[For those who aren't keeping up to date with Australian politics: We've just had a general election, and neither of the two major parties has enough seats to govern in their own right. So we have a "hung parliament", with both major parties trying to woo the minor parties and independent members to create a majority in the Lower House of Parliament. There are two other parts of the Australian Parliament - the Senate and The Queen - but they don't figure prominently in this debate.]

The Australian government is formed from the 150 elected representatives of the Lower House of Parliament. In the last week, we’ve had endless news reports, discussions and media releases from exactly 7 of these 150 elected members: The Member for Lalor (Julia Gillard), the Member for Warringah (Tony Abbott), four independent members, and one Greens member.

My question is: Where are the other 143 voices???

Aren’t these the candidates who promised to make a difference? Didn’t they promise leadership? Shouldn’t we hold them accountable?

These are not employees of a corporation, who might reasonably expect management to speak on the corporation’s behalf. We elected them to represent us, the people of Australia.

It’s the most important issue facing the Australian government in 70 years – the formation of the government itself – and 95% of the representatives are missing from the conversation.

I like seeing stuff that’s contrary to what we expect, even if (maybe especially if?) what we expect comes from experts. Here’s a collection of some interesting, and possibly surprising, articles that turn conventional wisdom on its head:

• Profits Go Up When CEOs Make More Than Their Peers: Could it be that those greedy, evil, overpaid CEOs aren’t just doing it to line their own pockets?
• A world of hits: Chris Anderson’s book The Long Tail suggests that the money is in tiny niches, not in well-funded blockbusters. It was the beacon of hope for independent music artists, bloggers, and practically every small business owner who wanted to build a successful on-line business. But it’s not so, according to The Economist’s analysis of 2009 movie sales.
• Is The Tipping Point Toast?: Another influential book was Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point, which suggested that key individuals in a group had disproportionate influence over the group, especially when it came to trends propagating in the group. But more recent research casts doubt on this hypothesis, finding that the so-called “Influentials” have no more influence than others in the group.
• LED traffic lights don’t melt snow, do cause accidents: Regardless of whether you believe we’re heading for catastrophic climate change, there seems little argument that saving energy is a good thing, right? Well, here’s one small example where an energy-efficient initiative had unintended – and potentially dangerous – consequences. I include this not because it’s a big blow in the climate change debate (it’s clearly not); but because it does indicate that all actions have consequences. Some people on the other side of this debate invoke the Precautionary Principle, arguing that we should act even with incomplete information. But they fail to apply the Precautionary Principle the other way around.
• Seeking a Cure for Optimism: Oh, no – not an attack on optimism and happiness as well! Afraid so … In a blow to the new but growing field of “positive psychology”, there’s a small but significant amount of research suggesting that being negative, pessimistic or unhappy might have some benefits after all.

(This is a copy of a post I made on the Differencemakers blog today)

A bunch of politicians are gathering in Copenhagen this week, ostensibly to set out a plan of action for managing – and reversing – the effects of human-made climate change.

There’s been a lot of talk and spin about the Copenhagen talks, and it’s easy to get caught up in the fervour without stopping to think about what’s really going on.

So let’s stop and think.

First, let’s forestall one line of objection and assume climate change is a problem, that we humans caused it, and that it’s going to take a concerted international effort to fix it.

Assuming that’s the case, then it is appropriate to have a global summit to tackle the issue.

The first question must be: What’s our goal?

Just for a moment, let’s put aside the economic costs, the feasibility, and especially the rhetoric. And let’s turn to the simple scientific statement of the problem. Presumably it’s something like this: The atmosphere has currently X parts per million of carbon dioxide, and that’s too high. We need to reduce it to Y.

The next obvious question – and yet one that nobody seems to be asking – is: What do we need to do to fix it?

It’s all very well for Kevin Rudd, Penny Wong, Barack Obama and other politicians to spout hot air about what level of change they’re going to commit to. But if it doesn’t fix the problem, it’s a waste of time and resources. Sure, it serves their purpose to pretend to be doing something; but it doesn’t serve the planet’s purpose.

Not only would that be a waste of time and resources; it would be an unconscionable waste of time and resources.

Some would argue that some action is better than none, or that we can’t afford the risk of not taking action (the Precautionary Principle). But these are not valid arguments. Sure, all other things being equal, these arguments hold water. But all other things aren’t equal.

There’s a huge cost of taking action: People – particularly the world’s poor – suffer; jobs are lost; whole industries struggle; and livelihoods are put at risk.

There’s also a huge cost of diverting all our attention and resources to this one issue – that may or may not be solvable – at the expense of other, more pressing issues. Right now, people around the world are dying of malnutrition, curable diseases, lack of clean drinking water and war. And instead of saving them, we’re chasing some far-off solution that might save their great-grandchildren!

Some would say this is a small price to pay to save the planet, but that’s my point: Does this save the planet? Or is it just a bunch of hot air from politicians who care more about their own jobs than the planet?

Our elected officials almost always promise to make a difference. They hold themselves up to be differencemakers. But when the rubber hits the road, let’s see what happens. Differencemakers make a difference. That’s the point.

Already we’re being told that the Copenhagen summit won’t end with an international treaty. Fair enough – this is not something that can be hammered out over a few chats and cocktails. But what should we expect from these self-proclaimed differencemakers?

Well, the correct course of action is for the summit to say something like:

1. Here’s what we need to achieve (in a scientific sense) for the climate.
2. Here’s what each nation needs to do to play its part.
3. Here are the sacrifices you – ordinary citizens – need to make.
4. Here’s the course of action we’ve plotted.

Is this going to happen? Possibly, but very, very unlikely. It’s more likely that Rudd and Wong will return to Australia with some vague statements about international goodwill and cooperation.

And they’ll push ahead with their ETS, as if it’s a solution – or even part of a solution. It’s not. Unless they demonstrate that it’s going to help solve the real problem, it’s just a tax that redistributes wealth. And it takes our eyes off the real human suffering going on all around us today.

I wish this wasn’t the case, and I’d like to be proved wrong. But I suspect that I’m right.

So let’s hold them to task. If they don’t return with at least a clear path of action based on the science, let’s treat them with the contempt they deserve. And hold them to task until they do the right thing.

I read with interest last week that if Al Gore gets his way, and pushes through laws that support his climate change policy, he stands to become a billionaire due to his investments in green-tech technology.

Is it a problem that he will profit from the very policies he’s pushing? Not necessarily, because he is acting as a private citizen, not an elected member of government. So of course he’s entitled to make money from it.

And does his financial benefit taint the quality of his argument? Again, not necessarily, though some disclosure of his financial interests would have been more honest, and would have prevented any possible scepticism over his motives.

So let’s give him the benefit of the doubt.

But I wonder whether the Gore supporters – and indeed, Gore himself – who will brush this potential conflict of interest aside (and could reasonably do so) will be equally forgiving when attacking the other side. For example, will they still argue that research funded by oil companies is unreliable and biased?

This isn’t for or against global warming. This is about clear thinking. It’s about consistency and double standards. The next time you hear somebody dismiss research funded by oil companies or statements made by executives of those companies – purely because of the source – ask them whether they’re equally critical of Gore; and if not, why not? They can’t have it both ways.

The test for breast cancer is extremely reliable. It correctly detects breast cancer in 90% of cases when the cancer does exist, and only mistakenly reports it in 9% of cases when the cancer doesn’t exist. The incidence of breast cancer in women is 1 in 100. Suppose you (or, for men, a woman close to you) take a test for breast cancer, and unfortunately it returns a positive result (i.e. it detects the cancer). What is the probability that you do have breast cancer? Would you be surprised to know it’s just 10%? Not 90%, 99% or some other high number?

Another example: DNA testing on a murder weapon matches your DNA, and a forensic expert says there’s only a 1 in 100,000 chance of that happening. Are you doomed? Would you be surprised to know that in a city of, say, 2 million people, this means you’re 95% likely to be NOT guilty, based on that DNA evidence alone?

Do these examples surprise and confuse you? If so, take heart: They surprise and confuse most people – laypeople and experts (doctors and lawyers) alike. Unfortunately, this can have disastrous – sometimes tragic – consequences in law, medicine and other fields.

This is the topic of Gerd Gigerenzer’s excellent book about working with risk and uncertainty. Read it and you might be horrified at some of the horrible mistakes being made by experts giving advice. At least you’ll be in a better position to question them and become better informed.

Is this the best book ever written about dealing with uncertainty? I’m not sure. But it’s certainly well worth the read.

Pop psychologists like using the term “addiction” to describe repetitive behaviour. We have sports addicts, TV addicts and of course Internet addicts. However, a new review of the research shows what is really common sense: There is no such thing as “Internet addiction”.

What’s more, there never could be such a thing, because you can’t be addicted to a communication medium.