More science - consider the Muon

My favourite particle: the muon | Mark Lancaster | Science | theguardian.com

 Most cloud chamber trails are caused by muons, a particle about which I had stored next to nothing in the cranial memory banks.

The article linked above is a really good summary of the history of their discovery, along with some background as to what they are.  Well worth reading.  A sample:

There are several hundred muons going through your head every second
minute. Fortunately, their low energies (and high mass) mean they are
harmless. These muons originate from the collisions of cosmic-rays
(primarily protons spewed out by stars) with the atoms in our upper
atmosphere. After their discovery it was observed that the number of
these muons decreased as you got closer to the earth and the natural
(and correct) conclusion was that they were not stable particles like
the electron but a bit fly-by-night (and day), and they decayed to other
more familiar particles (electrons and neutrinos) in about 2 millionths
of a second. At this point it was known what the mass of the electron
was and neutrinos were assumed massless, so by looking at the trajectory
and energy of the electron from the muon decay (or measuring the time
it took for the muon to decay) it became clear the the muon was a bit of
a porker. It weighed in at about 200 times the mass of the electron.

If you want maths with that, you can have a look at this article, which works through the question of why we see so many on Earth's surface if they decay so fast.  The answer is relativity:

The measurement of the flux of muons at the Earth's surface produced an early dilemma because many more are detected than would be expected, based on their short half-life of 1.56 microseconds. This is a good example of the application of relativistic time dilation to explain the increased particle range for high-speed particles.

Fascinating, hey?

Budget chickens home to roost

Some of the more interesting points from recent budget stories:

*  Lenore Taylor makes it clear that Tony Abbott does not understand his own budget.  Peta Credlin's crib sheet must have been a bit too simplified for its own good.

*  Pollbludger does a good summary of the dire polling for Abbott today in Newspoll and Nielsen.  I was particularly interested to note this (from Nielsen):

The deficit levy finds support, with 50% in favour and 37% against, but there’s a surprisingly narrow majority of 49% to 46% in favour of abolishing the carbon tax. The poll finds predictably strong opposition to the notion of increasing the GST, with 30% for and 66% against.

I think this indicates that it's plausible for Labor to argue that it is better to keep its carbon pricing scheme than to kick lower income people in the shins.  They should push this line hard.

As for the "deficit levy":   I think it would be more popular if it kicked in at a lower level.

*  Andrew Bolt has been frequently criticising the media for its "spiteful" attacks on Joe Hockey (he smokes cigars; his wife wears expenses dresses) but I do believe he was unable to bring himself to criticise Sinclair Davidson for running a "smoking Joe" banner at Catallaxy for a few days.   The handholding power of the IPA has created a strong bond, obviously.

*  Tony Windsor tweeted yesterday:

If you watched #insiders today you would have received a sense of why it would have been difficult to choose him as PM in Hung Parliament

Yes, hard to argue that Windsor's sense of not being able to trust Abbott is vindicated.

* There has been little attention given to this appalling example of twisted priorities - a Human Rights Commissioner is to be dropped, following the appointment of a new one (the "photograph me, please!" boy, Tim Wilson) as some sort of sop to the Andrew Bolt Right wing fanclub.  The problem is, the next Commissioner due to expire is the one for Disability, meaning that this role will be shared by someone else there.

Adam Creighton, the small government, anti tax favoured journalist of the Australian, got hit about the head something severe when trying to argue this was "no big deal" on The Drum last week.  Here it is, from the 15 minute mark. 

*  Speaking of Creighton, he's an utter lightweight, ideologically driven twit, as far as I'm concerned.  Here's how he ended his first column on the budget last week:

The Coalition’s budgets will only prove profound to the extent they kindle a conversation about the dysfunctional federation that leads to serious reform. It is, as Tony Abbott has written, the biggest problem facing Australia, not only because of the duplication in costs but the damage it does to political incentives.

The political benefit from spending more taxpayers’ money must be offset by the political pain of lifting taxes.

The states could, for instance, levy a uniform tax on land to raise whatever amount they wanted to spend on hospitals or schools. Of course, the more palatable option might be to run their own creaking, Soviet-style health and education systems more efficiently.

Yeah, Adam: it's like no one has been talking about maximising efficiencies in the State systems for the last 30 years, hey?  What evidence you got, mate, that the States are running "Soviet style"  health and education systems?  Idiot. 

Science Day Report

As I foreshadowed here late last week, I announced to the household on Friday night that I had declared that Saturday would be Science Day, and tried (with very limited success) to muster excitement about making a cloud chamber, crushing cans with air pressure, and (possibly) a secret evening fire act.  

So, how did it go?  Not too bad, really.  I can report as follows:

1.  Building a  mini cloud chamber:   I tried two containers, one an old round (and small) gold fish bowl, and the other a plastic container.  The design problem was how to seal the bottom.  I used plasticine like on one of the Youtube videos I had watched, but it doesn't seal so well when it is attached to a dry ice cooled metal plate.   It seemed that I could only get the right supersaturated (with isopropanol) layer to be just above the plate (perhaps less than a centimetre high) so that did limit the amount and length of trails you could see.  But yes! - we did watch vapour trails and I tried to explain about muons and cosmic rays and fusion in stars and stuff like that, to some glazed face reactions. I think I am going to have to make my own slideshow presentation about this and force them to watch it.  ("There will be a test afterwards", I like to keep threatening my kids after I try to explain something.  I actually did administer a written test once after the visit to the Macarthur Museum in Brisbane.)

I'm also happy to confirm that isopropanol is sold at Bunnings and costs about $8.  A kilo of dry ice was $10, and the plasticene $2.50. I think it is very cool that for $20 I was able to demonstrate at home  the invisible rain of muons and other particles.  The only trick is convincing children how impressive that is - a task that is beyond mere science!

I took a video of the second container, which did not work very well compared to the first, but you can see one little vapour trail.  Will post it tomorrow.

Update:



 2.  Crushing a beer can with air pressure.  There are many Youtube videos showing this,and it does work as advertised and makes a somewhat surprising crunch.  Everyone should try it.   We also did an olive oil can, but the seal wasn't perfect and while it did crush, it was less satisfying.

3.   Fun with CO2.  We had lots of dry ice left, and so did the usual bubbling water, but also put out flames by pouring it over the candle, etc.  But the trick that most impressed the household was floating soap bubbles on it. It does look odd:



4.  Firebreathing with cornflower.  Works well, and that was just using a couple of bar b que matches to light it.   I secretly showed one child, then the other, and then decided I would risk matrimonial disapproval and showed all three together.  She was OK with it, thankfully.

Here's the video, edited to remove me:

 

So, success all round, pretty much.  I'm available for parties for nerdy kids, you know. 

Gerard's "carbon pricing" jihad

The increasingly tedious Gerard Henderson has taken to task journalists who have written or said that Julia Gillard qualified her "no carbon tax" promise by saying she would put a price on carbon.  "Prove it!" he says, "she never did".

Curiously, there is a post by Brian on the old Larvatus Prodeo blog (which, in truth, was often nearly as boring and tedious to read as Henderson) which deals with this very same issue, and concludes that there are claims she specifically said she would "price carbon" on a Channel 7 video, but the station claimed copyright and the video is nowhere available.

Brian is somewhat skeptical of that, and concludes "we just don't know".

But read on.   In the comments to Brian's post, Jules usefully points out that the debate seems rather academic when you note that someone at The Australian thought that Gillard had not ruled out "pricing" carbon, because the election eve report on her interview with Paul Kelly  reads:

Julia Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term.

This was their reading of her statement to Kelly:  "I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism. I rule out a carbon tax."

I wouldn't mind betting here that Gerard Henderson has not understood that an Emissions Trading Scheme is a way of pricing carbon.  

The Australian understood Gillard's promise to mean she could still legislate an ETS, and that this would involve a "carbon price".   Why has Gerard not got his y fronts in a tangle about how The Australian reported this?

As for Gillard's support for carbon pricing, from her first speech as PM in Parliament:

I believe human beings contribute to climate change and it is most disappointing to me, as it is to millions of Australians, that we do not have a price on carbon, and in the future we will need one. If elected as Prime Minister, I will re-prosecute the case for a carbon price at home and abroad.

Of course you can argue that she she broke a promise by introducing her scheme during her term of government before getting the silly "community consensus"; but it remains abundantly clear that she never ruled out "pricing carbon", and personally had always supported it.

She had much more consistency on this and other issues than the flaky professional windvane of a Prime Minister we presently have.

Australia Network stupidity

The Abbott government's decision to shut down the Australia Network is looking more and more like the triumph of petty, personal politics over good sense:

May should have been a milestone month for Australian international broadcasting, and arguably the most celebratory in the 13-year history of the Australia Network. ABC executives were due to sign a prized deal with the Shanghai Media Group, giving the ABC the most extensive access to Chinese audiences of any Western broadcaster, with a more expansive reach even than the BBC or CNN. 'Most importantly, the agreement will provide opportunities for promotion of Australian business, tourism, entertainment, culture and education', said Lynley Marshall, the chief executive of ABC International.

Instead, the DFAT-funded network is to be shut down. On the eve of its greatest triumph, the Australia Network has been told it can no longer compete.

In an ever more cutthroat field of international broadcasters that includes the BBC, CCTV, RT, Deutsche Welle, France 24, Iran's Press TV and al-Jazeera, the Australia Network had been making major strides. The Shanghai Media Group deal meant Australia was about to join the UK and US as the only countries with broadcasting rights in China.

Has anyone suggested this?

An article in the SMH argues that increasing the pension age to 70 is the fair thing to do, but gives short shrift to the question everyone asks - "what about manual workers who really can't be expected to cope with their line of work to that age?"  (The writer mentions that in Greece there used to be a large number of job categories allowing for very early retirement - down to 50!  But that approach seems bound to be open to all sorts of rorting.)

And I thought - isn't it possible to craft some sort of solution that involves an elective part pension (one half the normal rate, perhaps?) if you want to take it at 65, or perhaps 67 now that the decision to go to that age has already been made?   Maybe the argument against that is that it would encourage people to blow all their savings and superannuation early, and then maximise their government pension later.  But surely there would be some ways of giving incentives not to do that?  Maybe get a permanently lower pension if you take it earlier rather than later?   Get greater concessions in other ways if you hold off starting the pension until 70?  Maybe a free travel voucher for a $5000 holiday at 70 would be enough for some, and it could save the Commonwealth $60,000 between 67 and 70.  (Voucher only redeemable using Qantas would help that company too.)  Don't say I'm not giving this some deep and meaningful thought...

Yes, it may be extremely hard to live on half (or 3/4?) the current pension, but if it is limited to a few years before you go on the full rate, savings and family help (and a very short reverse mortgage?) may be able to help.

Someone's probably already thought about this, but if not, I claim credit.

Rundle on the budget

I quite like Guy Rundle's Crikey column on the Budget, although I think it goes off the rails on the Labor despair aspect at the end.  (He clearly wrote it before last night's Shorten speech, which I expect has left the party feeling the best about itself since about 2006.)   But from the first page, here's his key point, which I think even some of the Catallaxy group of economists might agree with:

For the weird thing about this budget is that it seems punitive to no great purpose. Howard and Costello did a lot of their cutting in the background — either programs which were amorphous but vital (such as R&D) or hidden from most but vital (such as indigenous health), while leaving the front end alone. This budget appears to go out of its way to hurt and affront people, without using the money to make any significant dent in the debt. Its significant frontline savings features seem designed to shape politically engaged sub-classes where none existed before.

Prime Minister Credlin has spoken

Don’t dismiss the double dissolution theatrics

According to Laura Tingle, Abbott's talk of double dissolution over the budget shouldn't be dismissed:

Coalition staffers may have been gobsmacked to hear Abbott’s chief of staff Peta Credlin declare that this was a budget she would take to an election. But this is really just the first shot across the bow of the Palmer juggernaut.

I plan on watching subatomic particles

Inspired by the segment in his show where Brian Cox made his own little cloud chamber out in the African bush,  I've checked out instructions on several web sites about how to make them, and want to make one this weekend.  I know where I can get dry ice not far from my home.  Not sure about the isopropanol of strong enough solution*, but I am inclined to try Isocol rubbing alcohol first even though it is only 64%.  (They recommend using 90% concentration if you can get it.)

I also have a large empty olive can which I want to use boil water, seal and pour cold water onto it.  (Actually, just doing it this way with an aluminium can looks pretty impressive too.)

For the evening, I might even try cornflower firebreathing.  

Yes, it is a weekend of science coming up.  It's a good thing I have children to do this with, otherwise my wife would think I am rather odd.  (Too late to worry about that, perhaps.)

* Update:  it looks like I can get a small bottle from Bunnings. 

A serious African problem

"Homophobia" gets thrown around as an accusation too lightly in the West, but when it comes to Africa, it seems to be increasingly becoming an entirely appropriate description for many of its governments and religious.

This article in Nature News  Homophobia and HIV research: Under siege paints a really bleak picture of what's going on, and not just in Uganda, which recently brought in severe punishments for homosexual activity.  For example:

On the morning of Saturday 12 April, ten police officers raided Maaygo, a men's health and HIV/AIDS advocacy organization in a residential area of Kisumu in western Kenya. Staff watched helplessly as the officers confiscated information leaflets and even the model penis used in condom demonstrations. The police arrested the organization's director and finance officer, as well as one of its members, for “illegally practising sexual orientation information”.

Another bad example:

Similar problems are plaguing research in Ethiopia, where same-sex encounters are punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Researchers are kept from studying MSM and HIV by the Ethiopian Public Health Institute, which must approve medical research in the country.

A programme run by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Ethiopian Public Health Association managed to pass the screening process in 2011 because it used terms such as 'most at-risk populations' rather than MSM or gay, says an Ethiopian advocate for gay and transgender health and human rights, who lives in exile in the United States and asked not to be named because of concerns about the safety of his family and friends. Once the government found out that the project would target MSM and related groups, the research was stopped, he says.

And how about this story from 2010 (even though the article says the situation in that town has improved a lot since then):

The trouble at Mtwapa centred on an HIV clinic run by the Kenyan Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), which conducted risk-group studies at the facility. On 12 February 2010, a mob of several hundred people charged the clinic, incited by two religious leaders — a Christian bishop and a Muslim imam.

The riot was based on misinformation. “It started with a rumour that two gay men were
getting married in the town,” says Eduard Sanders, an epidemiologist with the University of Oxford, UK, who has studied MSM in Mtwapa since 2005, and who witnessed the riot. “But when the mob couldn't find any hint of the wedding, it descended on the clinic because of its well-known research on MSM.”

Armed with sticks, stones and other weapons, the crowd surrounded the clinic,
demanding that the gay men come out. Police arrested people accused of being gay — possibly as a way of saving them from mob justice — and later released them. One KEMRI volunteer was severely beaten, according to the international group Human Rights Watch.

An article in The Guardian in January discussed Africa as being the most homophobic continent, which doesn't seem to be an exaggeration.  It opens with a quote from the Ugandan "ethics and integrity" minister.  He clearly would not appreciate that gay NFL player's kiss that was all over the internet this week:

Simon Lokodo cannot imagine kissing a man. "I think I shall die," he said last week.
"I would not exist. It is inhuman. I would be mad. Just imagine eating your faeces."

Chill, Simon.  Chill.  

Even South Africa, with strong legal recognition of homosexuality (same sex marriage has been in place since 2006), still seems to have a serious problem.  This study, which looked at "internalised homophobia" amongst men who had sex with men, notes at the end that such men are widely considered "un-African" and even amongst sexual health clinic workers are often considered to have caught HIV as God's punishment.

Although it seems there are plenty of left leaning gay rights advocates who blame this on colonialism and the imposition of Christian (or now, Muslim) mores on Africans who were formerly not so hung up about sex, I'm guessing that it would often have a cultural element too, quite independent of that.

In any event, it is obviously extreme, and to be regretted.

A strong budget reply

Bill Shorten and his enthusiastic cheer squad in the gallery certainly delivered impassioned and (pretty much) principled opposition to the Abbott budget.  Labor should be feeling justifiably heartened, and the government looked pained and uncomfortable.

I'm sure everyone with an interest in politics can't wait for some reliable polling to appear after this week.

Over him

It seems to me that trendoids have lost interest in Chris Lilley, as I haven't noticed much prominence being given to discussion of Jonah from Tonga on the usual suspects, like The Guardian. 

I've always been something of a Lilley skeptic - for every character that works there is one that doesn't, and his satirical targeting is often of very unclear purpose.   I see that News Corp is running a story about the Pacific Islander community backlash against the show.  I'm glad that's happening.  As far as I can tell, it's pretty insulting towards them.

Solar wind and lightning

High-speed solar winds increase lightning strikes on Earth

This interesting report begins:

Scientists have discovered new evidence to suggest that lightning on Earth is triggered
not only by cosmic rays from space, but also by energetic particles from the Sun.

Somewhat interesting to think that for religions which thought the Sun was a god, and lightning his or her vengeance, may have been a bit closer to the mark than previously expected. 

The unimpressive Hockey, and university policy from out of the blue

I'm starting to get the feeling that Joe Hockey has been rehearsing and retelling the line that the government hasn't broken promises that he's starting to believe it;  a sad example of the psychological trick of pretending a lie is the truth for long enough that you start to believe it.

He gave a woeful interview on the radio just now in which he tried to pretend the GP co-payment idea was an example of extra funding needed for health.  His problem is, of course, that it is destined for this medical research fund instead, so he had to pretend that it really does fund health because it may find a cure for cancer!

He also will not be honest and say flat out what everyone knows - he expects the States to ask for GST to be increased if they are to be the ones holding the can for long term hospital funding.

In other Budget commentary, I note that on The Drum last night, Judith Sloan made brief mention of the Budget being "really mean" towards "youth" - which is up to the age of 30.

This aspect of the Budget is (so far) attracting less attention than I expected.   I am rather surprised that Shorten and Labor have not yet come and condemned that change already as clearly too draconian and must be modified.

I was also listening to Christopher Pyne on the university deregulation idea.  He seems to think the youth will like it because they can go get a diploma easier which will then the basis for entry to an undergraduate course.  Just rather sounds like adding a rather unnecessary step if you ask me - at greater expense.

These changes seem to have come pretty much out of the blue, and have serious long term effects on students.   If he can come within 1 km of a university gate without risking getting egged, I'll be surprised.

I will also be very surprised if the youth vote does not collapse entirely for the Coalition.

Update:    thought I would see if I could quickly Google up the Coalition's election 2013 policies on tertiary education.  Here it is:

•We will ensure the continuation of the current arrangements of university funding.

•We will work with the sector to reduce the burden of red tape, regulation and reporting,freeing up the sector to concentrate on delivering results and services.

•We will review and restructure government research funding to make sure each dollar is spent as effectively as possible.

•We will ensure the sector has a stable, long-term source of infrastructure funding.

•We will work with the sector to grow higher education as an export industry and to support international students studying in Australia.

 Yep, nothing in there about doubling the cost of a university degree.  As one Professor from UQ says:

The 2014 budget is taking the higher education sector into uncharted territory. One imagines that a deregulated market for university fees cannot be good for students from lower socio-economic backgrounds but, as Bruce Chapman says, no-one really knows what the social effects of this will be. It is certainly true, however, that this will bring us much closer to a privatised higher education sector where those with the greatest ability to pay will receive the greatest benefit. It would be surprising if there was not a serious political objection to the implications of this initiative; there is every reason to see it as a measure which will increase inequities of opportunity.

Update:   Go back further to 2012, in an article in The Age, and you get Christopher Pyne claiming this:

Opposition education spokesman Christopher Pyne said reports the Coalition was considering raising fees were "wrong".
"While we welcome debate over the quality and standards in our universities, we have no plans to increase fees or cap places," Mr Pyne said.
But Mr Pyne's spokesman declined to comment on whether the party had plans to deregulate the capped fees universities can charge for courses.
"Our higher education policy will be released at the appropriate time before the next election," he said.

I don't believe it was.

Someone who thinks Abbott is toast

Adieu Mr Abbott! 10 super ways to lose the next election - SuperGuide.com.au

I don't know who Trish Power is, but Mr Denmore reckons she knows a lot about retirees' sentiments, so her views on  Abbott being toast may be worth listening to.  (In fact I was talking to a financial adviser this morning who also said there are changes that haven't been fully understood by most retirees yet that are going to be very unpopular.)  

Measuring neutron life

Neutron death mystery has physicists stymied : Nature News & Comment

As if on TV

Hotel guest thought drowning couple were part of murder mystery prank, inquest told - Telegraph

An unfortunate assumption made by a hotel guest, but given the "murder mystery" weekend, perhaps not unreasonable.

What really strikes me is that the whole incident sounds so unlikely - rather like something you might see on Jonathan Creek, or some such.

Priorities wrong and petty (and - again - Abbott is a complete policy flake)

Again, I find myself pretty much in agreement with Bernard Keane's take on the Budget.

The Budget represents a re-arrangement of priorities which end up doing nothing much different in terms of getting to balanced budget any faster than Labor could have.

What few deserved things it does achieve in terms of welfare and revenue reform (regarding the indexing of pensions, for example, and indexing petrol excise) are outweighed by some clearly undeserved hits on the poor, youth in search of education, science, clean energy, health and public broadcasting; a lifting of existing taxes on many companies, and giving city road construction priority (with no real assessment as to which projects are most economically deserved) over public transport.

It is, in fact, when you look at that list, a right wing ideologically driven set of priorities which is  stuck in the past.  And no, an increase in tax on the relatively comfortable wage earners does not make it alright.  I am also not so impressed with the medical research fund, when there is evidence that even a modest co-payment will make the poor get treatment at less than optimum times for some conditions, as well as cost shift to State run hospital outpatients departments who are having their funding cut by the Commonwealth as well.   Medical research should always be funded at some level, but not at the expense of existing good use of money for treating the presently ill.

Have a look at what St Vincent de Paul says about the budget (he's livid):

ST Vincent de Paul Society Chief Executive, Dr John Falzon, says this Budget is deeply offensive to the people for whom every day is already a battle.

"The government would like us to believe that this Budget is tough but fair but for the people who struggle to make ends meet it can only be described as being tough but cruel.

"There are measures in this Budget that rip the guts out of what remains of a fair and egalitarian Australia.These measures will not help people into jobs but they will force people into deeper poverty.

"You don't help young people or older people or people with a disability or single mums into jobs by making them poor. You don't build people up by putting them down.

"And as even the OECD acknowledges, you don't build a strong economy by increasing the level of inequality.You don't create a strong country on the backs of the already poor.

"There's nothing human or humane about humiliating people because they are outside the labour market or on its low-paid fringes. There's nothing smart about making it unaffordable for people to see a doctor.

"We are not in the throes of a fiscal crisis but if we embark on this treacherous path of US-style austerity we will be staring down the barrel of a social crisis."

Let us remember - it's only a couple of years ago that even Judith Sloan was suggesting that Newstart should be increased, using words Falzon would endorse:

If we are to expect the unemployed to search for employment with confidence, there is no point pushing them into grinding poverty.  

The Abbott government is not even following her advice, then.  Not Tea Party enough?

And as for Abbott being a complete and utter policy flake:  I was reminded on Radio National this morning that under Howard, Health Minister Abbott was pushing hard for the Commonwealth to take over all funding for State hospitals.   Now it's "well, it's up to you States", with the pretty obvious agenda that this will mean the States beg for GST to be increased.  OK, so I have said before GST almost certainly needs to be increased, but that doesn't mean that I have to be happy about the crappy tactics that Abbott engages in to get there.

I expect the budget (and the government generally) to be deeply unpopular with youth, especially when you have Christopher Pyne as education minister developing a sudden interest in changing universities.   But it will also not be popular with their parents, or pensioners, drivers, welfare workers, hospital staff, CSIRO scientists, the Catholic Church, or (of course) Canberra real estate agents.  On the other hand, I expect miners, banks and road construction companies will be quite OK with it.

I wonder if we can have a double dissolution by virtue of Clive Palmer?

Update:  Lenore Taylor on the "sharing the burden" line:

First, the pain is not really shared, not in the long term anyway. We are not actually all schlepping this economic burden in equal measure, no matter what the sound grabs say.

A young person who can’t get a job will no longer get any unemployment benefits for six months and will still have to pay $7 to go to a doctor and an extra $5 for medicine. That’s pretty painful.

A single income family on $110,000 with a couple of school aged kids will from next year lose more than $120 a week in family payments, more than 5% of their current income. There may be good reasons to try to encourage the stay at home parent into the workforce, but that kind of cut also has to count as painful.

But a backbench MP, by contrast, earning $200,000, would pay $400 extra year because of the deficit levy, or 0.2% of their annual income. Even with a few $7 hits as they visit the doctor, that’s not much more than a graze. And the government is promising the levy will be gone in three years anyway.

By contrast the freezing of the rate of thresholds for a whole range of government benefits has a compounding impact over time.

Second, the proceeds of the “pain” are not entirely directed at budget repair. They go to roads funding and the new medical research fund and the new emissions reduction fund.

My prediction for the effect of the Budget on the youth vote

Before the budget*:

Post budget**:

*  Graph from the Whitlam Institute.  I am surprised the 18-34 year old voting intention result has been as high as it is for the Coalition recently, to be honest.

** Coalition vote to be even lower if Rupert gets Alzheimers and makes Catherine Deveny editor of the Australian and Daily Tele.

An effect of white hair

I see that the climate change skeptics/deniers/do-nothing-even-if-it's-happening proponents are celebrating some alleged abandonment of climate science by a Swedish "famous scientist" who has worked a lot in meteorology.   Lennart Bengtsson is his name, and he's clearly not so famous that I recognised who he was.

Anyhow, the excitement is over his joining the "Global Warming Policy Foundation",  a British rogue's gallery of "skepticism."

As a rule of thumb, I find the first thing to check in these stories of (alleged) scientific "conversions" against the climate change consensus is the age of the scientist involved.   There is no doubt at all that the climate change skeptic field is heavily weighed down by white, male hair.   Someone ought to actually work out the mean age of those scientists prominent in that movement - but you really just have to have seen the photos.  Lindzen, Spencer, Carter, Plimer, Dyson, Happer, Paltridge.   All past their prime.  (Actually, I think Spencer might just have prematurely white hair - it looks like he finished his science degree in the 1970's.  But he's become silly and shrill on his blog lately because no one is listening to him.)

Even James Lovelock - he went all apocalyptic about climate change a book or two ago in a way that most climate scientists thought was just a wee bit hysterical, only to now, at the age of 94, to be sounding all "well, we don't really know what's going on after all" in his latest.   As George Monbiot noted, he's also picked up credulously other anti-environmental furphies like the one about (alleged) DDT bans, and as George's piece summariese "genius is no defence against being wrong."   Especially, I would add, when you're north of age  75.  (Actually, 70 might be more accurate.  Worrying signs usually appear when your hair has turned white, regardless of chronological age.)

So, how old is Lennart anyway?  Born 1935.  Aged 79.  Right in the ballpark of the commencement of age related unreliability.

Of course, Judith Curry is lapping him up.. How old is she, by the way?   To my surprise, she finished her first science degree in 1974, which would indicate (I guess) a birth year in the mid fifties.  She's must be at least 60 this year, and I'm pretty sure the glamour shot from Scientific American:

must involve hair colouring.   She's almost certainly got a lot of grey underneath.