Australia

56 posts / 0 new
Last post
Aristotleded24

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

jerrym wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

No polls yet have come out since the impact of the wildfire season has been felt. Looking at the reception that Morrison had in that moment, I wonder if he's had his "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" moment.

The real fear is that Morrison will be made to walk the plank for this, and his government manages to choose someone else and that gives the government a new lease on life. Anybody more familiar with Australian politics who can weigh in?

In a poll released today, Scott Morrison has "suffered a massive hit to his personal approval rating and been overtaken as preferred prime minister by Anthony Albanese in the first published opinion poll of 2020." However, the margin between Labour and the Liberals is very close suggesting the the Liberals may be tempted to change leaders before an election. 

The Newspoll, published on Monday, confirms that a horror summer in which Morrison chose to holiday in Hawaii during the extended bushfire crisis that has claimed 28 lives and more than 2,000 homes, and fumbled meetings with victims, has significantly impacted his popularity.

On Monday Labor stepped up its attack on Morrison, with deputy leader Richard Marles suggesting the prime minister’s performance through the crisis had shown he was “loose with the truth” and “disinterested in the national interest”.

The poll of 1,505 voters, conducted between Wednesday and Saturday, found more voters (59%) are dissatisfied with Morrison’s performance than satisfied (37%).

Satisfaction in Morrison fell eight points and dissatisfaction increased by 11 points, both movements outside the poll’s margin of error of 2.5%. Just 4% of voters were “uncommitted” when asked how Morrison is performing.

Albanese is in positive territory after a six-point increase in satisfaction from 40% to 46% and dissatisfaction falling from 41% to 37%.

He leads Morrison as preferred prime minister, 43% to 39%, the first time he has done so since taking the Labor leadership after Bill Shorten’s shock loss at the May 2019 election.

Morrison dropped nine points as preferred prime minister while Albanese increased by nine points, reversing Morrison’s lead of 14 points in the last poll, taken in the first week of December, to trail by four points.

The Coalition suffered a two-point drop in primary vote to 40% while Labor recovered by three points to 36%. In two-party-preferred terms Labor lead the Coalition 51% to 49%.

The pollster Kevin Bonham said Morrison’s plunge from 14 points ahead as preferred prime minister to four behind is “the equal second highest such loss in Newspoll history”, after Paul Keating’s 23% drop against John Hewson after the horror 1993 budget.

He also said it was “highly unusual” for the current prime minister to trail the opposition leader on preferred prime minister when the two-party-preferred margin was narrow. ...

But Morrison’s horror summer – in which he was heckled by survivors in Cobargo, New South Wales – continued with the revelation that the NSW Rural Fire Service commissioner had not been informed of the compulsory callout and an embarrassing gaffe in which Morrison claimed nobody had died on Kangaroo Island where, in fact, two people were killed.

On Sunday Morrison acknowledged that he “could have handled on the ground much better” in the “strained” emotional environment of firegrounds. ...

(Deputy Labor Leader) Richard Marles took issue with Morrison’s suggestion that “moments of national crisis are a state issue and previously there hasn’t been an expectation of commonwealth involvement”. He told reporters in Melbourne it was “patently wrong”, citing the Rudd Labor government’s involvement in the Black Saturday bushfires. ...

Doubts have been raised about the Australian government’s ability to meet its Paris targets of 26% to 28% emissions reduction by 2030, with the use of carryover credits criticised as an “accounting trick” that may add up to as much as 80% of Australia’s emission reduction achievement.

The former head of Morrison’s department, Martin Parkinson, has blamed “civil war” within the Coalition for the government not developing a more ambitious climate policy, warning that global efforts were insufficient to halt warming at 2C.

Marles accused Morrison of “running away from the country without telling anyone”, “literally forcing people to shake his hand” rather than showing empathy, and being “incredibly slow” to involve the Australian Defence Force. Marles also blasted Morrison for filming an ad to promote the government’s disaster recovery efforts, suggesting it showed “panic” – not on behalf of the nation, but for his own image.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/13/scott-morrison-su...

The more shocking thing is that they are close even with all that is going on. The Liberal party ought to be in single digits and they are not. This is a sad reflection that even as the consequences of climate change become painfully clear the politics of denial is still extremly strong.

Remember that leadership approval is a leading indicator, whereas party support is a lagging indicator. Despite the Coalition trailing Labor in almost every poll from 2016-2019, Shorten lost most head-to-head polling match-ups on the best PM question with Scott Morrison. That's why the Coalition victory should not have come as a surprise. It's early days, but Albanese's numbers seem to have risen. If they stay high, and if he keeps winning head-to-head matchups against Morrison or whoever else the coalition puts up, then the Coalition will be defeated in the next election. One thing Albanese needs to do is put forward a clear and consistent climate change plan. That was one thing that sank his predecessor Bill Shorten. Shorten, among other problems, didn't take a clear position on the Adani coal mine, and that hurt him. It's one of those issues where there is no middle ground. It either goes through or it doesn't, and people will be angry about it either way.

Sean in Ottawa

jerrym wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

jerrym wrote:

In a poll released today, Scott Morrison has "suffered a massive hit to his personal approval rating and been overtaken as preferred prime minister by Anthony Albanese in the first published opinion poll of 2020." However, the margin between Labour and the Liberals is very close suggesting the the Liberals may be tempted to change leaders before an election. 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/13/scott-morrison-su...

The more shocking thing is that they are close even with all that is going on. The Liberal party ought to be in single digits and they are not. This is a sad reflection that even as the consequences of climate change become painfully clear the politics of denial is still extremly strong.

The following article provides an explanation of why, despite the catastrophic damange done by climate-change induced wildfires and drought many Australians remain in denial. 

Even as Australia burns, its voters may not take the plunge into meaningful collective action to fight climate change. And here’s why: out there be dragons. Thirty-six of them, by the count of Robert Gifford, a psychology professor at the University of Victoria in British Columbia. These are the psychological hangups that haunt humans and stymie efforts to deal with the global climate crisis. “Dragons of inaction,” Gifford calls them, and they are formidable. ...

“The dragons of inaction are the reasons or justifications or excuses that people use between either having a good intention to do something and then not doing it or simply using that as an excuse to not be concerned or not take action,” he explained.

The most fearsome of these dragons include a perceived lack of control, the influence of social norms and the difficulty of habit-breaking, conflict with seemingly more pressing needs and wants as well as attachment to a conservative political ideology. Others include putting inordinate faith in technological salvation, growing numb to dire warnings, the perceived inequity of taking action when others might not and mistrust of government and other authority figures. Humans are also prone to discount risks that seem far off into the future or far away from one’s immediate surroundings, Gifford said, and seek to justify the way things are if they expect change to involve personal sacrifice. 

“We call that system justification,” Gifford said. (The full list of his dragons can be found here.) ...

But Australians have long battled dry conditions and seasonal fires, making it more difficult for the human brain to draw the complicated connection to global warming that is making such events more frequent and more intense.

“The challenge we have is it is an exaggeration of weather patterns for which people are already socially adapted,” said George Marshall, co-founder of Climate Outreach, which advises governments across the world on how to communicate their climate change strategies and also the author of the book Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change.

Australia’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, has played up this argument and downplayed the connection to the policies of his Liberal government (the main conservative party in Australian politics). His actions include cheering the expansion of the country’s coal industry and scrapping the previous Labor government’s short-lived carbon tax. Both of these measures encourage more pollution and increase global warming, in turn making Australia’s fires worse.

But people tend to gravitate toward simple explanations, Marshall said, which helps explain the spread of a discredited notion that hundreds of arsonists are to blame. (In fact, police in New South Wales said just 24 people had been charged with deliberately lighting fires since November, while there are more than 150 blazes currently raging in that state.) “The most compelling narratives for us are the ones that have clearly defined enemies and victims,” said Marshall, who is also the author of the book Carbon Detox.

He said the fires, which are most explicitly threatening rural, conservative parts of the country, could send the country down one of two paths. On the one hand, they could spark serious conversations within those communities about the need to deal with climate change, which would in turn force the Liberals to react and adapt. But they could also exacerbate social tensions in a country where voters have entrenched and polarized views.

“You might find a situation where left-wing people in Melbourne become very, very agitated, but someone like a sugar-cane grower in Queensland doesn’t shift at all,” he said. “If you're somebody whose house has burned down or whose farm has lost all its livestock, and you felt that you were really in the middle of it and traumatized by the experience, you're not going to welcome a bunch of cappuccino drinkers in Melbourne going on a march.”

Humans are adept at using motivated reasoning and other mind tricks to seek out information that confirms our own opinions while ignoring or downplaying those that challenge them, political scientists say. So even as some Australians had to plunge into the ocean to avoid the flames and smoke, human psychology offers those predisposed to ignoring climate change plenty of encouragement to look away.

“Many people would like to think that stronger climate signals are going to change people's perceptions and further engage them in climate change,” Erick Lachapelle said. The political scientist at Université de Montréal has polled Canadians extensively on the topic. “But the reality is that people interpret climate signals through their pre-existing beliefs and worldviews.”

That is, instead of extreme weather shaping opinions, opinions shape how extreme weather is interpreted. “If you're more individualist, materialist, conservative, then acknowledging climate change challenges your worldview because it requires you to rethink your assumptions about the role of the free market and government intervention,” he said.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/01/08/analysis/humans-wrestle-drag...

Very iunteresting -- thanks. Much applies to the issue glabally and generally rather than just Australia

jerrym

Aristotleded24 wrote:

jerrym wrote:

The following article provides an explanation of why, despite the catastrophic damange done by climate-change induced wildfires and drought many Australians remain in denial. 

Even as Australia burns, its voters may not take the plunge into meaningful collective action to fight climate change. And here’s why: out there be dragons. Thirty-six of them, by the count of Robert Gifford, a psychology professor at the University of Victoria in British Columbia. These are the psychological hangups that haunt humans and stymie efforts to deal with the global climate crisis. “Dragons of inaction,” Gifford calls them, and they are formidable. ...

“The dragons of inaction are the reasons or justifications or excuses that people use between either having a good intention to do something and then not doing it or simply using that as an excuse to not be concerned or not take action,” he explained.

The most fearsome of these dragons include a perceived lack of control, the influence of social norms and the difficulty of habit-breaking, conflict with seemingly more pressing needs and wants as well as attachment to a conservative political ideology. Others include putting inordinate faith in technological salvation, growing numb to dire warnings, the perceived inequity of taking action when others might not and mistrust of government and other authority figures. Humans are also prone to discount risks that seem far off into the future or far away from one’s immediate surroundings, Gifford said, and seek to justify the way things are if they expect change to involve personal sacrifice. 

“We call that system justification,” Gifford said. (The full list of his dragons can be found here.) ...

But Australians have long battled dry conditions and seasonal fires, making it more difficult for the human brain to draw the complicated connection to global warming that is making such events more frequent and more intense.

“The challenge we have is it is an exaggeration of weather patterns for which people are already socially adapted,” said George Marshall, co-founder of Climate Outreach, which advises governments across the world on how to communicate their climate change strategies and also the author of the book Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change.

Australia’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, has played up this argument and downplayed the connection to the policies of his Liberal government (the main conservative party in Australian politics). His actions include cheering the expansion of the country’s coal industry and scrapping the previous Labor government’s short-lived carbon tax. Both of these measures encourage more pollution and increase global warming, in turn making Australia’s fires worse.

But people tend to gravitate toward simple explanations, Marshall said, which helps explain the spread of a discredited notion that hundreds of arsonists are to blame. (In fact, police in New South Wales said just 24 people had been charged with deliberately lighting fires since November, while there are more than 150 blazes currently raging in that state.) “The most compelling narratives for us are the ones that have clearly defined enemies and victims,” said Marshall, who is also the author of the book Carbon Detox.

He said the fires, which are most explicitly threatening rural, conservative parts of the country, could send the country down one of two paths. On the one hand, they could spark serious conversations within those communities about the need to deal with climate change, which would in turn force the Liberals to react and adapt. But they could also exacerbate social tensions in a country where voters have entrenched and polarized views.

“You might find a situation where left-wing people in Melbourne become very, very agitated, but someone like a sugar-cane grower in Queensland doesn’t shift at all,” he said. “If you're somebody whose house has burned down or whose farm has lost all its livestock, and you felt that you were really in the middle of it and traumatized by the experience, you're not going to welcome a bunch of cappuccino drinkers in Melbourne going on a march.”

Humans are adept at using motivated reasoning and other mind tricks to seek out information that confirms our own opinions while ignoring or downplaying those that challenge them, political scientists say. So even as some Australians had to plunge into the ocean to avoid the flames and smoke, human psychology offers those predisposed to ignoring climate change plenty of encouragement to look away.

“Many people would like to think that stronger climate signals are going to change people's perceptions and further engage them in climate change,” Erick Lachapelle said. The political scientist at Université de Montréal has polled Canadians extensively on the topic. “But the reality is that people interpret climate signals through their pre-existing beliefs and worldviews.”

That is, instead of extreme weather shaping opinions, opinions shape how extreme weather is interpreted. “If you're more individualist, materialist, conservative, then acknowledging climate change challenges your worldview because it requires you to rethink your assumptions about the role of the free market and government intervention,” he said.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/01/08/analysis/humans-wrestle-drag...

It's great do know the challenges in raising awareness and acting on climate change. Has anybody figured out how we actually get past that and convince people to act? Without that part of it, it all seems pretty pointless if we can't convinve anybody what needs to be done.

I don't have a silver bullet answer. However, if a 15 year old selectively mute, autistic girl suffering from depression over climate change can decide to try to protest global government and corporate inaction on climate change by protesting alone in front of her Parliament, rallying millions to demand change around the world, then I am willing to keep up the fight. 

Youth have pushed adults to take this issue more seriously. In some cases, they have caused their climate change resistant parents to re-examine their values and change them. 

Research shows that people are more likely to change their opinions when arguments are presented by those whose general belief systems are similar to their own and who are attractive (the later is truly superficial, I know, but it seems to affect others). There are some conservatives and evangelicals who do believe climate change is at a crisis level, so recruiting them to persuade others with similar beliefs could help. 

I once had to recruit new members for an organization that was literally starting to die out because it was perceived as not having accomplished much in recent years. I found that simply listening to their specific concerns, which varied enormously from individal to individual, and trying to address specifically them helped. Of course, there were many times it didn't worked, but as I succeeded to some extent it helped me win over others and helped get new recruiters. In two years the membership doubled from 2,000 to 4,000. 

Nothing I have said offers any guarantee of success in getting people to recognize the global warming crisis we are facing and I am sure others have much better ideas of how to tackle changing people's minds. The only guarantee that I can offer is that giving up trying will guarantee the crisis will be the greatest in human history. 

Here is some research on this topic: 

Research has demonstrated that the same message will be more effective if is delivered by a more persuasive communicator. In general, we can say that communicators are more effective when they help their recipients feel good about themselves—that is, by appealing to self-concern. For instance, attractive communicators are frequently more effective persuaders than are unattractive communicators. Attractive communicators create a positive association with the product they are trying to sell and put us in a good mood, which makes us more likely to accept their messages. And as the many marketers who include free gifts, such as mailing labels or small toys, in their requests for charitable donations well know, we are more likely to respond to communicators who offer us something personally beneficial.

We’re also more persuaded by people who are similar to us in terms of opinions and values than by those whom we perceive as being different. This is of course why advertisements targeted at teenagers frequently use teenagers to present the message, and why advertisements targeted at the elderly use older communicators.

When communicators are perceived as attractive and similar to us, we tend to like them. And we also tend to trust the people that we like. The success of Tupperware parties, in which friends get together to buy products from other friends, may be due more to the fact that people like the “salesperson” than to the nature of the product. ... 

https://opentextbc.ca/socialpsychology/chapter/changing-attitudes-throug...

“The brain’s primary responsibility is to take care of the body, to protect the body,” Jonas Kaplan, a psychologist at the University of Southern California, tells me. “The psychological self is the brain’s extension of that. When our self feels attacked, our [brain is] going to bring to bear the same defenses that it has for protecting the body.” ...

But these results are an intriguing step: The brain processes politically charged information (or information about strongly held beliefs) differently (and perhaps with more emotion) than it processes more mundane facts. It can help explain why attempts to correct misinformation can backfire completely, leaving people more convinced of their convictions.

The results also jibe with some of Kaplan and Harris’s past work on religious beliefs. “When we compared evaluating religious statements to nonreligious statements, we [found] some of the same brain regions that are active in the current study,” Kaplan said. Which makes sense, because religious beliefs also factor into our identities.

What the new study definitely doesn’t show is that “political beliefs are hardwired,” Kaplan says. We can change our minds. Reflecting on his work and his own experience, Kaplan says a good way to make facts matter is to remind people that who they are and what they believe are two separate things.

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/28/14088992/brain-study-c...

jerrym

Biologists have estimated that between 500,000,000 and one billion mammals, birds, and reptiles have been killed during the Australian wildfire. If Australian animals had the vote the first law they would pass is one on animalcide, modelled on genocide legislation. Their first indictment, although certainly far from the only one, would be against Prime Minister Scott Morrison.

iyraste1313

The consequences of these cold water displacements? They “force atmospheric movements”, summarizes Etienne Kapikian. On the African coast, this unusual mass of warm water favors rising thermal surpluses, and at the same time causes a strong rainy activity, even cyclonic. In early December 2019, the entire Horn of Africa to the north of the island of Madagascar was affected by rainfall more than 200% above normal in this season. At least 120 people have been killed in Kenya in the floods.....

another corroboration of the shifting magnetic pole, shifting climate theory

Pages