The UK's relationship with Australia will be revitalised after Brexit

Theresa May confirmed in her landmark speech at Lancaster House earlier in the month that Brexit really does mean Brexit.  Britain will be leaving the economically strangling common market protectionist racket and seeking opportunities across the world.

This, however, was not welcomed by all.  Green MP and co-leader Caroline Lucas has complained that May is "hoping for far flung countries to do good deals with us".

The concept that the rest of the world is "far flung" and that there is a low probability of good deals is laughable.  Politically, socially and culturally Britain has far stronger bonds to many far flung countries than it does to Europe.

Taking the case closest to my heart — Australia — we share a language, a common political system, culture, history, the rule of law, and similar economic and legal systems.  We sent thousands of our young to fight, and many die, side-by-side in two world wars.

These traditional bonds, however, are clearly not as strong as they used to be.  Australia is no longer a colony, and, following the Australia Act of 1986, the UK no longer has residual legislative or judicial authority.  These are of course positive steps.  Australia is one of Britain's many success stories spreading the core institutions of Western civilisation, establishing a fellow constitutional monarchy, on the other side of the world.

Nevertheless, relations — which already include strong trade and security bonds — have ebbed and flowed.  The most damning moment in the Australia-UK relationship came in 1973 when the UK joined the European Economic Community.  This decision was a shock to the Australian government which had previously been promised by the UK that nothing would be done to damage our trade relations.

Symbolically, it was a turning away from traditional bonds, an abandonment of the Australia-UK relationship in favour of new friends.  In practice, the UK's decision meant the imposition of tariffs on Australian goods that had previously never existed, and a consequential decline in Australian exports to the UK.

Let's start with an example close to my heart:  wine.  Australia is the UK's biggest source of wine imports after Italy.  In 2014, Britain imported 245 million litres of Aussie wine.  However, the EU imposes various tariffs on wine, up to an astonishing 32 per cent.  This hurts Australian exporters, to the tune of £36 million per year, according to the Australian Grape and Wine Authority, and pushes up the cost of Australian wine for British consumers.

An example with even more wide ranging importance is agriculture.  The origins of British food, stretching back to the monumental debates over the Corn Laws in the 19th century, are largely foreign:  more than half of the UK's food comes from abroad.  Australia, on the other hand, with abundant land, is a food exporter.  Sixty per cent of our food is exported — and this is predicted to increase over the coming years.  Historically, much of these exports went to the UK.

At the end of World War II, the UK represented a third of Australian agricultural exports, including 90 per cent of butter and 80 per cent of beef.  However, following the introduction of EEC tariffs, and the emergence of other markets, by the mid-1980s the UK became just 2 per cent of Australia's rural exports.  Today it is just 1.5 per cent.  We are largely locked out of British agriculture due to EU tariffs of up to 20 per cent, as well as import quotas on our key export products, including beef.

The full Brexit gives the UK the opportunity to remove these barriers to trade, substantially benefiting consumers.  It means cheaper Aussie wine on British shelves.  It means access to high quality Australian agriculture products.  This provides substantial benefits for UK consumers, as well as opportunities for British exports back to Australia, particularly in services.

Brexit also provides other opportunities outside of trade.  It hopefully means a fairer, less discriminatory immigration system.  The concept of free movement may nicely appeal to Europeans;  however, it quite clearly discriminates against the rest of the world.  It tells Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians — who share a head of state with the UK — that we are less welcome than others.  This makes the UK a lot less appealing to much of world's best talent.

Brexit also means the UK can provide independent leadership at the World Trade Organisation, a particularly important facet at a time when protectionist sentiments are growing around the world.  It also means potential trade agreements across the Commonwealth, as well as with the world's biggest economies — the United States and China.

This will of course all depend on appropriate deals that deliver mutual recognition of standards, and the abolition of tariffs and quotas.  However, I am confident of a high probability of success, particularly in Australia's case.

In just the last few years Australia has completed trade deals with China, Japan and South Korea.  Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was the world's first leader to propose a trade deal with Britain after Brexit.  Australian Treasurer Scott Morrison visiting London last week and met with his counterpart, Philip Hammond, to lay the foundations of a new trade agreement and easing restrictions on movement.

Australia and the UK not only have a range of economic symmetries, we have shared bonds that stretch the entity of our history.  These bonds will grow ever stronger after Brexit.

In government, less is so much more

According to the results of an international opinion poll released a few days ago, there's an "implosion of trust" around the world.

The findings of the 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer reveal just 37 per cent of Australians trust the government.  The comparable figure in the United States is 47 per cent, and 36 per cent in the UK.

Despite all the business bashing of recent times, Australians have more faith in business than their government, as 48 per cent of Australians say they trust business.

Only 32 per cent of Australians trust the media.  To put that into perspective that's only one point higher than the trust Russians have in their media, and it's 15 points lower than that for America.

Social researcher Hugh Mackay is right when he says:  "The big picture for Western societies, but especially Australia, is that respect and trust for institutions in general is in decline."

But he's being unduly pessimistic by concluding:  "That's not a healthy attitude for any society."

In fact, there's a lot to like about the poll results.

It's pleasing to know nearly two-thirds of Australians realise the limits of government.  It might start to dawn upon advocates for government that if they want more people to trust government then government should do fewer things, better.  The libertarian moment might be at hand sooner than we think.

The Edelman poll confirms what we already know about the state of Australian politics.  If people were satisfied with the established political parties, a third of the electorate would not have voted for minor parties in the Senate at the last federal election.

HARDY PERENNIALS

The change a significant proportion of Australians are seeking goes beyond the day-to-day policies of the parties.  If as the Edelman poll indicates 59 per cent of Australians truly believe the system "is broken", proposals to fix our democratic system must be a lot more substantial than the two golden oldie ideas the current crop of politicians recycle.

Australia becoming a republic with a directly elected head of state would certainly break our system of politics as we know it.  But in the current political climate there wouldn't be a sitting Coalition or Labor MP who would favour the chances of a factional hack nominated by their parties as President of Australia against a Pauline Hanson or Derryn Hinch.  In any case it's not obvious how Australia as a republic would restore trust in our system of government.

The other hardy perennial thought-bubble for change is abolishing the states.  Only a former Labor prime minister like Bob Hawke could imagine giving Canberra even more power would restore the reputation of the political class.  In fact we should do the opposite of what Hawke advocates — Australia should have more states, and state governments should have more power, not less.

Once we start a discussion about how to restore a measure of democratic control and accountability to government and its institutions, we'll be on the path to restoring trust in the system.

"Recall elections" which give the electorate the chance to vote out members of parliament in-between general elections is the sort of change we should be debating.

Nineteen states in America allow for recall elections, and they also occur at the provincial level in countries such as Canada, Switzerland and Germany.  The United Kingdom now has recall elections too.  In 2015 in the wake of the parliamentary expenses scandal the British parliament passed the Recall of MPs Act.  In certain circumstances a petition signed by 10 per cent of eligible voters can trigger a by-election.  The Liberal Democrats were the main proponents of the measure.

Here in Australia the introduction of recall elections was part of the ALP national policy platform until 1962.  In New South Wales the Coalition went to the 2011 state election with a promise to hold an inquiry into the feasibility of recall elections.  As it happened a majority of inquiry members supported the introduction of recall elections in some form.

The "democratic deficit" is the name political scientists give to the phenomenon engulfing liberal democracies.  As government has got bigger, the accountability of government to the people has declined — democracy is in decline.

Until politicians of all sides confront this essential fact trust in government will continue to fall.

What's so bad about January 26?

This week, Warren Mundine proposed that Australia Day should be moved from January 26 to January 1, because the 26th marks the arrival of the first white settlers at Sydney Cove.

He does not have a problem with the concept of Australia Day, but rather the date itself which he believes represents conflict and conquest.  However, there is no evidence to suggest that individuals from either British or Indigenous sides engaged in violent conflict during the first encounters.

Mr Mundine is not alone in fixation with the January 26.  Last year, Triple J supported a petition which sought to hold the traditional Hottest 100 Countdown on any day during the year other than the 26th, stating that "by changing the date ... Triple J can send a message to the First Nation's Peoples that they, and their experiences, are valued and respected by other Australians".

Juice Media, the lefty crowd behind #ChangeTheDate has made a short film which encourages Australians to cancel any plans they might have, by comparing the celebration of Australia Day on January 26 to 9/11, the bombing of Hiroshima and the Holocaust.

Last August, Daniel "Trials" Rankin, one-half of the Indigenous hip hop duo A. B Original, informed Seven News that Australia Day is "not about lamington recipes, it's about massacres".

What exactly happened on January 26, 1788?  This was simply the day that the ships of the First Fleet weighed anchor and left their initial landing point of Botany Bay for the better harbour of Port Jackson and the fresh water of the Tank Stream.

Their arrival was witnessed by the Eora people of the region.  The day was not marked by violence or bloodshed on either side.  Rather, the two groups approached each other with a mixture of mutual curiosity and interest.  Before the arrival of the entire Fleet, things had got off to an amicable start.  Governor Arthur Philip, who during his five years in the Colony was keenly interested in the Indigenous population, had presented the Aborigines with a selection of gifts when he went ashore on 20th January.  The official policy of the British government was to establish friendly relations.

By the afternoon of that same day, the First Lieutenant on the HMS Sirius, William Bradley, reported that "we saw that our People & the Natives were mixed together ..."  The next day two of the crew had wandered unarmed into an Aboriginal encampment where they met with "some Natives, Men & Women and Children who were very friendly, met them without fear & eagerly accepted of a Jacket which one of the Sailors gave them ..."  By January 28, Bradley and his companions were "cordially received by 3 Men" in a cove".

Indeed, January 26 appears to be a day of somewhat endearing cultural exchange.

Whilst no-one denies that terrible injustices were inflicted on Indigenous people in the course of white settlement, it is mangled historical shorthand to link these events to January 26, 1788.  In reality, the only grounds for opposing January 26 is if you don't believe Australia should exist at all — in which case the date of the country's national day is irrelevant.

Shinzo Abe's visit reminds us what a crucial ally he is to Australia

It is doubtful many Australians realise what a consequential leader Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has been for Australia.

During Abe's first, truncated term as prime minister he and his Australian counterpart, John Howard, signed a bilateral Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation, paving the way for closer defence and security cooperation and a genuine strategic partnership.  The two countries' relationship had been consequential for decades but was previously confined mostly to economic and diplomatic engagement.

Abe returned from years in the political wilderness a leader transformed — tougher, wiser and a formidable political operator.  In an important 2012 article on his foreign policy vision he named Australia as one of the four points of his "democratic security diamond" with Japan, the United States and India forming the other points.

The US-Japan-Australia Trilateral Strategic Dialogue has now convened at leaders' level twice, and Abe has been there both times.

CRUCIAL TO FTA

Along with his vision of embedding Japan in a strong web of Asia-Pacific maritime democracies, Abe's domestic political strength and personal rapport with Tony Abbott were crucial to clinching the Australia-Japan free trade agreement in 2014.  That arrangement — initiated by the Howard government then left to languish by his Labor successors — has already yielded increases in two-way trade and investment.  It looks even more far-sighted since the Trans-Pacific Partnership became a collateral casualty of rising global protectionism and the US presidential election campaign.

One of the ironies of Abe's visit is that it has been an Australian foreign policy goal since at least the Howard government to cajole a reluctant Japan into making a greater contribution to international security, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region.  This was certainly a priority for the Howard, Gillard and Abbott governments, each of which took important steps to strengthen bilateral strategic ties with Japan;  it was also one of the original policy goals of the Australian and US policymakers who conceived the Trilateral Strategic Dialogue.

Now, however, it is increasingly Japan — under Shinzo Abe — that is leading the way.

GLOBAL UNCERTAINTY

Many US allies were understandably nervous following Donald Trump's election in light of his scathing campaign rhetoric about alliances.  Japan had more reason than most to be worried:  the US-Japan alliance has been in the President-elect's crosshairs since the 1980s because Trump thinks it costs the United States too much.  Yet it was Abe who took the initiative as the first international leader to beard Trump in his New York den — a high-stakes gamble that seems to have paid off.

And Abe's contribution goes well beyond a knack for deft, self-confident gestures.  Under his leadership Japan has increased defence spending (albeit from a low base), amended Japan's constraining security laws to allow it to make an expanded (but still limited) contribution to defending its allies and partners, and significantly expanded the scope of Japan's military contribution to the US alliance.  Ultimately Abe wants to amend Japan's pacifist constitution to enable his country to do more.

He has embarked on a hectic international travel program — particularly in the Asia Pacific — to build relationships and boost Japan's influence (while also countering China's).  And he continues to push vigorously for trade liberalisation despite its unpopularity and the demise of TPP.

The US election only makes the Australia-Japan strategic partnership more important — and more urgent.  The campaign fanned concerns about the long-term future of American leadership and the United States' commitment to maintaining international security.  Australia and Japan have a much better prospect of influencing the incoming Trump administration's approach to Asia — and encouraging it to remain firmly engaged in the region — if they work closely together, align their messages, and demonstrate they are stepping up their own efforts.

COMMON INTERESTS

The Turnbull government's decision to partner with France rather than Japan to deliver the next generation of Australian submarines was a major missed opportunity to strengthen strategic ties.  Since then, and announced over the weekend, an enhanced logistics arrangement has been reached, but negotiations on a reciprocal access agreement to provide the legal basis for expanded military exercises in both countries have languished.

Australia's prevarication about conducting patrols close to disputed features in the South China Seas in support of international law and freedom of navigation — reportedly out of apprehension about China's reaction — has been noticed in Washington and won't have been missed in Tokyo.  US and regional observers will also be watching implementation of Australia's 2016 Defence White Paper investment commitments with close interest.

Abe's visit to Australia is an opportunity to restore much-needed momentum to a strategic relationship whose importance will continue to grow as North Korea's missile and nuclear weapons programs mature and as China asserts itself more and more, whether in the South China Sea, the East China Sea or, as we saw last week, in the Taiwan Strait.

The fetishisation of the expert

Last month in the wake of Donald Trump's election as US president, Julia Baird the host of ABC TV's The Drum wrote a revealing article in The Sydney Morning Herald.  She blamed the election result on things such as the public no longer believing in facts, a lack of trust in the media and "experts" being ignored.

Baird despaired of "the demise of the expert;  politicians and pundits ridiculing of those who bring knowledge to bear on public debate by those who have none ..."

Baird's view is representative of those who believe that challenging the status of experts is a threat to democracy.  But in fact the opposite is the case.  One of the reasons faith in democracy has declined is because experts have far too much say in government, in policy and in people's lives.  Experts, and the politicians who follow the diktats of experts, have removed decision-making from the people.  It's understandable as happened with the Brexit vote, if experts tell the people to do one thing, the people will do the exact opposite.

As Daniel Hannan, the British member of the European Parliament and leading Brexit campaigner, pointed out a few years ago an "expert" is merely someone who has spent their whole career in a particular field — the "fetishisation of the 'expert" is one of the most depressing features of contemporary politics.

Paul Cartledge, a classics professor at Cambridge University and the author of a new book, Democracy:  A Life, explained to Spiked Review last year just how experts have amassed such influence.

"Today, given the complexity of society, it is possible to argue that 'I understand how the global economy works, or how the Euro works, better than you do, so I'm more entitled to have my views listened to, and my judgment respected, so therefore my position should be one of power'.  Yet, what's happened, especially since the financial crisis of 2008, is that not only have the experts disagreed — which they always have — but they have also got a lot wrong.  And not just wrong, but massively wrong."

Fishy tales

There's a term for what Cartledge described.  It's called a "Michael Fish moment".  Last week Andy Haldane, the chief economist of the Bank of England, talked about how economists in Britain had experienced a "Michael Fish moment" first, when they failed to predict the global financial crisis, and second when they overstated the consequences of the Brexit vote for the British economy.  Prior to the Brexit vote, Mark Carney, the Bank of England governor, warned that a vote by Britain to leave the European Union could cause a recession.  The investment bank Morgan Stanley went one further — it said Brexit would cause a recession.  Recent economic data shows that in fact since Brexit the British economy has grown strongly.

Australians might be unfamiliar with Michael Fish, but he's famous in Britain.  He even featured in the opening ceremony for the London Olympic Games in 2012.

Fish is a meteorologist and for many years presented the weather report on BBC television.  On the afternoon of October 15, 1987, he started his report by saying:  "Earlier on today, apparently, a woman rang the BBC and said she heard there was a hurricane on the way.  Well, if you're watching, don't worry, there isn't."

A few hours later Britain suffered its worst storm in 200 years.  Twenty-two people were killed, London lost electricity for six hours, and the UK home secretary said it was the "worst, most widespread night of disaster" since the Blitz.

Experts have their place, but it can never be forgotten they suffer the same biases and prejudices as the rest of us.  We want our doctors to be experts;  if a surgeon were to consistently leave their patients dead on the operating table we'd be wary of having them remove our tonsils.

The appropriate role for experts in a democracy was nicely encapsulated by Cartledge in quote from another classicist, Moses Finlay.  "When I charter a vessel or buy a passage on one, I leave it to the captain, the expert, to navigate it — but I decide where I want to go, not the captain."

A new breed of ''historian''

In the next few weeks, thousands of young Australians, having just finished 12 years of schooling, will be preparing themselves for what should be their first, exciting foray into higher education.  Their minds should be expanded, their eyes opened to new ideas and concepts.  Many of them will have applied to study history.

It appears however, that if they don't choose their courses wisely, many fresh-faced undergraduates will be in danger of knowing less about history after they graduate than they did before they began.  History is no longer being properly taught in our universities.

Two years ago, I conducted a systematic and thorough review of the 739 history subjects offered across 39 tertiary institutions in Australia, and published my findings in The End of History ... in Australian Universities.  The title says it all.

The survey illuminated some of the more profound problems with a great many undergraduate history degrees in this country.  If Western Civilisation was mentioned at all, it was portrayed in an unremittingly negative light.  Furthemore, the old "historical" canon was well on the way to becoming obsolete, itself confined to history and replaced with a new canon of subjects, thematically and enthusiastically arranged around the usual suspects of post-colonialism, class, race, gender, sustainability and climate change.

This thematic approach meant that the subjects on offer had become fragmented and parochial.  Undergraduates were being taught a sort of "flashcard" version of history which left them completely bereft of the broader historical developments or wider historical contexts.

The survey also revealed that early modern and medieval histories were being deemed as either no longer relevant or simply not popular enough to offer to students.  Instead, the shift had moved firmly and squarely to 20th century and Australia histories;  both worthy subjects in themselves, but which studied in isolation result in a narrow and shortsighted view of the world.  Modern Australia has a rich and exciting heritage which extends far beyond 1788 and evolved from Britain, North America and Continental Europe, and it is the duty of our universities to ensure that future generations are aware of this remarkable heritage.

It is safe to say that since The End of History ... was published, history has continued to draw to an end in Australian universities.  A review of the various 2017 Handbooks currently available online leaves the distinct impression that there is some sort of one-upmanship (or in the case of our hypersensitive institutions one-uppersonship) between subject coordinators to see who can slip the most politically correct, least historical subjects into the curriculum.  The next generation of budding historians is being offered an unappealing smorgasbord of subjects with nonsensical titles and vacuous content such as "Memory and Politics of Difference:  Sex, Race and Belonging", "Activism, Selves and Histories" and "Performing Masculinities:  Australian Histories of Context and Change".

Unfortunately, some of Australia's finest institutions of higher education are among the chief offenders.  In 2017, for example, second year students in ANU's School of History will be able to choose "Human Variations and Racism in Western Culture, c.1450-1950".  According to the course description, students will "practise tracking the development of a particular social process (in this case, the process of racialisation) over time, thus learning that racial identities, and their attendant qualities, are neither entirely natural nor inevitable".  Forget the momentous intellectual and artistic achievements to emerge from the West such as the Renaissance, the Enlightenment or the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions.  By the end of this module, undergraduates will have learnt that we in the West have been racists for an awfully long time.

Still at ANU, history students can also elect to study "Sexuality in Australia".  This appears to be a module based entirely upon thinking, reading and writing about the sex lives of our ancestors.  It is unlikely that Australia's heroic early settlers would have imaged this would ultimately fascinate future generations of twenty-something voyeurs.

Not wishing to be outdone, Monash offers a unit entitled "The History of Sexuality 1800-Present".  Though disappointingly not available in 2017, this course will allow final year students the opportunity to delve not only into the history of Australians' sexual proclivities, but also that of Europeans and North Americans.  Who says we're narrow minded and insular?

At the University of New South Wales, keen first year undergraduates can elect "Global Feminisms:  Competing Visions, Varying Histories".  By the end of the course, this next batch of historians might not be able to tell you much about the Reformation, but they will be highly knowledgeable champions of "the rights connected with new reproductive technologies, Leftist feminists and ecofeminists".

It is highly likely that there will be a decent smattering of ecofeminist and their ilk enrolled in "Paradise Lost?  Sustainability and Australia" at Monash.  Apparently this course gives its students the opportunity to venture forth on a series of field trips to "the Rocks, Indigenous and wilderness areas" to see for themselves just how terribly non-Indigenous Australians have done.  This new breed of activist will emerge from uni with a distorted, ultra-left thematic view of the world in which the past is divided into two groups:  Western Civilisation and all its trappings as the aggressor, and non-Whites, women and the environment as its victims.

The consequences of this lamentable state of affairs should be a deep cause of concern for Australians, as universities continue to indulge in a dangerous game of anti-intellectualism and biased teaching.  By undermining hard knowledge in favour of an outdated version of Marxist historiography, our history faculties appear to be in the business of forging a new type of Social Justice Eco Warrior.  These graduates will no longer be able to recognise the aspects of our heritage that have allowed Australia to flourish as a prosperous and stable liberal democracy.

Intent as the enemy of truth

At the beginning of each new year, we are encouraged to make some new resolution, or other.  The idea is usually to seek to improve on our current situation through a worthy intent.  However, intent can be the enemy of truth, because too often it provides a goal, without the discomfort of proper analysis — or even honest reflection.

Also, at the beginning of each new year the Australian Bureau of Meteorology publishes their annual climate statement.  For at least the past decade the intent has been to emphasise that the Earth is warming — and it's our fault.

Of course, there is no one place in Australia where the mean temperature of the continent can be measured;  so the Bureau relies on a reconstruction to determine how hot last year was, relative to the historical record.  Their method, however, is subjective.  They neither simply combine all the temperature series and just provide us with the overall average for each year, nor do they choose a subset based on the most complete and longest records.  Rather they have a somewhat contrived method, full of intent and post-truth science.  Jennifer Marohasy has written about this extensively, but her concerns are dismissed — not on the basis of rational argument, but on the authority of the institution that is the Bureau of Meteorology.

When all 1,655 maximum temperature series for Australia are simply combined, and truncated to begin in 1910 — thus avoiding problems of equipment change associated with Stevenson screen installations — the hottest years are 1980, 1914, 1919, 1915 and 1940, respectively.  A linear trend line through this reconstruction gives a rate of warming of 0.4 degree Celsius per century — less than half that reported by the Bureau.

I'm still working-up my reconstruction for the entire continent based on just the longest and highest quality temperature series.

Late last year, John Abbot had a book chapter authored and published by Elsevier, which shows historical temperature trends just for south-east Australia from 1887 — based on the longest, continuous, highest quality temperature series just for this region.

In the chapter we conclude that temperature trends for south-east Australia are best described as showing statistically significant cooling (yes cooling) of 1.5 degree Celsius from 1887 to 1949, followed by warming of nearly 2 degrees Celsius from 1950 to 2013.  The warmest year in this reconstruction is 2007, followed very closely by 1914.

A colleague at the University of Tasmania, Jaco Vlok, has compared our south-east reconstruction with a reconstruction based on all 289 temperature series for Victoria — but only from 1910.  There is a very high degree of synchrony between the reconstructions, though when all the raw data is simply combined — Vlok's approach — the hottest years are all in the earlier part of the record:  1914 (hottest) followed by 1919, 1921, 1938, 1961 and then 2014.

Considering land temperature across Australia, 1914 was almost certainly the hottest year across southern Australia, and 1915 the hottest across northern Australia — or at least north-east Australia.  But recent years come awfully close — because there has been an overall strong warming trend since at least 1960, albiet nothing catastrophic.

If we consider hottest months (rather than whole years), then the hottest January was perhaps 1896 — when people were evacuated from places like Bourke in western NSW.  The hottest summer was perhaps in 1938-39;  at Rutherglen in Victoria this summer was a full 2°C hotter than the ten most recent summers — including the last summer of 2015-16.  Indeed, there is nothing unprecedented about recent temperatures in Australia.

Rather there is compelling evidence that the Bureau of Meteorology remodels historical temperature data until it conforms to the human-caused global warming paradigm.

One of my new year's resolutions is to spend more time understanding why this is so:  why we choose to have such a negative and contrived relationship with this important aspect of our natural history — the historical temperature record for Australia.