I know we have a few denizens of the lands down under (I include New Zeland in that) so I thought there might be some interest in this analysis by George Monbiot of the recent national elections in Australia.
Apropos for this blog his take is all about climate change policy. Be sure to read to the end for this well supported clincher: "Right-wingers are making monkeys of themselves over climate change not just because their beliefs take precedence over the evidence, but also because their interests take precedence over their beliefs." Amen!
Mandas, crakar, Deepwater, adelady, does he get things right?
I'm an Aussie. His analysis is one of the best non-local pieces I've seen. He's exaggerating a little to say that either this election or the last one were primarily about climate change, though it certainly featured prominently in the last one and featured in this one by being almost invisible as both major parties avoided the issue. The 50% increase in the Greens vote that resulted probably has something to do with this (amongst other things). Basically, I read the election as a major slap in the face for a Labor government who should have really found this election unloseable. They were a first term government with a PM holding historically high approval ratings (>70%) who had managed to avoid almost any major negative impacts from the GFC (less impact than any other developed nation), facing a Coalition that had been riven by internal disputes for most of their term and led by a man widely considered unelectable just six months ago: gaffe-prone, out of touch, longing for a return to the widely despised Howard years.
But from this position of strength, Labor managed to score a hung parliament just a few months later. Not the only factor, but a significant factor was a reversal of an election pledge and oft repeated slogan that "climate change is the greatest moral challenge of our era". After failing to get a (woefully inadequate) ETS through the Senate three times (as the result of Greens joining with Libs to block it for opposite reasons), Labor tried to quietly shelve the ETS until 2013 and Rudd's massive popularity took a beating, leading to him being deposed by his deputy (in a move that further dropped Labor's popularity) and then she tried to wallpaper over the disastrous ETS decision (to which she had substantially contributed) with a half-baked idea about a "citizen's assembly".
Result: Labor faces 5% swing against, about 70% of which went to the Greens (with preferences going back to Labor), showing that most of those dissatisfied with the ALP were leaving but thought that the Coalition was even worse. Reading that as a protest vote against the ETS decision seems fairly natural (though not the only factor).
I think the piece is reasonably accurate, but as Byron has suggested, it does overstate the climate change affect somewhat.
While there were a lot of people who would probably have voted Labor who 'defected' to the Greens because of the fuck-up over the ETS (and I would count myself as being in that group - although I am not a 'traditional' Labor voter), there were probably just as many who switched to the Greens and Independents because they were sick of both major parties and their born to rule mentality. This was probably also evident in the UK, with the rise of the Liberal Democrats.
Even though Labor managed the economy better than any other nation during the GFC, they also managed to screw up a lot of things along the way. They got away with that in the early years because the Liberals were even more disorganised, but under Abbott (like him or loathe him - and I loathe him), they did manage to become a relatively effective opposition. But people did not vote for them because their policies effectively amounted to just saying no to everything the Government proposed, even if they formerly endorsed those ideas (sort of like the Republicans in the US).
So yes, climate change was a big factor in this election (not so much in the last - people were just sick of Howard), but Monbiot does overstate the case a little. But the rise of the Greens will certainly put it back on the front page, rather than just burying it as too hard (Labor) or 'absolute crap' (Liberal).
He's not too bad for an outsider. But rather than focus on the elections, he'd do better to focus on the fact that climate change policy has been the principal (or a major) reason for three changes of Oz political party leaders in less than three years. Nelson and Turnbull for the Libs, Rudd for Labor.
Everybody might as well grit their teeth and get on with it. And that includes the Greens. They might be on a new path as a major, rather than a peripheral, political force. But they've yet to get to grips with the real, messy difficulties of implementing a core policy. Saying that they've supported the government on policies that they happened to agree with is one thing. Getting down and dirty with real negotiations about their own policies is another.
Labor and Liberal have both had to hold their noses and upset their traditional supporters in abandoning certain policies or implementing others (sale of government assets comes to mind here). The Greens no longer have the option of standing aside, holding their skirts up and refusing to consider anything except perfect replicas of ideal party policy.
We have the same problem here in the States. The "professional left" as the White House derisively refers to them don't seem to understand that Barak Obama has neither the inclination nor the capacity to deliver the worker's paradise. Among them is one of our friends, who constantly bitches because Obama hasn't (a)immediately gotten us out of both wars (b) raided corporate coffers to pay teachers double salaries (she's a teacher), and (c) restored CO2 to pre-Columbian levels. Having a conversation with her is worse than with a right wing nut because at least in the latter case your rage is directed at the enemy proper.
I wish these people would re-read *Animal Farm* and be happy with what they can get.
We all know someone like that. Makes you wonder if when people vote they think they're really voting for a Tardis. A new government can't go back in time and undo / not do what a previous government did. They can only try to do their best in managing the snafu left behind.
A little while ago i said somewhere here that this election can be likened to an IQ test and it pains me to say this but we failed miserably.
I agree with most that KRudds downfall was his shelving of an ETS but not because we all wanted one but because this was the last straw for a man and his broken promises. People got sick of his bull shit in other words.
Gillard is just a sock puppet to the faceless men that ousted KRudd and everyone saw straight through her pathetic revamped ETS policy.
The Liberals actually had a ETS type policy but the people that failed the IQ test could not see past Tony's "climate science is crap" statement so it was largely ignored.
Astonishingly (and the main reason why we failed the IQ test)was the amount of people that voted Green. Lets not forget as Byron alluded to the Greens had a choice, they could either vote for an ETS that was not strong enough for their liking but still an ETS or vote not to have one.
Well the rest is history and yet they get their first lower house seat and increase from 5 to 9 seats in the senate. I suspect the Greens will peak here and then fall away like One Nation and the Democrats before them. My thinking here is that the Greens are no longer the fringe dwellers and are now a major player and so are their policies.
Mandas did you vote Green? If so do you know what the Greens policies are? Most people who voted Green will have no idea but once they are divulged and forced in one way or another onto the general public they will lose seats at the next election.
So in summary because we voted in crack pot independants and Greens we have a hung parliment where nothing will be achieved. The next 3 years are going to be a waste of time.
Actually this is funny, a friend of mine is a greeny from way back and he was voting green, after the election he is strutting around telling everyone how well the greens did. I asked him "Do you have two children going to a private school?" He responded by saying yes he did (i already knew of course).
I then said "Did you realise it is a policy of the greens to cut all federal funding to private schools, which means your school fees will more than treble?"
He suddenly no longer supported the greens but alas it was too late of course he is a classic example of why we failed the IQ test.
As I suggested previously crakar, everyone knows that you are a coalition supporter, and that you were going to vote that way at this election. When I said that a couple of months ago you tried to deny it, but your comments above confirm that.
Now just because the rest of the country did not vote the same way that you did does not mean we 'failed an IQ test'. Quite the contrary. It may surprise you, but many people in this country have pretty good memories of what Tony Abbott was like when he was a minister in the Howard government, and we did not like him then and do not like him now.
And yes - I voted for the Greens, and yes, I know what all their policies are. Does that mean I agree with all of them? Of course not. But it also means I agree with them more than I agree with Labor or the coalition. Further, I am a strong supporter of independence in the parliament. I do not like the mentality of the major parties, and I want their strangehold on government processes broken. And a lot of people agree with me - which is obvious from the election results.
Tell me, do you agree with ALL of the coalitions policies, or are you such a died-in-the-wool right winger that you will vote for them no matter what? It is not the nation as a whole which 'failed the IQ test'. The real IQ failure is that many people continue to vote for the same party they always have, without giving a moment of rational analysis to what that means. And I am pretty confident I can identify at least one person who falls into that category.
Oh, and on the issue of IQ, it helps to understand how the system works if you are going to comment on it. Of course you realise that the Senate is elected to two terms, so all those extra seats that the Greens won at this election will remain Green after the next election - they cannot be lost. And the Greens have been building their lower house support in inner Melbourne for some time and are unlikely to lose it at the next election. Independents tend to stick around for a lot longer than a single term as well - most people are very happy with Independent representation. So if you think the next three years will be a 'waste of time', you are going to be very disappointed when the Greens retain their Senate influence for at least six years.
You dont read much of what i type do you Mandas, i seem to recall saying that i voted for Skippy the Kangaroo instead of Downer and yet here you are claiming i am a liberal voter.
What other pearls of wisdom did you have to say.......oh yes thats right you took it upon yourself to explain to me how the senate operates thanks a bunch Mandas.
If you wanted to break the monopoly of the two party system then well done you have got what you wanted unfortunately the only way you can do such a thing is if you have a credible third party option this is something we do not have here.
One of the Greens policies is to live sustainably this comes with the "population control" mantra so i am not sure how they will accomplish this especially given the fact that another policy is to open our borders to all comers even by boat. Reduce our population but bloat it with migrants....hmmmm
Then we have the massive minning tax, bigger than what labor promised to do. What is their intention here, to shut mining the only thing that kept us out of recession?
Oh and who can forget the promise to shut down Roxby Downs uranium minning, when told the entire mine must shut down the moron said oh no you can still mine the copper and gold....DUH it all comes as one.
And what about the pipe dreams, geo thermal you know the one that doesnt work because the well casings keep splitting or useless wind energy that produces far less than capacity.
And the list goes on, so now because we failed the IQ test we have the 3 amigos and that other idiot Wilkie dictating to Labour or Liberal what policies are required only to have them shut down in the SEnate come July2011.
Yes Mandas you have what you wished for and i will take great pleasure in reminding if you hang around here long enough.
Crackpot independants - we all know what Katter's like, he's never changed. And Windsor is a straight down the middle disaffected Nat. Nice bloke, apparently.
But I have to say that Oakeshott's turned out a real eye opener. He may be a bit idealistic or naive about the way parliament *should* operate, but by and large he's pretty good. (Question to self - would I consider voting for him if I lived in his electorate? Hmmmm.)
As for Senate independants. Notice Wilkie's jumping on Xenophon's pokies bandwagon. Might be fun.
Deny it all you like crakar, but the only person around here who has failed the voters IQ test is you, for promising your vote to the same party no matter what they do.
And yes, I got what I wanted. And you have showed your true form by sulking and name calling because the vote went against you.
I agree with Adelady about Oakeshott - looks to be a breath of fresh air. And Wilkie has more integrity in his little finger than all the rest put together - despite crakar's name-calling dummy spit.
Monbiot is right to point out the politicization of the climate debate. It is clearer than ever that the right are more likely to be deniers than the left.
Perhaps it relates to the left being more inclined to support the underprivelaged while the hard right supports those willing to work to improve themselves. Survival of the fitest vs compassion towards the weak. The extreme is communist vs fascist.
The real world is not these extremes, but the extremes influence each side of politics. The left can see how climate change will impact with enormous damage to the future world and take the attitude that we must protect these future generations from this harm. The right see climate change as a threat to their free market system.
Somehow we must get beyond this to see how the whole community will be damaged includeing the free market system (which will surely break down under the strain).
As an Australian, there was more to the election than just the climate issue. But I beleive it was fundamental to the trends we saw in prety much the way Monbiot described.
The results are in, and it looks as if crakar is probably sitting somewhere yelling at his TV or computer screen.
Katter backed the coalition (no surprise there), but Windsor and Oakeshott have backed Labor and the Greens - so it is 76-74. Gillard stays PM.
Interesting how both Windsor and Oakeshott stated that one of the reasons they decided the way they did was because it is about time we did something about climate change.
They obviously failed crakar's IQ test as well.
I thought you were off somewhere strangling dingoes?
Anyway yes you are right the Labor/Green/nut job independent/"I want a ministry position independent" and the "cant make up my mind independent" have formed a coalition of sorts.
Both Oakshott and Windsor will be flogged by their constituents at the next election for what they have done.
As for failling the IQ test i must disagree, Liberal got the most seats (ie we passed) but Labor would stop at nothing to cling onto power. This marriage of convenience will not last long Mandas.
Marriage of convenience = minority government?
SA's managed OK with several minority governments. It's not the end of the world and it can be quite productive.
As a yank I'm ignorant of parliamentary politics.
Can all the members of a coalition government be relied on to vote with the coalition?
My, my - talk about a freudian slip "...we passed...". So my statements about you being a dyed in the wool always votes Liberal was true after all, despite your denials.
And in any case, you may wish to go away and have a look at the election results again. Firstly, the part which received the most primary votes and the most seats was the Labor party. Second on both counts was the Liberal party. Third on the number of votes was the Greens, but the party which received the third highest number of seats was the Nationals.
You seem to have conveniently forgotten than the Liberals and Nationals are two parties, despite them calling themselves the 'Coalition'. Labor and the Greens have formed a coalition of sorts as well, so if you are going to lump Liberal and National together, you should do the same for Labor and the Greens.
And don't forget, the reason 'you' lost is because three independents who used to be part of the Coalition left it because they couldn't stand them anymore, and two out of three of them gave their vote to Labor.
I said it before and I will say it again, the only people in this election who failed the IQ test are those like crakar who has permanently promised his vote to one side of politics, without giving a moment's thought to what that actually means. The people who voted for the independents and the Greens are the big winners.
And to answer your question, yes and no.
The independents and other members of the loose coalition have given their vote to one side of politics in order to form an administration ie who is PM and Cabinet etc. They also promise not to block the Government's Budget bills and will not vote on 'no confidence' in the house on trivial, politically motivated matters.
But on policy and legislative matters they are free to vote however they want - and I am sure they will vote against the Government on many issues. It means the Government will have to work and compromise to get legislation through - which is as it should be in my mind.
Post 16 contains half truths and speculation (once again).
Firstly Labor and Greens are not a coalition, both Gillard and Brown have stated this and yet you tell the world the opposite so that is a lie and nothing more. Also before the election they ran as two independent parties and after have simply agreed to support each other so please stick to the facts.
I would say that we failed the IQ test in the Senate because we gave the balance of power to the Greens and not to either Labor or Liberal/Nationals, having said that i have just spoken to a Liberal senate candidate i work with and he tells me he is leading by 2500 votes but they still need to count the "below the line votes" so i dont know how much the senate numbers will change.
In the house of reps we passed the IQ test because one party got the most seats, the most primary votes and the most two party prefered votes but because a small number of retards voted for the greens and independents they cannot form government so know we are left with a patch work of individuals to form a minority which having been formed less than 24 hours ago is already showing signs of fracture.
So in the end the coalition won the election in every metric used to measure the result but cannot form government but why? Well lets have a closer look.
Coalition got 73 seats
Labour got 72
The green sided with Labor to make 73 and of the 4 independents we have.
Andrew Wilke most famous for his breach of security as a intelligence officer by publicly claiming Howard had no evidence to invade Iraq (WMD), after his sacking he ran against Howard as a Green at the next election and lost then ran as a Green senator and lost then ran as a independent and won. Approached the Coalition and asked for 1 billion for a new hospital and got it then went public and said Coalition are reckless spenders, sided with Labor for only 340 million, a bigger office (with a view i suppose) and two extra staff. Won seat of Denison with Labor preferences.
Labor 74 seats, Coalition 73
Windsor, former member of Coalition as a National claimed he sided with labor because of national broad band (NBB) and AGW. Asked if he had requested funding details from Labor to see if the 43 billion dollar NBB was viable he said no WTF!!!
Oakshott, another former coalition member from the National party claims he sided with Labor because of AGW and NBB same as Windsor. Oh and he gets a cabinet position as well.
Both independents were elected on the back of Coalition preferences the Greens and Labor received less than 20% of the vote in these electorates, so once again i repeat we have the Coalition receiving more seats, more primary votes, more two party prefered votes and yet the two independents who only got elected on the back of coalition votes both side with labor.
The following link is not for you Mandas but for everyone else, you see there was a third reason why these two independents backed Labor against all common sense and that was because they knew Labor would cling to power as long as they could and not call an early election thus enabling them to wield their collective power for as long as possible. This link provides quotes from the leading political journalists in the land and it will give an understanding of what the country (not Mandas) actually think about their choice in who to support.
I like this quote "This is a sprawling, philosophically misaligned collective brought together by a shared aim for power and without anything close to a popular mandate....
Julia Gillard - who yesterday became Australiaâs first female prime minister not to be elected twice... "
I encourage everyone to read this link.
Now once again Mandas i will state for the record when faced with voting for Alexander Downer or no one i voted for no one, now this is not new information to you but still you persist with your lies, i expect nothing to change.
In summary if the retards did not drag down our IQ score we would have stable government (Labor or Liberal) instead of this crap and as i speak Labor has already weaseled its way out of one promise which has pissed off Windsor.
Speaking of lies and half-truths:
"....So in the end the coalition won the election in every metric used to measure the result but cannot form government but why? Well lets have a closer look.....Coalition got 73 seats..."
There's your answer - they didn't get enough seats. End of story!
".....Andrew Wilke most famous for his breach of security as a intelligence officer by publicly claiming Howard had no evidence to invade Iraq (WMD), ...."
I'm going to suggest that was a pretty accurate claim! Seems he had a little higher ethical standards than your hero.
And as far as your link to 'leading polticial journalists'. Seriously!! Andrew Bolt???? Janet Albrechtsent???? For our non-Australian friends, these people have even less credibility, and similar warped views, as your climate change links such as Anthony Watts and Joanne Nova. Your prejudice on these matters is becoming starker by the minute.
"....Julia Gillard - who yesterday became Australiaâs first female prime minister not to be elected twice... "
Pretty confident the results of the election are in, and it looks like she is PM - based on the election results!
If you want to argue about votes etc, why don't you look all over the world at who got the most popular votes yet still lost the election. Pretty confident our American friends might have something to say about that (or doesn't the fact that Dubya didn't 'win' the 2000 election mean anything to your twisted right-wing worldview?).
".....In summary if the retards did not drag down our IQ score we would have stable government (Labor or Liberal) instead of this crap....."
Get over it crakar. You and your ilk lost. Move on. You will get another chance in three years. Until then - to quote Monty Python - I laugh in your face!
Marriage of convenience = minority government?
"SA's managed OK with several minority governments. It's not the end of the world and it can be quite productive."
You have got to be kidding. Among other things does "welcome to Rannistan" mean anything to you and dont get me started on the "we need to build an over budget and delayed desal plant because we wont get the rains we used to get and we cant build a dam or storm water harvest in fear of the eco terrorists wrath.
Once again you make many assumptions about me which are entirely wrong and of course the two journo's you mentioned are no different to Watts Nova etc even though they are not journo's (what a tripper you are) but please what ever you do dont mention any of the others will you because they are good journo's?
Why look at the USA as an example Mandas? Their voting system is nothing like ours but of course in your childish view of the world any example no matter how vague will do in a pinch right?
Once again you stupidity knows no bounds, Gillard has only been elected once, the statement that she would not be elected twice can still eventuate at the next election.
Suddenly now i have a twisted right wing view please you stupid idiot point to where i have ever stated anything that would suggest such a thing.
Who is my hero?...Howard LOL that old buffoon, they invaded Iraq under the pretense of WMD of course, however having said that we can thank the US because they gave him WMD. In Wilkies very small view of the world Iraq had none but what he did was wrong. An expert in goat shit would not appreciate such things so i can see why you claim i have no ethical standards.
Speaking of ethical standards i wonder how you can sit here and type all kinds of things about saving the environment etc but yet part of your job is to kill native wildlife so an introduced species can thrive. How do you reconcile yourself with this? You are nothing but a hypocrite.
This is interesting.....
Windsor had a long running campaign against the local coal mine, then sells the family farm (literally) to it for 4.6 million, leases it back then agrees to TAX the crap out of it.
Plenty of integrity shown here he will do well working with "green to the Gillards"
The phrase 'petulant little child' keeps popping into my head. I wonder where that came from?
Ah good come back Mandas avoid the topic and simply sling shit.
I see you failed to mention where i declared my allegiances to a particular party.
You also failed to divulge how you can sleep at night after killing/culling a native animal so introduced species may prosper.
You also failed to address Windsor and his millions.
and so the list goes on......................
Seeing how you love the greens so much even though you actively destroy native wild life let us do an experiment on how their policies will affect us. Seeing as the seat of Melbourne was responsible for electing the greens first reps MP lets do it there.
We can start by cutting their power by 25% immediately and continue to reduce it every year until 2050 when if the sun dont shine and the wind dont blow they get no power at all. Dont forget the increase in cost because as we all know green energy dont come cheap.
All companies within this boundary will see a TAX hike from 28 to 33% and if companies move to a different electorate so be it.
The electorate would also be subject to a death duties TAX, a most unpopular tax dropped by the major parties years ago, of course if this does not drive out most people wait till the new free heroin injection centers open their doors.
Of course if you have cancer etc then you can no longer accept treatment with radio isotopes, after all the greens do want to shut down the lucas heights reactor so therefore this life saving treatment is no longer an option for them.
Also lets not forget the added cost of raising our foreign aid by 4 billion a year, this will come from Melbourne naturally.
Its not all doom and gloom and blackouts the people of Melbourne will get a shorter working week and an extra weeks holiday, not sure how they will pay for it though.
Of course if you are rich you will be hit again by the increase in TAX to 50% of your income. I dont think it would be too long before the streets of Melbourne are empty what with the 40% mining tax and the ETS/CO2 tax and lets not forget for all those that have kiddies in private school will now need to cover the costs left behind by the removal of gov subsidies to private education (triple the cost).
Once Melbourne is empty the greens will have somewhere to dump all the illiegal immagrants that come here by the boat load as the greens have promised a 14 day turn around time from the day you land to the day you are released. Whats that? They all arrive here without papers so we dont know their criminal past? Thats OK they are all welcome.
Now dont come back with but...but...but their policies will never see the light of day, perhaps you could explain why the green house of reps MP and the greens leader senator Brown will have weekly meetings with Gillard? We will see these policies in one form or another.
So i will say it one more time if retards in this country voted for either Labor or Liberal we would not be in this position.
Your going to love this Mandas, luckily you can reject this out of hand based on his religious beliefs
Wow crakar - can I get some of that stuff you are smoking?
Its sad to see Mandas stoop so low as he has in post 26, chin up my boy all your green dreams are about to come true.
My dreams have already come true crakar my boy - they already have.
Mind you, on the subject of 'away with the fairies', posts #21 and #24 are a little over the top - even by your normally deluded standards.
Gee whiz Mandas thats 3 posts in a row where you have done nothing but attack me with childish cheap shots, are you feeling OK?
Dont tell me Pielke's paper has just blown the water melon parties grand climate change plans out of the water. The irony is quite satisfying i know but if the only way the ETS pipe dream can be fulfilled is by building 46 nuke plants then so be it.
Not to sure why you picked on post 21 can you re check that for me, i can understand why you find 24 disturbing most eco terrorists i know react the same way when the greens policies are explained (with any luck they will open a free herion injection center next to you, now thats irony). Of course i just hit the high points they have many more weird and wonderful ideas just waiting to be released.
Hate to break into the flame party here but I'm in urgent need of some information on the distribution of Prunus padus & P. spinosa in Australia - any ideas where I could find such?
Sorry Chris cant help
As far as I am aware, neither of those two plants are considered to be significant weeds, although they probably are considered medium or low risk. As such, there probably isn't a lot of information available on their full distribution.
You could check each state's Environment or Agriculture Department's website for their noxious weeds control lists and requirements. Just to start you off, here is the list from Victoria, but not sure how much of a help it will be:
I just read over some of you previous posts again - and I know it is not your normal modus operandi but you really do need to get your facts straight before you mouth off and call people names.
The dingo is NOT a native animal - it is a naturalised animal. Funniy enough, exactly the same as feral goats, or rabbits, or cane toads, or carp, or sparrows, or mynahs, or buffalo, etc etc etc. Please don't presume to lecture me on my field of expertise and on a subject that you know nothing about.......... oh wait, that's what you are doing on climate change as well!
I read . . . or heard . . . or perhaps dreamed . . . that the Dingo is micro-evolved from domestic dogs brought by the first aborigines some 30-40k years ago.
More like 5,000 years ago.
It had a pretty devastating effect on the local fauna as well. Most people accept that it was largely responsible for the extinction of the thylacine and devils on the mainland, which is why they were restricted to Tasmania when Europeans arrived - there being no dingoes in Tasmania. It probably caused other changes as well, but they haven't been investigated as thoroughly.
You always have to show me up in front of company . . .
Such is the life of a lapdog.
"More like 5,000 years ago"
Ok oh so wise one, at what point do we draw the line? We now know that if an animal/bird etc arrived 5,000 years ago it is considered feral just like a goat but does 5,000 years go back far enough? What about 10K years or 20K.
I think you are drawing a pretty long bow here Mandas but of course thats the lengths you go to in an effort to be proven right.
And yes skip that is the life of a lap dog but only you can change your life.
I would remain a lapdog as opposed to a plagiarist of Monckton.
Heres an interesting link, if you look under "native animals" you can see the word "DINGO".
It appears the Dingo is a feral animal only in the mind of Mandas. You see Skip this is the problem with being a lap dog, when your owner is proven to be an idiot it reflects badly on you.
So now that your little distraction has been resolved Mandas, i will ask again i wonder how you can sit here and type all kinds of things about saving the environment etc but yet part of your job is to kill native wildlife so an introduced species can thrive. How do you reconcile yourself with this?
"A plagiarist of Monckton" is that the best you can do Skip? To be honest i could not possibly accuse you of being the same (plagiarist that is) because you dont have an opinion apart from "I believe in the IPCC" and "Yeah what he said" (lap dog).
You are a fucking idiot - there is no other way to describe it. I am telling you that the dingo is NOT a native animal - it is a naturalised one. That is the end of the story. You do not know what you are talking about, and I will brook no argument on the issue. I never said it was feral - you need to read what I said and even read a bit more widely than your standard intellectual capacity of Noddy and Bigears.
If an animal is introduced to an environment by humans it is not a native animal - end of story! Or are you as racist as you are stupid and think that just because the dingo was introduced by the Aboriginals that does not count?
As I suggested to skip, the dingo was probably the cause of the extinction in the mainland of the thylacine and the devil, which ARE (or were) native animals. That makes it a pretty devastating invasive species, no matter how long it has been here. And the fact that there are no terrestrial placental mammals native to the Australian mainland (other than Pteropodidae) doesn't seem to mean anything to that tiny useless, lump of cells that inhabits your cranium.
You have spent the past few years telling everyone concerned that you know more about climate science than the thousands of professionals who work in the field, even though you have zero tertiary qualifications in any field other than some sort of TAFE level apprenticeship. Now you are trying to tell me that you know more about wildlife than I do. Quite frankly, you can fuck off.
It's not going to wash anymore crakar. You are an arrogant fucking moron who thinks he knows better than everyone else on every subject there is, when in fact you know nothing about anything.
Mandas, come on.
He might be arrogant, I'm sure he's fucking, but he's not a moron.
No Crakar is bright. No question in my mind our guy is smart. But smart isn't enough.
Just bear with me for a bit . . .
I will bear with you - but when someone is demonstrably wrong on every single topic we have ever discussed, yet refuses to admit his errors and still proclaims he knows more than experts on the subject - you will have your work cut out for you.
Crakar, in what you linked us the following is written:
The dingo is Australia's wild dog. As the largest native carnivorous mammal in the country, it is a magnificent animal in its natural habitat and plays a vital role in maintaining the balance within ecosystems.
Crakar, I suspect you stopped reading at that point. However, if you had continued:
The dingo's origin is uncertain, though scientists now believe that it is related to Asian and Middle Eastern wolves that probably arrived in Australia between 3,500 and 4,000 years ago, transported by Asian seafarers.
Which, lo and behold, is quite close to what Mandas's link said. (I know; I read it--what a fine lapdog I am. Under the circumstances I'll go with the peer reviwed peice for precision.)
But it only gets worse for you, Crakar.
*On the very same New South Wales Government site* you linked the following appears:
Our climate is changing
According to NSW Government, CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology projections, the NSW community needs to prepare for higher temperatures, rising sea levels, less rainfall, more frequent and more severe droughts and more extreme storms. These changes are likely to have significant impacts on agriculture, water supply, settlements and infrastructure, natural resources, biodiversity and human health. The CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology report, 'State of the Climate 2010'external link (PDF 789kb), outlines some of these changes.
DECCW coordinates the NSW Government's response to climate change. DECCW's wide range of climate change programs include:
strategies to reduce emissions, encourage efficient use of water and promote adaptation to climate change impacts . . . research to better understand the effects of climate change on biodiversity and conservation planning [Mandas's bag] development of a resilient system of protected areas to help minimise the effects of climate change on the environment . . . etc., etc., etc,
I won't belabor the point and the forum, but Crakar: You just cited as an authority a source which disagrees with your position diametrically.
And as for whether this is the best I can do relative to pointing out your plagiarism of Monckon . . . I'll leave that for others to judge. Its not about what "I" under the circumstances of debating the issues on this blog "can do". Its about the truth. I wonder if your share my passion for it.
Look Skip i only have a TAFE certificate (just above high school diploma for you i suppose) and i probably got that in "gardening for dummies" with a C average.
So if Mandas claims "The dingo is NOT a native animal" in post 33 then it is NOT a native animal thats good enough for me.
Obviously the Dingo is NOT a native animal which means the website i linked to is wrong also as it clearly states "The dingo is Australia's wild dog. As the largest native carnivorous mammal in the country,...."
So if the website got that wrong then it stands to reason everything else written there is probably wrong as well. This website is not to be trusted.
mandas and skip - you're falling into *that* problem. The problem of concluding that someone who doesn't follow a logical or factual argument is silly or stupid. It ain't necessarily so.
A fair while ago people used to say that cats weren't as smart as dogs. It might even be true, but the real problem was with the testing. Cats just didn't respond to the same kind of tests as dogs. Why not? Well that would be pure cat-headedness. They either didn't care or they had no intention of doing anything other than what they'd decided on in the first place.
Stubbornness trumps intelligence. Often.
It doesn't matter how clever you are if you are already committed to a point of view or a proposed action. And recent research has shown that evidence contrary to your position can reinforce rather than weaken your firmly held beliefs.
That's the problem that faces evolution research. Every single time they identify a fossil that "fills a gap" in the record - they automatically create more "gaps" on either side. You can't win.
My personal nightmare is thinking about what it *would* take to convince crakar and his mates. I know awful things are ahead of us, and I'm being selfish here, I just don't want that convincing evidence to come in my lifetime. If the current state of the Arctic and the methane bubbling up around the Antarctic isn't convincing, what ghastly events would be convincing.
Then why did you cite it to support your position--on Dingos?
Not that Dingos matter . . . but Crakar, doesn't it show something about how you go about understanding . . . the truth?
I cited it Skip because it said in big bold letters that Dingo's were a native species.
Look we all acknowledge Mandas is the expert here so if he says an animal that arrives here 3000 years before the birth of Christ or 1000 years before the construction of the great pyramid of Giza shall be afforded the status of "introduced" then who am i to argue.
I have said basically the following: How can Mandas on one hand claim to be a champion of the environment but on the other calmly and efficiently slice the throat of a native species so a farmers cow can sleep safely at night suggesting he is a hypocrite. In light of the above i retract all statements that may express this view as Dingos are indeed an introduced species dispite what the NSW government has to say.
Hows that Skip good enough truth for you?
You said " I know awful things are ahead of us, and I'm being selfish here, I just don't want that convincing evidence to come in my lifetime." are you saying in your mind there is no convincing evidence as yet? Or have i misunderstood? Dont forget i am a simpleton with a TAFE certificate under my belt.
I was talking about my personal nightmare - of what horrible things might have to happen to convince you (and the others like you.) And, selfishly, I'd rather not be around at that time. I'm convinced that Russia and Pakistan have given us a taste of what to expect.
No, no, NO, I don't attribute those events entirely to global weirding. Flood, fire, drought and plague have been with us always. But there's enough evidence already (Arctic melt, methane releasing, phytoplankton dying off, bird & fish migrations ....) to show that the other predictions about worse. and. more. frequent floods, fires and droughts are likely to hit us harder, more often and probably sooner than we thought.
I'm pretty sure that you can't be convinced at all. I'm just very sad that it will take several truly, deeply dreadful things all at once to persuade others who say the same sort of things as you but are less firmly committed to that as a world view.
Thanks mandas. I guess I was hoping that there was an Australian version of our NBN ( http://www.nbn.org.uk/ ) that had slipped under my radar. From your link it appears that Prunus padus (Bird Cherry) isn't viewed as a x-risk weed at all in Victoria. Do you think this means it doesn't occur in the state or that it does occur but isn't viewed as a potential invasive?
In light of the above i retract all statements that may express this view as Dingos are indeed an introduced species dispite what the NSW government has to say.
No. NSW *agrees* they are introduced. Did it dawn on you that maybe they used the word "native" loosely--the way some people loosely use the term "native" to describe Nevada wild horses--even though they were introduced by humans 500 years ago?
And now look how you've sunk even lower. Now whenever you cite something your essential message is, "This link proves me right--unless it contradicts me, in which case its bullshit. Either way I'm right."
This btw, is exactly what you get from climate change deniers in the end. In my experience it always comes to this. Just start linking to blogs and bullshit with the proviso that they stand by it unless it turns against them in which case they disavow it.
Dingos are probably only vaguely connected to climate change, but your posture on the subject is yet again a revealing insight into the mind of a climate change denier.
I am sure both P. padus and P. Spinosa occur over much of Australia, its just that they aren't considered particularly invasive or that much of a concern. I am sure they are even grown as ornamental plants in a lot of suburban gardens, which would be allowed because they aren't declared as noxious.
It is common usage to describe dingoes as native, even though it is clear that they aren't - as there is no doubt they were deliberately introduced by humans. Its more a 'Eurocentric' view of the world. We ascribe the actions of aboriginal humans as being 'natural', while those of us late comers as being not natural. Its a very poor view of the environment, as well as being decidedly racist.
If you were to describe dingoes as native, then if you were to wait a few years you would be equally able to use the same term to describe feral cats or rabbits (or dozens of other species, all of which were deliberately introduced by humans, and which have now readily adapted to the Australian environment. Anyone can see that is nonsence, but because of blinkered views people try to suggest that introductions by aboriginals which occurred before Europeans arrived as being somehow different. They aren't.
Feral cats and foxes, as introduced predators, are causing enormous damage to the exiting faunal population of Australia. Dingoes did exactly the same, only a few thousand years ago. Every wildlife scientist knows that - you might say there is consensus - its just that the ignorant general population doesn't and thinks they know better.
So at point in the past can you draw a line in the sand and say every that arrived beyond this date is introduced?
Do we say that everything here before the northern land bridge to Asia was severed is natural and every thing since is introduced? Please explain.
Let us assume for the moment that the NSW govt (having said the Dingo is a native animal even though they did not really mean that because they actually meant it is introduced but said it was native anyway)are wrong or right depending on whether they really meant what they said or not...............That is about as much sense as your last post made.
This is really really simple, and it would be obvious if you read my post.
If humans deliberately introduced it into the environment it is - wait for this - introduced. If it arrived under its own steam or evolved here it is native. It does not matter when it occurred.
I understand the concept Mandas dont be so childish and where is the "fucking moron" slur....a bit dissappointed.
If you understood the concept, why did you ask the question at post #53? (you fucking moron!)
I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine over the weekend, not sure what your role is in culling Dingoes Mandas but this guy does the actual poisoning. I asked him his thoughts on native V introduced and simply replied with "you cant keep protected species as a pet". So if i had a Dingo and they did DNA tests to prove it was a Dingo then i would be in a world of hurt. But of course he is no expert unlike yourself.
He also reminded me that all the Koalas on Kangaroo Island were introduced oh and all the Koalas in the Adelaide hills were introduced aswell, but as i said he is no expert unlike yourself.
I guess he is just another FM.
".....I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine over the weekend...."
You have friends?
".... I asked him his thoughts on native V introduced and simply replied with "you cant keep protected species as a pet"...."
So ummmm - he said it was native did he? Oh wait.......
".....He also reminded me that all the Koalas on Kangaroo Island were introduced oh and all the Koalas in the Adelaide hills were introduced aswell...."
And your point would be.....??????
Oh, and crakar, you might wish to have a chat to your 'friend' about this statement:
"....you cant keep protected species as a pet..."
Monty, my pet carpet python (yeah, I know, its an unimaginative name), might disagree with you.
Yes i do have friends (how did i know you would say something like that)
Yes he said "in his opinion" they were and if you have one as a pet then you will be fined etc. It comes as no surprise that you have a pet snake but do remember you can get a license to keep certain animals as pets, the dingo is not one of them of course.
My point is the Koala can also be considered as introduced depending on what geographical location you are talking about.
".....but do remember you can get a license to keep certain animals as pets, the dingo is not one of them of course....."
Depends on what state you live in. You can keep dingoes as pets in certain parts of NSW and there are moves to do the same in WA. And the 'status' of the dingo also varies from state to state. As I have been saying on numerous occasions, the dingo is BIOLOGICALLY an introduced animal, and no person knowledgeable on the issue would disagree with that fact. However, it is LEGALLY considered native in some parts of the country, but not native in others. It is also protected in some parts of the country, unprotected in some others, considered an invasive pest in others, and even considered a 'declared animal' in others - which mandates its control. Perhaps if you read a little more widely on the subject rather than just trying to score points, as futile as that may be. You are sitting in front of a computer why don't you try it. Go ahead, type 'dingo legal status' or 'dingo pet' or something similar.
"...My point is the Koala can also be considered as introduced depending on what geographical location you are talking about...."
I doubt that anyone would argue with you - which of course is what I have been saying to you all along. Go back and read post #54 again, where I said exactly that. Thanks for finally agreeing with me.
You are sitting in front of a computer why don't you try it. Go ahead, type 'dingo legal status' or 'dingo pet' or something similar.
I did do that remember but you said the NSW government dont know shit from clay.
Your computer is broken crakar. Mine links to more than one website.