Despite deep differences on a range of issues, Romney and Paul became friends in 2008, the last time both ran for president. So did their wives, Ann Romney and Carol Paul. The former Massachusetts governor compliments the Texas Congressman during debates, praising Paul’s religious faith during the last one in Jacksonville, Fla. Immediately afterward, as is often the case, the Pauls and the Romneys gravitated together to say hello.

This is how politics on the same side of the fence needs to be done when the enemy awaits. But I suspect that it is deeper still. They both represent similar values and on domestic policy there may not be a dime’s worth of practical difference between them.

Meanwhile the ducks are falling into line. Donald Trump’s endorsement today carries I suspect few votes. Its signifcance is in the recognition that you should not mess with someone who may very well be the president a year from today.

A key point I make in the piece is as follows:

“To argue that we are better off because others are sinking in a fiscal sea of red ink faster diverts our focus away from the common underlying cause of government overspending that requires remedial attention, rather than empty promises and intergenerational buck-passing.”

His CV is a classic think tank mix of law, commerce, academia and politics, plus a stint at global mining company Rio Tinto. Indeed, it was a fellow law student at Melbourne University, John Daley – who now leads the Grattan Institute – who suggested that Roskam apply for his first job at the Liberal Party, as a junior research assistant for Victorian MP Don Hayward.

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.

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

Yes – that’s more or less true. So how then do these climate scientists explain the last paragraph? (emphasis added)

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.

While a GP might ‘order’ decades of economic growth, it isn’t clear that is how a market economy operates.

Acting Greens leader Christine Milne was quick to express her dismay. “This is a national scandal,” she said. “If you have a couple of people using newspapers as a mouthpiece, that is a real problem.

“For years, we in the Greens have had a total monopoly on all discussion about climate change and the long-overdue, successful and hugely popular implementation of the much-loved carbon tax, which is going to solve the global problem of an overheating planet that we daily see all around us destroying the lives of millions of people and obliterating entire species as massively populated islands disappear beneath the waves before our very eyes. The last thing a democratic, vibrant and free press needs is someone who disagrees with us.”

Recently returned from her “Rehabilitation and Re-programming Retreat” on the shores of the Volga, fellow Greens senator Lee Rhiannonovski went even further.

“For years, we have had a direct conduit to the oppressed, latte sipping masses of the inner cities thanks to our close ties with certain sections of the Fairfax media,” she said. “The idea that this should be put in jeopardy by someone who represents hard-working, successful Australian entrepreneurs and members of the capitalist conspiracy to give people jobs and keep our economy strong is an absolute betrayal of everything we believe in.”

As she was whisked away in her government limo to attend a taxpayer-funded banquet at Marrickville Town Hall in honour of the brave boycotters of Max Brenner, the senator made it clear that she would not sit idly by and watch greedy, self-interested minority groups try to influence the mainstream press.

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.

The former speaker, having seen plenty of ups and downs, vows that ‘people power’ will overcome ‘money power’ in the end.

This is almost the perfect statement of a leftist ideologue, where the evil Mr Moneybags is set upon for stealing the election along with everything else from the benighted poor.

For myself, having been quite hopeful about Gingrich on his second coming during this campaign, I have become totally disenchanted and I can see that many others have travelled the same road over the past few weeks. Having been a very early supporter of Ronald Reagan back even before 1980, and being the very essence of a small government fiscal hawk, being every inch the Tea Party member that I am, and holding a very low membership number amongst the Anyone But Obama school of thought, I am hardly a sell out to the left.

If you want Obama out, fiscal discipline returned, Obamacare reversed and a stronger American international presence, there is no one more likely to achieve all of these than Romney. He is, as an added bonus, also far more electable, a not minor consideration I would have thought.