Where is that 'people's army' of climate change denialists?

Ipsos Public Affairs of Washington, DC, conducted a random digit dial telephone survey between September 8 and September 12, 2011. Live interviewers asked questions of a national probability sample of adults aged 18 and older on landlines and cell phones. Respondents had the option to be interviewed in English or Spanish. The data were weighted to ensure that the sample composition reflects the U.S. population as documented by figures from the U.S. Census Bureau. With a sample of this size, the results are considered accurate within 3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, of what they would have been had the entire adult population in the U.S. been polled

Interviewers were instructed to ask to speak with the youngest household member age 18 or older who was available to be interviewed. The initial request was for the youngest male during 75% of the calls and for the youngest female in the remaining 25%. If the youngest household member was unavailable, interviewers were instructed to speak with anyone else in the household who was willing to participate.

This is what this Stanford University study found:

·         82.55% of all respondents believe that the world’s temperature has been going up in the past 100 years and that belief is held by 91.42% of the Democrats, 66.45% of the Republicans and 84.16% of the Independents polled.

·         52.74% of all those polled extremely sure or very sure that the world’s temperature has been going up and a further 34.07% somewhat sure.

·         71.52% of all respondents believe that global warming is partly or mostly caused by things people do and 72.29% believe that the world’s temperature will continue to rise over the next 100 years.

·         In all three political party categories this number who believe in the world is warming has risen since the 2010 survey. However the number who believe that people contribute to global warming has fallen by 3.80% .

The only conclusion which can be drawn from this study is that the majority of the U.S. population appear to believe that the world is warming and that anthropomorphic (human induced) global warming exists.

In 2010 the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation  (CSIRO) conducted two surveys of public opinion in relation to climate change, the Baseline and the Science in Society surveys.

In the first survey:

·         82.8% of all respondents thought that climate change is happening.

·         50.4% of those polled believe that humans are largely causing climate change and 38.1% of these think that they have already experienced moderate effects of climate change

·         Participants who intended to vote for the Greens and Labor more likely to state belief in human-induced climate change and those intending to vote Liberal, National or for the Independents, more likely to state that climate change was happening due to natural variations in Earth’s temperatures.

In the second survey:

·         63% of all respondents believe that climate change is happening now and 15% believe it will happen in the next 30 years.

Which raises the question – why does the Australian media, especially News Ltd publications, persist in implying/portraying climate change denialism as the norm in Australia and around the world?

Citizen bloggers shouldn't panic just yet - no matter how far Teh Bolta throws his red herrings

This was Teh Bolta last Thursday; “You do realise that the Gillard Government may be thinking of laws to censor those of you who blog and tweet.“

And as usual you can find his faithful echoes out in the blogosphere trying to whip up a conspiracy.

However, nowhere do they explain how citizen blogs published on domains registered in other countries can be regulated or adjudicated by Australian Government agencies or the Press Council - outside of being placed on the mandatory ISP filter domain/website blacklist that Conroy has spectacularly failed to get off the ground. Google Inc (owner of one of the more popular hosting domains) for one was not impressed by Conroy's chilling policy.

Neither do they tell us on what their censorship fears are based when it comes to this new independent inquiry.

Despite the not-so-secret wish list of that notorious political anal retentive the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, it’s professional journalists and their ilk writing online newspaper articles/opinion ‘blogs’ (and perhaps even their broadcasting compatriots published in the online print version of radio or television programs and journalists with publisher-endorsed promotional Twitter accounts) whose pages will fall squarely within the terms of reference set out in the 14th September 2011 press release sent out by the Minister when he announced an independent inquiry into the Australian media:

Announcing the Terms of Reference for the Inquiry, Senator Conroy acknowledged the pressures brought about by the advent of digital technologies and the 24 hour news cycle were threatening the traditional business models that support the essential role of the media in our democratic society……

"The Media Inquiry I am announcing today will focus on print media regulation, including online publications, and the operation of the Press Council.

"The Government believes a separate and distinct examination of the pressures facing newspapers and their newsrooms, including online publications, will enhance our consideration of the policy and regulatory settings Australia needs to ensure that the news media continues to serve the public interest in the digital age," Senator Conroy said.

The Inquiry will be conducted independently of Government, led by Former Justice of the Federal Court of Australia, Ray Finkelstein QC, with the assistance of Dr Matthew Ricketson, Professor of Journalism at Canberra University and a former practising journalist.

"The Government is delighted that these eminently qualified Australians have agreed to undertake this important task on behalf of the Australian people," Senator Conroy said.

The Inquiry will provide its findings to the Convergence Review early next year, and the Government will take a considered approach to the recommendations of both.

Terms of Reference

An independent panel will be appointed to inquire into and report on the following issues, while noting that media regulation is currently being considered by the Convergence Review:

a) The effectiveness of the current media codes of practice in Australia, particularly in light of technological change that is leading to the migration of print media to digital and online platforms;

b) The impact of this technological change on the business model that has supported the investment by traditional media organisations in quality journalism and the production of news, and how such activities can be supported, and diversity enhanced, in the changed media environment;

c) Ways of substantially strengthening the independence and effectiveness of the Australian Press Council, including in relation to on-line publications, and with particular reference to the handling of complaints;

d) Any related issues pertaining to the ability of the media to operate according to regulations and codes of practice, and in the public interest.

The panel will be required to provide a report to Government by 28 February 2012, while working with the Convergence Review committee to ensure that findings are able to be incorporated into the ultimate report of the Convergence Review by end March 2012.

More locals comment on Cansdellgate

Today's Daily Examiner has more locals coming out in its letters columns and voicing opinions about Steve Cansdell's sudden exit from Macquarie Street.

Tunnel vision

The demise of Steve Cansdell should make you happy, Fred.

Not a clean skin after all.

Yes, the Coalition side of politics has them too, Fred, that is why it doesn't pay to have tunnel vision.

If one was to dig deeper into the coalition parties it would be surprising just how many skeletons they would have in their cupboards.

It would be fair to say that both sides of politics are tarred with the same brush.

Don't you think Fred?

BF Apps, Townsend

Casting the first stone

I would like to take this few minutes of your time to ask you all something, if there were 1000 people in a room and I said, those of you that have never lied, stole, cheated, done something illegal, or any other thing that may be frowned upon in this day and age, please stand, but please be honest, how many do you think would be able to stand?

Not many, in fact very few.

This is my point. Yes Steve Cansdell lied, and not only to the police, but to everyone who elected him.

Yes Steve Cansdell did something illegal six years ago, and let's be honest, he is not a stupid person.

He knew exactly what he was doing and how much trouble he could be in if and when he got caught.

But once again let's be honest with ourselves, if he wasn't in politics, and he was in the public eye, would we even care, would we even know about it?

No we wouldn't.

These things happen every day to everyday people without anybody knowing.

I have taught my five children from day one there are always consequences to your actions, good or bad.

Steve Cansdell is now finding that out. I give this man full credit, when asked he didn't keep lying about it he told the truth, and is prepared to take whatever punishment is due to him.

However, sit back and think about it, and by it I mean, think about the good that Steve Cansdell has done for this community. I know that is what I have been doing for the past couple of days, and this is my conclusion: yes, he had to resign from his position as secretary for the police.

I believe he had no choice there, but from this electorate, I think not, this goes to show that he is human; everyone makes mistakes, no one is perfect.

Does what he has done make him any less of a man?

No, it makes him human. He did what he thought was the only thing he could at the time, not the right thing, but it's what he did, given the chance 50% of people would have done the same thing.

And as for the person who took the blame, he says she was pressured into it, she knew it was the wrong thing to do, she could have said "no" she had that choice six years ago.

If she did not want to go along with it then she had choices.

Carolyn Payne, South Grafton. 

Firstly, regards to the Steve Cansdell story, everyone at one time or another have done something stupid in their life.

Steve has made a big one.

We always are quick to shoot people in the foot at any expense.

Steve has done a great deal for our communities, never let that be forgotten.

I feel for his family as they too bare the brunt of matters such as this.

You can all hold your heads up high.

Secondly to Thomas Macindoe, I say one thing, to call Richie Williamson a political prostitute is shooting a bit below the belt considering you, sir, appear to be a worn out Labor sympathiser.

Stick to facts and comments without all the name calling.

Colin Wiblen, South Grafton

Nationals' pool of talent for Clarence by-election

Seems the north-south battle lines in the Clarence by-election referred to previously will be preceded by a preliminary internal north-south bout in the National Party's camp.

Today's Daily Examiner reports that Karen Toms, a Clarence Valley councillor, has been encouraged by party members in the electorate's southern quarters to contest the election. Among Toms's supporters are former Grafton mayor and Nationals stalwart, Shirley Adams, and chair of the Grafton branch of The Nationals, Peter James. 

Karen Toms

James, a Grafton solicitor, features prominently in a piece in today's Sydney Morning Herald about the former, and now disgraced, member for Clarence Steve Cansdell being provided with heavily-discounted office space prior to the March election.

Results of the ReachTel polling conducting in Clarence yesterday can't come quick enough for some. However, Toms must be hoping she is more successful when she puts her own name forward than she was at the Clarence Valley Council's  mayoral elections held yesterday. Toms seconded nominations for Ian Tiley and Margaret McKenna in the ballots for mayor and deputy mayor, respectively. Both Tiley and McKenna were runners-ups in their ballots.

More details about the Clarence Valley Council's mayoral elections can be read in The Daily Examiner's report here. 

On a lighter side, according to The Examiner's report, "Tiley's bid for mayor was defeated five votes to four last night in a secret ballet [sic]." Ballet!

Photo credits: Clarence Valley Council and The Daily Examiner

A question in images - just who does this electorate staffer work for?

On 25 August 2011 the Federal Independent MP for Lyne Rob Oakeshott queried the employment status of the editor of Nationals supported The Port Paper citing this information:

On 26 August Clarrie Rivers did the same and posted this:

On the same day Federal Nats MP for Cowper Luke Hartsuyker went to the media with this statement:

Now I find that disgraced NSW Nat Steve Cansdell went public with his own claim on Facebook in March 2011:

Two of my hardworking staff, Deb & Sharon. Janet did the sensible thing and went home a tad earlier! Thanks guys, you've been a tremendous support.

How many times did this electorate staffer take annual leave or resign to end up being 'employed' by so many in the space of three months or is she just on permanent rotating loan within NSW North Coast National Party circles?

Who's having a lend of us then?

It wasn’t hard to come to the conclusion that the developer was testing the bounds of credulity in this matter given his reputed track record. But to find first that the Clarence Valley Council Acting-General Manager was coming over all coy on the subject and then that the newspaper developed diplomatic amnesia in the space of thirty days and forgot his name is unbelievable.

Guess we know which local identity won’t be backing Richie Williamson’s bid for the seat of Clarence if he stands at the 2011 by-election.

The Daily Examiner on 16th August 2011:

“DEVELOPMENT applications lodged at the Clarence Valley Council by Maclean developer Andrew Baker are set to come under the scrutiny of the government watchdog, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).

Following a meeting last Monday between the council's acting general manager Mike Colreavy, Mayor Richie Williamson and Mr Baker, Mr Colreavy said he had referred some matters to ICAC.

Mr Baker told The Daily Examiner yesterday he had spent almost $1million ‘trying to sort out' development applications lodged during the past three years.

“I provided information to council on a number of issues with developments we have had with council over the past three years,” he said.

“We have had to put in close to a million dollars to either challenge or correct the issues that I highlighted to council.”

“I didn't ask for any reference to ICAC ... Mike Colreavy made that decision and he asked for me to agree or not.

“So council have referred this to the ICAC, not me.”……”

The Daily Examiner on 20th September 2011:

“THE Independent Commission Against Corruption will not pursue a complaint against Clarence Valley Council and Mayor Richie Williamson.’…

He did not identify the nature of the "external" complaint but said it was made in August and alleged "institutional corruption within council" and related to a number of planning transactions listed in a document sent to the mayor.

He said the complainant alleged the transactions involved "abuse of process", "contempt of court", "attempt to subvert", "exceeding authority", "sham requirement", "failure to implement council decision", and "failure to implement requirements of DCP" by council officers.

"I referred the complaint to the Independent  Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) after meeting with the complainant on August 8, together with the mayor," Mr Colreavy wrote.

"My referral to the ICAC sought its early advice as to what steps to take with the matter and what direct involvement the ICAC wished to have in it……”

What ICAC actually said:

“Given that the list of transactions of what (the complainant) believes show corrupt conduct are in most cases speculative and unsubstantiated, and noting your willingness to engage an independent planning expert to review each of the transactions (the complainant) has listed, the Commission has determined not to take any action.”

Why did Stuart George opt out as Casino's deputy mayor?

Will there be a north-south battle on the cards when Clarence electorate voters head to the polls later this year? Developments at local council mayoral elections today suggest one bloke (Richie Williamson) wants to add his mayoral position to his CV while elsewhere another possible contender (Stuart George) decided to put all his efforts into running for the local seat, rather than having to devote himself to the role of deputy mayor.

While Williamson won the ballot for mayor of Clarence Valley Council by 5 votes to 4 (the runner-up was Ian Tiley), George did not seek re-election as deputy mayor when Richmond Valley Council's leadership positions were contested today.
Read details of the ballots in The Daily Examiner and The Casino Times.