Reps.
The next election was the 1974 DD. Neville Bonner was down at Number 3 on a combined Liberal/Country Party (now The Nationals or LNP) Senate ticket with only 25 names in total, and I placed my first preference for him, soft spot, first person I voted for and all that.
They were complaining about the size of the Senate sheets even then, especially with NSW, where there were 74 names in days when it was compulsory to number every square for a formal vote.
In those days there were only ten Senators from each State, changed to 12 in 1984.
Tony.
20
Tony. At least you knew what you were doing. I spent a lot of years in the “Williamtown-Butterworth” circuit. As a singly I voted in my home electorate and knew about the candidates. When I got married we moved to an address in Stockton. Happened to be back home in the bush on election day where I was confronted with an absentee paper with three names on it and nothing else. One was the sitting member, ALP, that was going to get back in with 70%. So I had to pick one of the others. He only got 700 odd votes and to my disgrace one was mine.
Doug
00
Yes- if your No 2 has already been eliminated, hir votes have already been distributed, and presumably some of them will have gone to the person who was the next after hir to be eliminated (probably your No 1.) Those votes don’t then get another chance to go back to the person they came from. You’d simply be cycling the same votes backwards and forwards, never getting anywhere.
00
Dennis,
good to see the updates and state/seat breakdown of the Defcon plan.
I will be voting very much along those lines, however in the NSW senate I will not number Concetta Fierravanti-Wells. She grovelled the the feet of the “great and powerful” Niki Savva. The Liberals need to learn that old media need access to politicians more than politicians need access to old media. Rule by old media must be stopped.
Second, I will number Gary Anderson. He took part in the “No Carbon Tax” rallies.
30
Look up Family First’s policies and consider them seriously
10
good luck, Dr Imisides:
28 Jun: UK Express: Jon Austin: Has climate change been disproved? Large Hadron boffins cast shock DOUBT on global warming
MANKIND’S burning of fossil fuels may not be the primary cause of global warming, according to the shock results of a new study by scientists behind the Large Hadron Collider (LCH).
Scientists made the discovery during an experiment to create an artificial cloud that was thought could help cool Earth and reverse global warming.
A study published this week in the journal Nature has looked more closely at the tiny particles within clouds, known as cloud seeds, that help cool the planet and found they can be produced naturally…READ ON
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/674557/Has-climate-change-been-disproved-Large-Hadron-boffins-cast-shock-DOUBT-on-global-warming
27 Jun: Washington Times: Michael Mann, scientist: Data ‘increasingly unnecessary’ because ‘we can see climate change’
Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.
“Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change,” Mr. Mann told the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee at a hearing.
“What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,” he said.
Mr. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, spoke before the committee June 17 in Phoenix…
His comment drew hoots from climate skeptics, including the website Greenie Watch, which posted his comment under the headline, “‘Scientist’ Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics: You can just SEE global warming.”…
The panel’s draft, which now goes to the full platform committee for approval at a meeting July 8-9 in Orlando, Florida, includes a recommendation to call for a Justice Department investigation into “alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change.”…
The platform committee’s 15 members include Bill McKibben, head of the climate change activist group 350.org.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/27/michael-mann-climate-scientist-data-increasingly-u/
10
pat: thanks for the post. The need for real, physical models or demonstrations (repeatable) of what’s going on in the atmosphere is something I’ve thought necessary for years – not computer ‘models’.
The whole CAGW edifice is built on sand without this in my view. It’s not rigorous enough by far – in fact I’d call it shoddy science.
The ‘warmists’ treat water and CO2 as separate entities in the air, with no investigations as to how or whether the two interact in some way, or indeed with other gases. That might be too difficult! Instead, we’ve seen the obsession with tree rings, computer models, proxy data, and so forth.
Dr John Christy has drawn attention to the huge disparity between computer projections and reality as evidenced by satellite and balloon data. It appears that real science is at last entering the arena, as judged by the attempts to create an artificial cloud you describe.
20
Anyone worth voting for in Queensland? My choices seem to be:
Foam-flecked, swivel-eyed, raving right-wing loonies,
Foam-flecked, swivel-eyed, raving indeterminate loonies,
Useless boring thickos from the major parties.
Isn’t there a foam-flecked, swivel-eyed, raving Marxist revolutionary I can vote for? A pretender to some Middle European throne? A (God save the mark!) logician?
Am I stuck with the dross?
20
yes.
10
How politically savvy are south Australians?
Well I am glad you asks, a woman on the news stated “I know nick Xenophon has no policies but that is probably a good thing” I wish this guy all the best and hope was voters are a bit smarter than this.
20
I have looked at all the parties in QLD I think Family First has the best traditional family values. I would encourage everyone here to think about putting them 1 in the house and in the top 6 of twelve below the line in the senate maybe after the ALA although I will be putting them first.
Pro Small Government
Pro Family farms
Pro Traditional marriage
Pro Traditional immigration and against people smuggling
Against Negative gearing changes
Against Carbon Taxes
Against Superannuation taxes
Against the nanny state.
Preference Greens Last.
33
“Preference Greens Last.”
No, don’t preference them at all.
They should NEVER be in those 12 numbers.
Neither should Labor, or any of the 54 pseudo-liberals
Plenty of other candidates.
93
I managed to number all 116 tickets on the Victorian Senate ballot paper, it was a mission but the ungrouped candidates were hardest to clarify, most were greens types but a couple were surprisingly good, initially I was going to put them all lower down but glad I didn’t, do your homework kids!
20
Hi Yonnie,
It seems that you could not wait and voted early.
Can you advise about your research on the ungrouped candidates?
30
Stephen Juhasz – https://www.facebook.com/Stephen-Juhasz-1741632622780034/?fref=nf
Kathik Arasu – http://karthikforsenate.com.au/
Dennis Hall – https://www.facebook.com/dennishallindependentforvictoria/posts/273009173053321:0
Dana Spasojevic – appears to be an interstate truck driver from the Bellarine Peninsula but that’s all I can find about him/her?
John Karagiannidis – https://www.gofundme.com/25gc2fg
Geoff Lutz – Former Coburg and Moreland Councillor. Former Liberal. Wants to abolish state governments and replace them with unicameral regional governments. Wants to replace the Federal Parliament with a unicameral legislature elected on a PR-basis. Pro-Republic.
Allan Mull – http://www.allanmull.com.au/policies.html
Chris Ryan – Wants to fly in refugees from Indonesia and close Manus and Nauru. Wants to fully-fund Gonski.
Eric Vardalis – http://ericvadarlis.com/
Mark Dickenson – http://000000000k.blogspot.com.au/
Immanuel Shmuel – https://au.linkedin.com/in/immanuel-shmuel-5a0a954
Glenn Floyd – http://www.glennfloyd.org/
Meredith Urie – http://www.meredithurie.com/
Trevor Nye – http://www.trevornye.com/
Peter Hanks – https://peterjohnhawks.wordpress.com/
Christopher Beslis – https://chrisbeslisforsenate.wordpress.com/policies/
That’s the best I could do, hope it helps.
20
As for personal opinions on them I can share if you want, my idea was to give the information in the spirit of freedom of choice.
My original notes wouldn’t get past moderation anyway. 😉
00
Good luck, Mark. I have sent this post to my good friends in Perth and suggested that they put you at the top of their 12 picks on Saturday. I would love to see you get into Hunt’s ear, I have tried several times but just get a “Thanks” in reply. At least he replies, perhaps there is some hope.
Bon chance!
11
Moderators,
No complaints here as I know tough your job might be, but I have a comment at 17.1.3 which has been in moderation for almost 3 hours now. I can’t figure what word would have got caught up in the system.
No rush.
Tony.
[When I came on duty there were about 10 posts caught for no reason I could identify. It seems the filter doesn’t like politics….] ED
20
Oh good – we might get evidence based policy, as opposed to policy based evidence!!!!
50
Speedy, I have no desire to press hardly on you, but such a revolutionary sentiment is enough to make an honest punter shudder.
20
Someone had to do it.
Four Climate Scientists – Tell the kids today and they won’t believe ya.
(Monty Python remake)
21
Jo, thanks for this post.
Mark, go & get’em tiger.
I have now placed the CDP as one of the “above the line” good guys after reading your logical approach re lawyers v’s scientists.
Additionally, I support your criticism of the APVMA; particularly after the careless handling of the pesticide debacle affecting our Perth hills horticulturists.
good luck!
01
On my list of senators for saturday. At or near the top of the list.
00
Speaking of APVMA, which Dr Mark mentioned; I had a farm years ago on the South Coast and engaged in some professional work relating to fireweed (Senecio spp), which was being raised again by the community as a major issue “cancer of the land”, they said. (The drought had started, not much grass was growing and ever-present fireweed, which is unpalatable/poisonous was becoming prominent.) I had a run-in with APVMA because they wanted to increase the no-graze period for Bromoxynil (from 6 to 12 weeks), which was an effective herbicide; so it would be impractical to use.
The review that APVMA were conducting was linked to WWF (search for APVMA WWF). Search also for “Robert Purves WWF”; “Purves environment fund” and read some annual reports; “Purves AYCC”; “Purves wentworth group”; “wentworth group Murray-Darling Basin Plan”; check-out “Flannery Copenhagen”; “Purves 4 degrees”; “Rob Purves John Church”; Purves ice bear”; Purves earth-hour”; “WWF climate witness Karoly”; “WWF Lesley Hughes”.
WWF is the scandal of out time. It owned the Climate Commission, which became the climate council. It is they and their pets who are IPCC. They are heavily involved in the GBR fiasco. They run push-pull science – they push-on non-existent problems then laud their carefully-cooked “solutions”. Think “The Conversation” our good friend Cory Zanoni; stuff from Lesley Hughes and David Karoly.
The carbon tax was never going to be run by the Government; it was to be outsourced to NGO’s. There was a bit of biff going on between some groups, but WWF was at the to of the list.
Good luck Dr Mark,
Cheers,
Dr. Bill
10
Sucked in you minority right wing extremist nutters!
Lools like the greens are gonna thrash you in the WA senate primary vote.
Even the the mary-jane and sex party looks like they’re gonna beat you.
Still laughing…. (by the way i didn’t vote green, i’m just happy you were humiliated).
P.s. Mark, stick to the fiction in the bible, not your attempts at science, pesticide salesman. Btw i have a PhD in chemistry too. And unlike yours, Mark, mine IS in atmospheric chemistry.
(Wow for a person who claims to have a big science degree,you talk like a foul mouthed kid with spelling errors) CTS
00
Really CTS? That’s the best you can say in reply? Lol. Too funny.
Mary-jane and sex party still beating Fred Nile in WA . Lol.
Honestly, i don’t even care who wins as long as a deluded fraud like Mark isn’t elected. Back to listening to whinging farmers with you, Mark.
(I am talking about YOU,the way you talk doesn’t match with a big science degree you claim to have,you use name calling and pointless attacks) CTS
00
[…] the campaign Imisides has written about his desire to see more climate change skeptics in parliament and outlined his plan for a national […]
00