When Anzac Day is unAustralian
The Wilderness Society:
A concerned staff member of The Wilderness Society writes: Re. “Greenies see red as Wilderness Society descends into chaos” (yesterday, item 6). Further to the article published on Thursday, 22 April, by Andrew Crook — I was actually present for the “tirade” your reporter suggests Alec Marr “unleashed” on an unsuspecting staff.
In reality, it was less of a tirade than a well-intended reminder (following some fairly petty staff behaviour) that we all make compromises of one sort or another but that our goal to protect Australia’s precious natural environment is what unites us at TWS – irrespective of what you wear, what you eat or, for that matter, what you drive to work. Sadly, the message seems to have been completely lost on some of the attendees at the meeting if this is now their version of events.
But why let the facts get in the way of a good story?
What yesterday’s cracking yarn also fails to mention is that the National Management Committee of The Wilderness Society Inc is not attempting to cement its power … what it is trying to do – with the support of the vast majority of members — is reform the organisation’s constitution to ensure the collective voice of our membership is heard, not just those few who can attend, and potentially stack, a physical general meeting.
The Wilderness Society has called a general meeting for Sunday, May 2, for exactly this purpose — members will be asked at that meeting to pass a resolution to enable postal voting to elect officeholders. If this resolution is passed, it will effectively democratise The Wilderness Society Inc and empower members to determine the composition of the Management Committee at an Annual General Meeting which has been called for Wednesday, 30 June.
Why is the ‘Save TWS’ campaign so afraid of empowering our 46,000 members and letting them decide who should govern the organisation?
Given the strength of their convictions you would think they would be more than happy with what’s proposed, so why not put it to the test, eh?!
ANZAC Day:
Neil James, Executive Director, Australia Defence Association, writes: Re. “Come in spinner: the PR campaigns driving Anzac Day” (yesterday, item 3) & “Anzac Day: when commemoration becomes commerce“ (yesterday, item 16). Noel Turnbull and Francis Leach both tackled aspects of Anzac Day in our culture and especially misuse of the day by politicians and advertisers. Several points of fact or perspective they missed are also worth noting.
First, the recent book of essays edited by Henry Reynolds and Marilyn Lake represents one extreme of political debate about Anzac Day, not its intellectual, political or indeed cultural centre. The opposite extreme was recently represented in “Quadrant” by the conspiracy theories of Mervyn Bendle.
Second, politically partisan misuse of Anzac Day, Australia’s military history generally or our current defence force is not the sole preserve of conservative political parties. Labor’s emphasis on the so-called but actually never-occurring “Battle for Australia”, or zeroing in on the Kokoda campaign to the exclusion of all others whether in our region or more broadly, are prominent examples to the contrary.
Third, Anzac Day is a day for veterans and their families, and for general public acknowledgement of the sacrifices they made and often continue to make. It is not, and should not be, a military day. Except for bands, the ADA believes no formed unit of the ADF should march in uniform on Anzac Day unless recently returned from active service overseas (or perhaps every decade or so if commemorating some significant milestone anniversary of that unit in battle).
Fourth, the ADA has been the biggest critic of the politicisation of farewell and welcome home ceremonies for ADF contingents deployed overseas. Our necessarily non-partisan defence force must never be misused to score political points in either perception or actuality.
Fifth, it is a pity that for the other 364 days of the year most Australians do not think much, or at all, about the lessons from past conflicts as to how we can best defend Australia now and in the future.
Finally, several years ago before and after the annual Collingwood-Essendon match former Collingwood captain, Nathan Buckley, whose father is a Vietnam veteran, spoke eloquently about what Anzac Day meant — and in particular why there is no comparison between the sporting field and the battlefield as some advertising spruikers are wont to stupidly claim.
Disclosure: Neil James is a life-long Collingwood supporter and agrees with Francis Leach that Oliver Cromwell is much misjudged.
CPRS:
Tony Kevin writes: Re. “Official: carbon leakage is wildly overstated” (yesterday, item 4). Proceeding from Bernard’s Keane’s concluding rejection of the CPRS — a judgement with which I now agree, though I was still not decided when I put my book Crunch Time to bed nine months ago — what is the best alternative market mechanism to get CO2 emissions down?
Quite obviously now, it is James Hansen’s model of a carbon tax: a simple national tax on calculated carbon dioxide emissions, levied once only on entry into the national economy of all carbon-burning fuels, either at the mine or wellhead or port of entry, and refunded immediately and in full to all Australian citizens or permanent residents on an equitable per capita basis (which, incidentally, means it could not credibly be criticised by Tony Abbott as “a big new tax”).
The over-complex and industry-corrupted CPRS was a folly, it is now clear in retrospect. A Hansen-model carbon tax would be simple, transparent, corruption and special-interest proof, and would have the desired impact of creating real and quick-acting economic market incentives for reduced carbon emissions practices and technologies, throughout the production-consumption train. The rate could be varied according to society’s evaluation of the seriousness of the mounting climate crisis, and how much it wants to spend on decarbonisation of the national economy; and whatever the rate, the proceeds would come straight back to consumers’ wallets.
It is not too late for Kevin Rudd to change trains on this. Let’s just admit it now, the CPRS, like coal carbon capture and storage and free batts, was bad climate crisis policymaking — more about expensive gesture politics than real decarbonisation. I see this clearly now — so should the Rudd government. We need a true decarbonisation policy in Australia — the climate crisis is not waiting for Labor’s election timetable. Get on with it, Kevin.
Tamils:
Martin Gordon writes: Re. “Tamils vote for independence — and will vote against Labor“ (yesterday, item 5). Antony Lowenstein’s was an interesting read. Allowing for some Green posturing the Tamil community is small, but other aggrieved communities may feel equally strongly about the (more) cynical (than usual) Rudd asylum seeker fix. The rather inappropriately called Sri Lankan Freedom Party was once affiliated to Socialist International and through that to the Australian Labor Party. Biting a (sort of) affiliated party of a hated oppressor would be more than ironic.
John Kotsopoulos writes: I don’t know what the Tamils hope to achieve by voting against Labor. The boat people issue is being inflamed by the Liberals and they are the ones who stand to benefit from this action. A bit like a turkey voting for Christmas I suggest.
Billboard politics:
Peter Nevin writes: Re. “First Dog on the Moon” (yesterday, item 7). Seeing First Dog’s reproduction of a billboard attacking Rudd on boat people in today’s edition was timely, as it followed on something that I had been wondering recently — what photos are likely to feature in this year’s attack ads?
If the billboard is anything to go with, the Libs might be in a bit of trouble on this score. Even in the obligatory black and white with minor-key discordant backing music, you look at the Rudd picture and just end up thinking about Sideshow Alley.
Vulnerable people:
Justin Templer writes: Re. Yesterday’s editorial. In your editorial you write: “Looks like it’s back to the future with grubby politicking over some of the world’s most vulnerable people.”
In fact the world’s most vulnerable people are the children, the old and the infirm who will never have the money, health or connections to get themselves half way across the world.
Take the orphan child slowly dying of hunger and disease in a cesspool somewhere in Africa. Who is saving her? Certainly there is nothing on offer from the specious, hand-wringing debate we are enduring.
Tony Abbott:
Marcus L’Estrange writes: Re. “Abbott and no dole for the under 30s” “Richard Farmer’s chunky bits” (yesterday, item 11). Ah, Tony Abbott is at it again. Chasing after, “dog whistling”, the red neck, dole bludger vote. Just cannot help himself.
Abbott has missed the point that currently there are only a total of 5000 vacancies (adult and youth) in the mining industry and that the mining industry only employs 1.5% of the workforce. Hardly a massive number in order to work test the young unemployed.
Secondly, Mr. Abbott has form in bashing the least fortunate in society. In 2002, when he was Employment Minister, he called the unemployed “job snobs” for not looking even harder under rocks, park benches for non-existent jobs. More recently he called homelessness a lifestyle choice.
His mentor, the late and great Bob Santamaria firmly believed that the real unemployment figures showed that we had a real unemployment figure of 20% chasing about 100,000 vacancies or one job for every 20 plus unemployed.
Hoodies:
Miranda Murphy, The Australian Online, writes: Re. “Fashion advice for The Australian” “Media briefs: ACA jumps the gun on MasterChef … 2UE program boss aims for Sky … the really hard-hitting Q&A …” (yesterday, item 19). We’re more anorak types here at The Australian Online but even we know that use of the term ‘hoodie’ has been extended to refer to a type of person wearing one.
Kate Jackson writes: In the UK a hoodie is also slang for the person wearing the piece of clothing, so The Oz is actually correct in their usage. The term “hoodie” received widespread coverage in 2006 when David Cameron rejected suggestions he wanted people to “hug a hoodie” after calling for more understanding of why young people commit crime. See this BBC story for more. It’s minor detail, but hug a hoodie got loads of coverage while I was living in the UK.
Pedant’s postage stamp:
Chris Harrison writes: No, Chris Owens (yesterday, comments), maintain the rage. I pointed out the incorrect use of “for free” instead of the proper “free”. I was criticised by some and supported by others (Crikey 11 November 2009). It’s you, Don Watson and me against the world!
Climate change:
Tamas Calderwood writes: Re: “Climate pledges fall short” “Richard Farmer’s chunky bits” (yesterday, item 11). I love it. The supernova of climate “science” is entering its collapse-into-a-black-hole phase while expelling its outer layers of dodgy data, sloppy statistics and, oh, this pesky 12 year cooling trend that 95% of climate models failed to predict, yet Richard Farmer cheerily peddles some new German predictions (climate “science” is all about predictions) of temperatures soaring 3C by 2100.
Well, what a bunch of climate-hysteria loafers those Krauts are. I mean, 3C? Pathetic. I thought we were tracking for at least 5C in the climate-scare game!
Meanwhile, out here in the real world, it is calculated that if the Earth had no atmosphere and were a black lump of rock at its current distance from the Sun, it would be just 8C cooler than it is now. So the entire atmospheric and ocean system adds just 8C to our average temperature. Yet a bunch of guys with computer models say that eking up the amount of CO2 in this system from its current 0.038% to, say, 0.045% will crank temperatures up another 3C and BOOM!… Thermageddon.
Give. Me. A. Break.
@ Chris Harrison
Count me in. ‘For free’ is clumsy English.
I’d assumed it was poor grammar emanating from an ill-educated advertising agency copywriter when I first noticed its usage back in the 1990s - but recently I heard it uttered in a 1940s film from the USA.
Someone is to blame - but who? Probably the Yanks.
Tamas Calderwood, again? Crikey’s postman must be on strike if it is forced to again publish mail from this oft-discredited source.
Take the opening paragraph:
“Dodgy data, sloppy statistics and, oh, this pesky 12 year cooling trend”
The term “dodgy data” usually refers to the now NOT discredited emails. Score one.
“Sloppy statistics” appears to be a reference to a since-corrected very minor and now irrelevant error regarding melting of Himalayan glaciers. The findings and relevance of the IPCC Report in which this reference appeared have not been affected at all by this tiny error. Score two.
“12 year cooling trend”. Says who? Not NASA. Not reputable published scientists. TC is again cherry picking from his own dodgy data sets. Once again, he has been publicly discredited on this point more than enough. Point three.
Crikey!, you must persist with this bloke’s contributions for one reason only, that being to stir controversy. Please desist. This subject is far too important for taking the p_ss.
@Chris & @Zut:
The language you cite is not incorrect, improper, clumsy or in any way poor grammar or a result of ill-education. I really think you should go and read something about language change before you claim to know anything about grammar and go about mischaracterising Don Watson’s position. Your rage is misplaced and counterproductive.
A good start is wikipedia, which you can access here for free:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_change
The braver reader could head to the “Prescriptivist Poppycock” section of Language Log, which collects examples of similar self-appointed arbiters of “proper” “grammar”. Again, for absolute free:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?cat=5
And my favourite quote about this kind of pointless prescriptivist pedantry:
‘Some older citizens welcome the new music and dances, the new electronic devices and computers. But no one has ever been heard to say, “It’s wonderful the way young people talk today. Its so much better than the way we talked when I was a kid.”’
Labov, W. (2001) Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume 2: Social Factors. Malden, Mass./Oxford: Blackwell. 6.
How boringly typical of you John. It’s ok for you to argue the climate-scare case, but I should just shut up. Whatever.
Anyway:
Dodgy data: Phil “hide the decline” Jones of the CRU says he has lost the raw temperature data. He only has the “adjusted” data. NASA also relies on this for 98% of its global temperature estimates. The Met Office is recalculating the temperature history from scratch and says it will take three years. So I guess you’re kind of right. It’s not dodgy data because there is no data at all. Let’s see the graph in three years and then panic.
Sloppy Statistics: Well, don’t take my word for it. Here’s the UK Oxburgh report that so vindicates those poor scientists: “inappropriate statistical tools with the potential for producing misleading results have been used.” Oops.
And the 12 year cooling trend is calculated by a simple linear regression on the UAH satelite data. There is no argument on that one.
So am I still looking discredited?
OK, Tamas. You have convinced yourself.
I do not agree with you at all, but you aren’t listening.
Perhaps you and your friends should retire to a phone booth and drink a toast to each other, while the greater majority of us, including those who are not building their belief systems on a fraction of 1% of the data, get on with finding ways to fix the damage to the atmosphere which you cannot see.
@Tamas
“Well, don’t take my word for it. Here’s the UK Oxburgh report that so vindicates those poor scientists: “inappropriate statistical tools with the potential for producing misleading results have been used.””
Wow. That’s pretty damning. Why didn’t anyone else notice that? I went straight to the report to find out, and discovered that the reason nobody else noticed that is because you are, at best, indulging in the worst kind of cherry-picking, and at worst, just telling bald-faced lies. There is no period at the end of that quote. It actually continues:
“Although inappropriate statistical tools with the potential for producing misleading results have been used by some other groups, presumably by accident rather than design, in the CRU papers that we examined we did not come across any inappropriate usage although the methods they used may not have been the best for the purpose. It is not clear, however, that better methods would have produced significantly different results. The published work also contains many cautions about the limitations of the data and their interpretation.”
Can I spell it out for you? [my EMPHASIS]
“… have been used BY SOME OTHER GROUPS”
“we did not come across any inappropriate usage”
“may not have been best for the purpose… It is not clear, however, that better methods would have produced significantly different results.”
Is this how you gather all your supposed evidence?
Justin - whatever way you look at it CRU has been called out for using sloppy statistics. Oxburgh was a total whitewash anyway - I mean, how deep can a five page report go? Nonetheless, they busted CRU for their calculations in the nicest language they could come up with.
And what on Earth does “It is not clear, however, that better methods would have produced significantly different results” actually mean? It’s not clear because their epic five page report didn’t bother to clarify the issue. Steve McIntyre, who has done a huge amount of work on this, was not consulted about CRU’s methods and he has shown them to be a joke.
John - well, at least you’re ok with me arguing my case now. Thanks big guy - real good of you.
@Tamas
I’m not interested in your further interpretation of the report. I’m accusing you of the same academic dishonesty you seem to believe all your opponents are guilty of. In order to fit your argument you deliberately butchered a very straightforward passage to say the opposite of what it actually says. This, by even your own standards as you apply to the CRU, makes everything you say suspect.
In the future, if you are going to argue a case, you should at the very least do it honestly. I doubt there’s anyone with the inclination to write even one page to exonerate you.
Correct, Justin.
But why does Crikey! continue to offer this dishonest nuisance a pulpit?
Justin - I’ll accept that the quote was taken out of context. I picked it up without looking at the full text. My bad. But can you not see that the statistical methods the CRU and others relied on for their global warming hypothesis may not have been, well, ” the best for the purpose” (Oxburgh, op cit)?
And what about the fact that Jones and the CRU admit that they have “lost” the raw temperature data? Is that not abominable? If science can’t be replicated then it’s not science.
And what about the fact that Jones admits the warming spurts from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were statistically indistinguishable in their magnitude? Why would that be so if human CO2 production increased in each of those periods?
So fine, call me for a mis-quote. But don’t tell me that the case you argue for is “settled”. It isn’t. The shenanigans these climate “scientists” have been up to have now been revealed and it doesn’t look good. Defend them all you like, but don’t pretend that they have been honest. The record shows very clearly that they have not been.
And John Bennetts - can I just say: get lost.
Crikey’s editors decide what to print.
It’s fine to disagree with me, but do you not see your little totalitarian streak by demanding they shut me up?
What, only people that agree with you can have their say? Have you ever seen me demand the alarmist case be censored? What possible justification do you have to demand I be stopped from expressing my view?
I’m intrigued to hear your justification. Please do tell.
@Tamas
“I’ll accept that the quote was taken out of context. I picked it up without looking at the full text. My bad.”
No. If you’re going to claim it was an accident then you picked it up without looking at the full sentence. Even if I did believe you then your comments go far far beyond the sloppiest research you accuse your opponents of.
I’m not arguing a case for or against climate change, I’m not defending anyone. I’m calling your integrity into question. You were blatantly dishonest in quoting the report, so by your own standards as you apply to the CRU why should anyone believe anything you say?
Justin - Um, because I am not trying to scare the world into spending trillions of dollars on solving a fake crisis!!
The quote you nail me for is still damning for “other” climate scientists! Oxburgh still says the CRU didn’t get their stats right! Where is the credibility of climate “science”?
You address none of my points about the CRU’s admission that the last warming trend that stopped 12 years ago was no different to any of the past three that occurred since 1860!
can you not see the difference? I am saying their case is deeply flawed. You point out one small errors (even though it damned the statistical sloppiness of other climate scientists, if not the CRU in that direct quote) and say that therefore I am wrong, but you address none of the other crtitical points I make.
That’s just pathetic.
And don’t tell me you are “not arguing a case for or against climate change”. Rubbish. You are arguing the alarmist, catastrophist case. Yet you refuse to address the lack of warming for the past 12 years, or the fact that the last three warming spurts were of equal magnitude… and so much else. Argue the facts, for goodness sake.
And give me a break with the value laden “dishonest”, “liar” stuff. I’ll admit my errors but I am arguing for what I believe. To call me a liar is simply lame. Notice how I accuse you of no such thing?
@Tamas, 11.06pm:
I am disappointed that Crikey! has chosen again to publish the work of a contributer who has, again, been shown to be dishonest.
There is nothing wrong with publishing points of view which vary from those I hold - that is the reason for enjoying reading anything at all.
Consequently, it is both reasonable and appropriate that I question Crikey editorial purpose in repeatedly offering you space.
@Tamas
You accuse me of no such thing because I have done no such thing. What you did was no small error, it was at best sloppy to the point of dishonesty, at worst just plainly a lie. We now can’t be sure that any of the “facts” you cite are actually truthful without independently verifying every single one. That’s no way to have a discussion. So I will not address your other points and be drawn into your gish galloping.
I will suggest that if you want to be taken seriously in future you should link to all your sources and be very careful they actually say what you claim.
Justin - you are pathetic. Don’t you understand - I want you to check every claim I make about this subject. Check the data. Look at the statistics. Judge for yourself.
Why do you accept the dodgy “science” of all the alarmists at face value, yet use one minor error on my part as an excuse to dismiss anything I say?
I note that you still have nothing to say about those warming periods from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998. Hey, why bother arguing the facts when you can just throw insults and call me a liar?
John - your statement makes no sense. You say you like reading different opinions to which you hold, yet also argue Crikey shouldn’t publish mine…. huh?
@Tamas
You’re not listening, and furthermore you’re putting words in my mouth. Read over this thread again. I haven’t made a single claim about climate change, yet you repeatedly call me an alarmist, blind acceptor of dodgy scientific claims.
Let me be very clear: if you can’t be honest, then we can’t have a discussion. That’s it.
Justin - oh, so by accepting that my quote was out of context, that’s me being dishonest? What is it you want me to say to conform to your standard of honesty?
And it is disingenuous to say you are not defending the alarmist case. You continually refuse to address the points I make about their collapsing case while focusing on a small error that I have admitted to.
What, so it’s ok for the CRU to “hide the decline”? Why no warming since 1995? Why were the last three warming spurts all of the same magnitude? Why is it ok for the climate science community to use “inappropriate statistical tools with the potential for producing misleading results”?
So stop calling me dishonest when I very readily admit to a mistake and go take a hard look at all this climate “science” you seem to so preciously fall for.
Maybe then we can have this “honest” discussion you keep banging on about.
@Tamas
I believe I’ve made my position very clear. If not to you, at least to the reasonable reader, if any have made it this far. I won’t continue to repeat myself while you insist on repeating your mistakes.
But I would like to finish with a quote from your good self, in the spirit of our discussion:
“I am wrong.”
- Tamas Calderwood, Posted Monday, 26 April 2010 at 12:23 am
That’s all I have to say on the matter.
Oooh… that’s, like, game - set - match Justin. I admit to a mistake and - kapow!! - you’ve knocked me out of the game.
I guess that must nullify the warming magnitudes been of equal magnitude, the lack of data at the CRU, the use of inappropriate statistical tools with the potential for producing misleading results by some in the climate community, the lack of warming since 1995 or 1998 (Jones says 1995), the cooling trend of the past decade, the lack of an equatorial tropospheric hot spot, etc etc etc.
Amazing how the arguments about this “science” are conducted.
Tamas, you really couldn’t lie straight in a coffin.
You have been caught out fibbing in relation to the only traceable quote you have used in all of about twenty contributions to this thread.
Justin may be gone, but not forgotten. He offered you plenty of chance to defend yourself, but we are left with nothing but an intentional misquote, which is a nice way of saying that you are an unreliable witness, a lier, a person not to be trusted and a slimy scoundrel.
In academic terms, a fraud.
So you then throw in a pat-pourri of other factoids which take your fancy. No references, no rigour, no need for trust.
Speaking of trust, you have destroyed any which you may have had when first I read your crap. I thought that you were trying to support an opinion.
I now see that you are fighting to support nothing more than your ego.
So, once more, I must bit goodbye to this thread, as Justin has. You have succeeded in closing down the thread but have taken no prisoners, convinced nobody and generally wasted your effort.
What’s this - the Tamas and Justin love in?
b>”When Anzac Day is unAustralian”? Evidently, keenly debated aspects of this question (raised in this thread) were tackled by now!