Normally I don’t read Greg Barnes’ musings. They are about as useful as those deposits we dogs like to have our human companions clean up. But his latest effort is below the collar and unwarranted.

We enforce the law. If Barnes doesn’t like a ban on cannabis and party drugs he should contact his local MP. But these drugs are illegal and sniffer dogs are an integral part of the enforcement of those laws.

Do you hear of sniffer dogs going on strike? Do we campaign for higher pay? Do we complain about our work?

No, sniffer dogs are dedicated, happy, effective and productive.

Julia Gillard would do well to employ dogs as media advisers – if she had employed a dog rather than Tony Hodges the Australia Day riot would not have occurred and she would have saved a lot of taxpayers’ money on the considerably lower pay a dog would accept. Moreover, dogs are very effective at shaping opinions and leading people around. Imagine how much more effective Julia would be if her office comprised a pack of dogs – german shepherds, beagles, golden retrievers etc. They would see off any Kevin Rudd challenge!

We sniffer dogs are highly trained and efficient at our jobs. We can help detect cancer. We are able to detect explosives, illegal (and legal) drugs, help find bodies, and even solve murder cases. We can find termites and hunt for truffles.

Barnes says that there are too many false positives – but that is the nature of sniffing. As noted in a NSW report, the initial detection is followed by a police check which either confirms or fails to find the drugs which we have detected. No one gets arrested purely on a dog’s initial sniff. Sometimes we find legal drugs, hence some of the false positives. As noted in the report, 9.7 kg of cannabis was detected by dogs during the review period. Also, as noted in the report, NSW Police estimate an accuracy rate of 70 per cent when taking into account admissions by those found of prior contact with illegal drugs (but not in their possession).

Again, if Barnes thinks cannabis should be legal, he should campaign for a change in the law. But don’t attack us sniffer dogs who are dedicated and effective at our work.

For tens of thousands of years dogs have proven to be mans’ best friend and will be so in the future. All we want is some affection, food and the occasional pat. Is that too much to ask?

The 456 words of this op ed, presumably written by Trenberth and signed by 37 of his friends and colleagues is dwarfed by the 532 words used to list the author and his co-signers and their various credentials. It is typical of the folly of appealing to authority / credentials rather than mounting a sensible argument.

That 38 people would put their names to such a pathetic attempt at defence says a lot about their character and aptitude. After studying a second-rate ‘science’ and enjoying a long period of excessive returns for that study, they are now finding life is becoming a little more difficult and their views are coming under attack by scientists considerably more intelligent than these 38. Is this the best they can do?

So pathetic is the piece, it is irresistible to pull it apart.

Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition?

Well, yes. Dental health is an excellent indicator of one’s heart condition.

In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work.

In any area? I think not – I would tend to trust a plumber with proven results and competency rather than one who has written in a peer-reviewed journal. Was Winston Churchill a bad Prime Minister because he didn’t write in a peer-reviewed journal? Peer-review is neither necessary nor sufficient to judge the competence and ability of an individual whether in science or elsewhere. It is an indicator, yes, but subject to abuse.

If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.

Indeed, but such a surgeon has probably not written in a peer-reviewed journal. Moreover, the results of the surgeon’s past operations are an excellent indicator of his or her qualities. Climate change scientists have to date failed to provide predictions which have proven accurate / testable. They have no results from which one can judge: computer models are not evidence, but a tool.

The opinion piece “climate change ‘heretics’ refute carbon dangers” ((Wednesday)) was the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology.

Not at all. Having people challenge the views of climate-scientists is a healthy part of the scientific method, not to mention a fundamental democratic right. Expertise in climate science is not required and may blind adherents to evidence that is running counter to the claims. These are not disinterested scientists – they have invested their life in the particular field and will naturally resist if evidence mounts that CO2 is not so important in climate change as is asserted. The metaphor is invalid: of course one would not want a non-surgeon to operate on a live person.  Climate science should be compared with history, physics, economics etc where anyone should be welcome to provide comment and to challenge views. As in any science, evidence, reason and experimentation will persuade people as to where the truth lies. Only one who is unsure of oneself should fear such challenges.

Climate experts know the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally our planet is getting hotter.

This is where climate scientists go wrong. These lines read like blind faith rather than science which should acknowledge doubt and not over-egg the evidence. The evidence on warming is not ‘unequivocal’.

Thus, climate experts also know what one of us, Kevin Trenberth, meant by the out-of-context, misrepresented quote used in the opinion piece. Mr Trenberth was lamenting the inadequacy of observing systems to fully monitor warming trends in the deep ocean and other aspects of the short-term variations that always occur, together with the long-term human-induced warming trend.

Nice shift to the third person. But Trenberth’s words were

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t

Didn’t Trenberth just say that warming was ‘unequivocal’? I can see only two ways to interpret this quote whether of not it is ‘out of context’:

• Trenberth thinks that the planet is warming but the physical evidence is not supporting the claim (hence it is a ‘travesty’); or
• it is a travesty that we don’t have sufficient good quality physical evidence on which to assess whether the planet is warming or not.

If the latter, that’s fine, but then one cannot also assert that warming is ‘unequivocal’. Again, climate models are not evidence: only physical measurements of the actual climate provide evidence and if (as Trenberth is now stating) the measurement techniques are insufficient or inadequate then, yes, we should improve the measurement. But, then, the extant measurements (which are acknowledged to be inadequate) should be treated with caution.

The National Academy of Sciences of the US (set up by Abraham Lincoln to advise on scientific issues) and major national academies of science around the world and every other authoritative body of scientists active in climate research state the science is clear: the world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible. Impacts are already apparent and will increase. Reducing future impacts will require significant reductions in emissions.

Research shows more than 97 per cent of scientists actively publishing in the field agree climate change is real and caused by humans. It would be an act of recklessness for any political leader to disregard the weight of evidence and ignore the enormous risks climate change clearly poses.

Again, assertion and appeal to authority. How tiresome. They would say that, wouldn’t they?

There is also clear evidence the transition to a low-carbon economy will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. Just what the doctor ordered.

After writing that only climate scientists should opine about climate science, we should take notice of climate scientists writing about economics? Has Trenberth and his 37 friends written in a peer-reviewed economics journal such as the AER? Fortunately economists do not feel threatened when people hold forth on economics.

I would put my trust in Harrison Schmidt, the Apollo 17 astronaut and geologist, than Kevin Trenberth and his 37 colleagues. He has been able to see the earth from a perspective denied to Trenberth.

just the facts on Labor’s workplace reforms

The good Senator then states

A simple measure of unsuccessful bargaining in workplaces is the number of days lost due to industrial disputes. Since 1991 the number of days lost to industrial disputes has been falling. In 1991 the average days lost during the year was 239.4 days per 1000 employees.

To compare, last year the figure was 15.9 days lost per 1000 employees. This is a significant drop. There has been an average reduction in days lost to industrial disputes almost every year for the past two decades.

And provides this chart

Well, yes, Industrial Disputes Australia (Cat. No. 6321.0.55.001) shows that there were 15.9 days lost per 1000 employees during the last financial year. But it also shows that in the September quarter (the most recent publication, released on 1 December 2011), that there were 10.1 days lost per 1000 employees: an annual rate of 40.4 days. Thislethwaite also states

Since the introduction of the Fair Work Act, this figure has not risen higher than 20 days lost per 1000 employees.

With 10.1 days in the first quarter of 2011-12, it is likely that 20 days lost per 1000 employees will be exceeded this year.

Here is an alternative way to show the ABS data, with the trend not being quite as favourable to the good Senator’s argument.

 Thislethwaite seems to have a poor grasp on the concept of productivity. Here he seems focused on Keating’s 1992 industrial relations reforms, criticising Work Choices but neglecting to mention the likely impact of the Rudd/Gillard backsliding on industrial relations. These most recent examples of labour market policies, which reduce the flexibility of bargaining and which lead to higher wages without higher commensurate productivity tradeoffs, are more likely to lead to higher unemployment and lower productivity growth. Here, too, Thislethwaite seems to hitch his wagon to labour productivity rather than multi-factor productivity.

Although Thislethwaite is a Senator, he would do well to read the Productivity Commission’s submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics which is an excellent guide to productivity issues in Australia.

This is an outrage and unprecedented.

The Queensland Constitution, however, does not state the form in which advice by the Premier to the Governor should be received. The announcement of the election date by Bligh is therefore sufficient for Wensley to act – she should treat that as advice by the Premier (which it is) and dissolve Parliament and issue the writs for election. This would bring forward the caretaker period.

This would be the responsible and ethical duty of the Governor.

There is nothing wrong with the relative growth of opinion over news – it helps us understand the world and to make sense of events. Yet we need to read opinion with care – there is an inherent bias in opinion writing to which writers succumb.

Catallaxy too has a bias – we look at the world with a focus on the individual rather than the collective. We try to examine incentives which drive behaviour. Above all, Catallaxy writers understand opportunity cost. In a sense, Catallaxy has a ‘right wing’ bias, although it is a jewel amongst the predominantly left-wing blogs and opinion pieces in newspapers.

Catallaxy also is mainly about opinion, with the occasional example of news. When I speculated that Kevin Rudd would be deposed as Prime Minister that was opinion. When Sinclair reported that he had been deposed – that was news.

There are a number of ‘sins’ which now infect journalism:

• masquerading opinion as news
• not citing sources
• not checking facts
• excessive use of  pejorative adjectives (for example: “extreme right wing commentator” or “climate change denier”)
• ignoring evidence which contradicts the argument.

The events of Australia Day when activists attacked the Lobby restaurant leading to the evacuation of the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader from the restaurant bring further focus on the role of the press gallery and media management in the Prime Minister’s Office. Lazy reporting (and bias) has led to press gallery journalists repeating statements from the PMO as if it were news.

Sadly the Government’s ministerial offices are filled with juveniles out to make political points that would be shameful on a university campus let alone in the Federal Government. Under Rudd and Gillard the role of spin has grown out of control, probably taking the worst from the former NSW Labor government. Under previous Federal administrations – both Labor and Coalition  - there was a level of dignity and judgement to be observed in ministerial staffers, especially those employed in the senior offices such as the PMO and Treasurer’s Office. No longer. The worst examples of poor judgement seem  to come from the PMO.

Unfortunately journalists allow this to persist – being witting (or unwitting) accompanists to those juvenile pranks which bring dishonour to the institution of Government and to the Prime Minister.

So we need to change the incentives – a key focus of Catallaxy. One privilege reserved  to the press gallery journalist is the press pass (Parliament House pass). Any journalist who is shown to have abused his or her position, including by repeating Ministerial statements without checking or sourcing should have his or her Parliament House pass removed for life.

We would then see more “The Prime Minister’s Office said …” rather than repeating some line as if it were true.

Perhaps it is a cunning plan by Slipper? Knowing that Gillard would dump on Wilkie at the earliest opportunity, Slipper lured the Government with an offer to stand as Speaker. Then, by resigning, he would walk away with more money and help pull down a government that he has sworn to oppose.

Our nation is exposed to external risks from the US and Europe, and seems to be hoping for continued strong economic growth from China. Talk about putting our eggs in one basket.

In all areas we have gone backwards – we have squandered our resources, and increased our vulnerability. Our fiscal policy is in shambles – the government lacking courage and relying on the efficiency dividend. Our immigration policy is disorderly. We continue to throw vast resources at white elephant projects like the NBN. Industrial relations policy has been moved back to pre-Keating days, with Unions having their snouts in the trough. Our foreign policy has been diverted to a golden dream of a temporary UN seat, compromising our moral suasion. Public hospitals are being overloaded at the expense of private hospitals. Education policy is on hold. Our nation is shackled with an expensive and ineffectual carbon tax, while pursuing inefficient and expensive ‘alternative energy’ projects, eschewing nuclear power.

Meanwhile, our politicians award themselves (through their agent of the Remuneration Tribunal) huge pay rises, which have filtered to senior public servants and which will ultimately filter throughout the public sector increasing further the cost of government.

In short, we are paying more for a worse government.

Meanwhile, the Coalition is defined as being NOT Labor, rather than staking out a credible alternative. While the polling is strongly against the Government, the Opposition has been unable (perhaps being too risk averse?) to stake out a claim for office in its own right.

Many of our politicians may have the capacity to be effective ministers if properly led. This applies to both the Coalition and Labor. Yet the current leadership cohort in both parties lacks depth and also lacks the gravity, dignity and credibility that some alternatives outside Parliament offer. Looking inside Parliament for leadership is a form of constrained optimisation.

To be sure, the present Coalition is considerably superior to the Government. But that is insufficient. There is a risk of a further period of minority government which would be a great disaster for the country. The sooner that we see that backs of Oakeshott, Windsor, Slipper etc the better. The disaffected vote will not lead to a strong and credible new government. In such circumstances, an elected Coalition government is likely to be weak and hence a period of political instability and uncertainty could continue beyond the next Parliament.

Peter Costello and Kim Beazley are the two obvious candidates to restore credibility, dignitity, wit and humour, and gravitas to the Parliament. We don’t need former prime ministers such as Keating and Howard to restore this dignity – they have had their time and it is now the duty of others to restore the Parliament to the public’s confidence.

Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus was was a famed roman General who was held up as a perfect role model for Roman values and virtues. He had retired to  his small farm when the Roman Republic called him up in 458 BC to serve as their leader in fighting the threat from the Aequians and the Sabines which at the time were threatening the republic. He agreed and immediately on defeating the tribes, resigned the dictatorship and returned to his farm. This action – to serve one’s country in its time of need but to willingly step down from power – was rightly seen as great example for future generations of Romans.

This model of virtue should be followed by Peter Costello and Kim Beazley who should announce their willingness to return to Parliament to serve their country in its time of need.

There is no need for Costello and Beazley to take office immediately. They would attract the support of their former colleagues and could nominate for a seat at the next election, acting as de facto party leaders until that time.

At a stroke, the return of Costello and Beazley would restore the public’s confidence, and lead to a certain stable, credible majority government while ensuring that the defeated party could restore its image and stature. The risk of a restored Costello without Beazley would be that Labor would be decimated and this would be bad for Australia’s democracy – we need a credible Opposition for good government.

Some might argue that Costello and Beazley do not have the ‘mongrel’ instinct. That they are too nice and are team players. But in fact this is precisely what we need in our Parliament. Being a team player and exhibiting loyalty are old-fashioned values which seem to have been lost in the present Parliament. They need to be restored and should be valued.

Peter and Kim: lay down your ploughs and come back to save our democracy.

Why not celebrate with expensive and frivolous fireworks (and as pet owners know, they are also distressing) while creating an expensive and frivolous carbon tax? Meanwhile, we should congratulate the Maritime Union of Australia for its successful campaign to make Australia’s waterfront less competitive and less productive. A double win for the isolated Australian continent.

Imagine if the Romans had invented an equivalent to the ‘carbon permit’ – say a ‘wild animal permit’ which would ensure that the gladitorial and animal fights were fully offset? For every giraffe killed in an arena, another would be born to offset the loss? Surely then the Roman Empire would not have fallen? For the want of a technology – the equivalent to our carbon tax – the Roman Empire met its end.

For Nicola Roxon it is smoking and drinking.

She has spoken about these twin evils dozens of times. Yet not once has she mentioned (in Parliament) ‘marijuana’, ‘hashish’, ‘cannabis’, ‘cocaine’ or ‘crystal meth’. Her only mention of ‘crack’ is in the context of ‘crack down’. And ‘speed’ in the context of velocity.

She may not, as Health Minister, have been able to stop Jack the Insider from smoking, but she has no doubt stopped many young Australians from taking up the habit.

Now, as Attorney-General, she can take fight against smoking and drinking to a new level. Where even Jack the Insider will have to give up his habit.