Kevin Rudd’s hypocrisy is breathtaking when he did to Julia Gillard what Julia did to him in 2010. Had Rudd’s presidential imperative applied to the 43rd Parliament Julia Gillard would still be facing the electorate. Failing polling – ergo Rudd in mid-2010 - indicated the ALP faced electoral annihilation in 2013.

The misnomer of retaining a people elected PM – impossible under the Westminster system as neither Ms Gillard nor Mr Rudd are elected directly by the people as Mr Aitkin affirms - has nothing to do with the people’s will. It rests entirely on a sitting party wishing to retain office which is why both Rudd and Gillard suffered at the hands of a dispirited, dysfunctional ALP caucus.

Mr Rudd’s statement indicates he either fails to understand our electoral system or wishes to trammel it for his own political expediency.

Parliamentary office is all about retaining power for the elected party. Justification for re-election should be determined by the will of the electorate to judge the efficacy of that party and the potential of the opposition to better govern.

The vaudeville performances of the Prime Minister should be mere sideshow dalliances to that main event

Watching the performance of Rudd and Abbott on television, the former is clearly hugely popular with the Australian people while Abbott, hampered by having the personality of a wooden Indian, goes methodically through his monologues of slogans.

Rudd has some flaws but these seem to be under control this time around. He has presence. He has a vision for Australia. He has a lively mind.

Abbott, despite being a Rhodes scholar, is a political hack, a non-event, a trudging, mediocre figure in the Australian political system.

And his party is not much better and neither are his supporters!

Don,

Thank you for this thought provoking post.

I’d comment on this statement:

> "Third, when people talk about ‘uncertainty’, what is involved is not necessarily ‘a lack of scientific understanding'"

I disagree with you somewhat on this. ‘Climate Sensitivity’ and the ‘Damage Function’ are two of the most important inputs to analyses of the costs and benefits of climate change and to the cost benefit analyses of mitigation policies. Both these inputs are highly uncertain. The uncertainty of climate sensitivity has hardly changed in 25 years. The uncertainty is a measure of how little we know about it. The real value of climate sensitivity would have a small range at any given global average temperature if we could determine it to a precision of say +/-0.1 C (it would be different in an ice age and different when warmer than now, varies according to the extent of ice sheets on the planet and other variables, but at any time is would have a small uncertainty range). Our uncertainty of climate sensitivity is so large as high as to be effectively meaningless.

Our knowledge of the damage function is worse than for climate sensitivity. As world expert climate cost benefit analyses and carbon tax, Professor Nordhaus, says:

> "The major issue at this stage is that the database for impact studies continues to be relatively small."
p24, http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Accom_Notes_100507.pdf

World expert on estimating the damage function, Richard Tol says:

> "There are only 17 estimates of the total economic impact of climate change, and our confidence is thus low."
p96, https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz17rNCpfuDNRml2dVA4T0xvdkk/edit?pli=1

Don,

The title of your article asks:

> "Can the truth of ‘climate change’ be sorted out through technical means?"

I suspect the ‘truth of climate change’ cannot be resolved much more quickly than is being done. But that is not really very important. What is important is that we can apply technology to take precautionary actions. We could decarbonise the global economy and do it for many net benefits. That won’t be achieved b y continuing to waste enormous amounts of money on fantasies like renewable energy, carbon and government programs to pick winners. It will be achieved b y removing the impediments we have imposed on markets that are preventing us having low cost clean energy – such as nuclear power.

For more on how to achieve this, see my two comments on ‘Climate Etc.’ here:

“How to decarbonise the global economy”
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/19/open-thread-weekend-14/#comment-313509

“Alternative to carbon pricing – Reduce existing market distortions”
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/19/open-thread-weekend-14/#comment-313514

Well observed, Don.

Kevin 13 is showing that he is just as capable of spinning and exaggerating as Kevin 07.

Peter Lang, as the article does not mention climate change, did you mean to post your comments?

Raycom,

My mistake. Sorry to Don and all. I inadvertently posted my comment on the wrong thread. I meant to post it in reply to Don Aitkin's today post:

"Can the truth of ‘climate change’ be sorted out through technical means?"
http://donaitkin.com/can-the-truth-of-climate-change-be-sorted-out-through-technical-means/

I know, Don, there's just something "illegitimate" about Labor governments ( and Labor Prime Ministers) they have no right to govern, like anthropogenic climate change, it's just wrong.

Don't worry, most likely Tony( Tow the Boats) Abbott will be PM after the election, he will stop the boats, presumably using Harry Potter's magic wand and deal with our non-exitent debt crisis. I'm looking forward to a critique of Abbott's performance as PM.

oops,

"non-existent"

Mac,

I'm not sure where you're coming from. In many other posts and writings I have made clear that I think the alternation of governments from Labor and the Coalition is a natural and sensible part of our system. I do not think that the last six years of Labor were either inspiring or effective, and that they bear no comparison with the first years of the Hawke Government or the Curtin/Chifley period.

I have also said that those trembling with fear at the thought of a Coalition government led by Mr Abbott should wait patiently. It won't be as bad as they think, nor as good as his supporters think. Our governments muddle through, mostly.

And neither party has a clue about what to do about 'the boats'.

Don Aitkin,

I don't know why you say neither party has a clue what to do about the boats. That sound's as if you believe in defeatism and Australia cannot control its borders. Of course we can if we genuinely want to.

The problem is that Labor is comprised of 'Progressives' and Greens. they are conflicted. They don't really know what they want to do on just about anything, other than they want to be in government and they want to give the unions all they ask for.

What is need is clear commitment. Like Tony Abbott keeps saying; "We will stop the boats". Labor keeps saying "We can't stop the boats. No one can stop the boats' They've given up. They opened the flood gates,, sent the message to the world: "Free entry to Australia", and we see the result of Labor's incompetence (as with all their policies).

We need demonstrated commitment like John Howard's clear statement of commitment: "We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come. "

The we need the follow up with all the appropriate policies by a committed government. Like Alexander Downer's department did in getting the message out to the source areas, about the Temporary Protection Visas, Pacific Solution, Off shore processing, etc and conveying the message you will be unlikely to settle in Australia.

A clear message of commitment to stop the boats is what is required. Labor-Greens-Progressives cannot send that clear message of commitment. They are conflicted.