Global Warming | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Global Warming

Djevv

Tiger Champion
Feb 11, 2005
3,091
252
NT
www.youtube.com
I will never understand people who think things are black or white. "All in or no one in" is a very childish way to think about a global issue, especially a scientific one. All theories are subject to review and change. This is not a good reason to ignore them. Newtonian gravity has flaws, imagine ignoring it because it fails at the quantum level?



Again, black and white. No mate, this just isn't how science is done. See the example of Newtonian gravity above.



Debate can be political, but science is not done by debating. Editorials are not part of peer review. Ridicule is perfectly acceptable in any forum where a person is attempting to equate their understanding of science with that of the experts. If you stick your neck out expect it to get chopped off. Ridicule has no place in peer review or academic sources but I don't think PRE is a journal of note. So if people are going to say daft things online, I reckon they are fair game.

Newton makes the point I was trying to make: the science seemed settled till new data came along. Climate science is very complex and there are more areas of poor understanding than you can poke a stick at. I like to hear all points of view. The 3% may be correct and the 97% incorrect. Still my thoughts on cc are more positive on trying to mitigate our emissions than they were. I’m for an emissions trading scheme.

Is international politics childish? Who’d a thunk it? Some countries get to pollute and others don’t?? How does this stop CO2 pollution? It’s pure socialism. And like socialism it doesn’t work.

As for ridicule it rates just above sarcasm as the refuge of the scoundrel. The most boring posts on this board are two posters slinging mud at one another. But it is tempting sometimes.
 

KnightersRevenge

Baby Knighters is 7!! WTF??
Aug 21, 2007
6,782
1,222
Ireland
The "popular free to air mainstream" tv in Australia is only left mouthpieces.
The patronage for these outlets is far higher than the ones covered by knighter and others previously.

Agree but it is important to understand why. The "talent" went to Arts college and avoided maths/science in school. They have a poor grounding in the areas needed to understand the issues and are prone to pseudo-science. Hence all the psychics and astrologers on TV, but that also produces a lefty hippy set of ideas. The owners are entrepreneurs who don't care about facts but also studied commerce and think Gordon Gekko was the hero of Wall St. They also don't understand the science but have a right wing bias. The people who understand the science went and became researchers and scientists and are not generally prone to making grand statements about anything. Everything is couched in error-bars and "ifs" and "under certain conditions" etc. These don't play well on TV so no one books them on their show. The Tim Flannerys of the world get the gigs because they are prone to hyperbole because they think the end justifies the means. The other problem is that there are less scruples on the right. They truly believe the end justifies the means, but they then beat the left with a stick if they try the same tactic. It's sad state of affairs all together.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

KnightersRevenge

Baby Knighters is 7!! WTF??
Aug 21, 2007
6,782
1,222
Ireland
Newton makes the point I was trying to make: the science seemed settled till new data came along.

No it really doesn't. Newtonian gravity works perfectly well in most situations still. There is no "settled". There is only ever "our best understanding right now". It makes perfect sense to use it still even though Einsteinian Gravity is technically a more complete theory. So it is with Climate Change and the need to act now. The best we have right now points to a serious problem down the line. It makes no sense wait for anything to be "settled".

Climate science is very complex and there are more areas of poor understanding than you can poke a stick at. I like to hear all points of view. The 3% may be correct and the 97% incorrect. Still my thoughts on cc are more positive on trying to mitigate our emissions than they were. I’m for an emissions trading scheme.

That is extremely unlikely. As I have said the word "consensus" causes confusion. It is a "convergence" and this is usually the case. The metrics begin to converge and thus it becomes more and more likely that current model is accurate. As above it will only ever be "close enough". That is all any theory in science ever is.

Is international politics childish? Who’d a thunk it? Some countries get to pollute and others don’t?? How does this stop CO2 pollution? It’s pure socialism. And like socialism it doesn’t work.

Not socialism. Moderatism. You do what you can the best you can and trust that good ideas catch on and bad ones get left behind. There will always be times where bad ideas catch hold and we seem to be in the grips of such a time. Severe right wing authoritarianism is on the rise in Europe. Hungary, Turkey, Germany, France. Left wing authoritarianism is also on the rise but moreso in Acedemia than politics. Authoritarianism is the problem. Moderatism is the answer, but it isn't sexy and is harder to promote.

As for ridicule it rates just above sarcasm as the refuge of the scoundrel. The most boring posts on this board are two posters slinging mud at one another. But it is tempting sometimes.

Look...I live and breathe sarcasm. Always have. A really good dry wit can be poetry. Gold Posts is full of it. But straight mudslinging is, as you say, boring and pointless. Even so I can admit to getting drawn in myself. My point stands, there is a role for ridicule. Some people spend so long in echo chambers they don't know they're talking garbage until someone laughs at them. The Emperor's New Clothes, if you will? It can, rarely, jolt them into a moment of self-reflection. Rarely is it instantaneous, but I reserve the right to laugh at things I find silly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

IanG

Tiger Legend
Sep 27, 2004
18,087
3,323
Melbourne
This is pretty funny. Pretty much all the mainstream free-to-air media is left-leaning. There is a constant guilt-inducing, hand-wringing, nausea inducing PC narrative on everything every day! I mean these journalists all had their thinking straight-jacketed when they completed their arts degrees in institutions of higher indoctrination! They know no other way.

Then the lefties have the hide to complain about Murdoch. He is the only balance there is!

What you're talking about is general cultural coverage and transplanting that onto a simple left/right political axis. I'm talking about direct political coverage. The exception has been the coverage of the fires.
 

KnightersRevenge

Baby Knighters is 7!! WTF??
Aug 21, 2007
6,782
1,222
Ireland
As an aside, Newton was a creationist whose specialty was religion rather than science...

He devoted rather a lot of his time and intellect (maybe most?) to alchemy. In fact "Principia" his seminal work seems to be an outlier. He basically disappeared and became a virtual recluse then about 2 years later he emerged with a masterpiece. And to be fair he was "religious" at a time when religion and politics and the aristocracy were intertwined. Religion was extemely powerful and wealthy and built the great educational institutions of the time. His religiosity was de rigueur.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

LeeToRainesToRoach

Tiger Legend
Jun 4, 2006
33,186
11,546
Melbourne
He devoted rather a lot of his time and intellect (maybe most?) to alchemy. In fact "Principia" his seminal work seems to be an outlier. He basically disappeared and became a virtual recluse then about 2 years later he emerged with a masterpiece. And to be fair he was "religious" at a time when religion and politics and the aristocracy were intertwined. Religion was extemely powerful and wealthy and built the great educational institutions of the time. His religiosity was de rigueur.

I wouldn't describe it as de rigeur at all. His view of the world was permeated by immanence, where contemporaries like Laplace favoured a purely mechanical universe.

About 50% of his written work was devoted to religion/theocracy, 30% to science/maths, and 10% each to alchemy and his work with the Royal Mint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

KnightersRevenge

Baby Knighters is 7!! WTF??
Aug 21, 2007
6,782
1,222
Ireland
I wouldn't describe it as de rigeur at all. His view of the world was permeated by immanence, where contemporaries like Laplace favoured a purely mechanical universe.

About 50% of his written work was devoted to religion/theocracy, 30% to science/maths, and 10% each to alchemy and his work with the Royal Mint.

Cheers Lee. I've always heard his alchemy was his driving interest. Seems I need to hit the books and update my knowledge.
 

Sintiger

Tiger Legend
Aug 11, 2010
18,205
17,606
Camberwell
Yes, staid old 'Aunty' used to be a big supporter of all things Australian, but now suffers severely from cultural cringe.

It's required by law to be impartial, so you wonder how much longer it is going to be allowed to continue. Some of the stuff that goes to air is just plain feral.
I have had the pleasure of working with a senior ABC journalist over the years a couple of times a year. I won’t mention the name because it wouldn’t be fair to do so.
He/she told me once that he/she had been accused of being a right wing extremist closet Murdoch lackie and a left wing socialist on multiple occasions all stemming from the same programs.
In the end that person said that all they can do is do their job to the best of their ability because they know whatever they do they there will be those who criticise them.
Interestingly I have met this person probably 10 times and actually don’t know what his/her political leaning is.
I take people’s views on the ABC with a grain of salt because in the end they only represent a bias. Even a view on impartiality is largely subjective.
 

LeeToRainesToRoach

Tiger Legend
Jun 4, 2006
33,186
11,546
Melbourne
I have had the pleasure of working with a senior ABC journalist over the years a couple of times a year. I won’t mention the name because it wouldn’t be fair to do so.
He/she told me once that he/she had been accused of being a right wing extremist closet Murdoch lackie and a left wing socialist on multiple occasions all stemming from the same programs.
In the end that person said that all they can do is do their job to the best of their ability because they know whatever they do they there will be those who criticise them.
Interestingly I have met this person probably 10 times and actually don’t know what his/her political leaning is.
I take people’s views on the ABC with a grain of salt because in the end they only represent a bias. Even a view on impartiality is largely subjective.

A former ABC chairman's description of ABC bias as "absolutely palpable" and "shameless" should count for something. Q&A from November 4 and its guests from the fringes of the left wing is an example. If some of those women weren't paid to spruik their anarchist views on TV they'd be holding a knife to your testicles and demanding your wallet.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 2 users

Sintiger

Tiger Legend
Aug 11, 2010
18,205
17,606
Camberwell
A former ABC chairman's description of ABC bias as "absolutely palpable" and "shameless" should count for something. Q&A from November 4 and its guests from the fringes of the left wing is an example. If some of those women weren't paid to spruik their anarchist views on TV they'd be holding a knife to your testicles and demanding your wallet.
I am not really wanting to debate it with you, that wasn’t the purpose of my post. I was simply making the point the ABC journalists themselves are accused of bias from all directions.
One ABC Chairman’s views represents nothing more than that person’s view. Given that the ABC Chair is a political appointment having a bias would not be unusual. There are probably other Chairs who have different views which will reflect their bias.
I don’t watch Q&A any more because there are too many politicians on it but I once mentioned to a person who was suggesting left wing bias at the ABC that Q&A does publish the political affiliation of their audience before each show and they always appear balanced. The answer I got was that Lefties must stand outside and ask left wingers to say they are LNP before they go in, either that or the ABC fudges the figures. That’s when I gave up discussing it.
 

Coburgtiger

Tiger Champion
May 7, 2012
4,955
6,939
If you believe that saying 'Climate change is happening, and is influenced by humans.' is a left wing agenda, then you're going to think any impartial, scientifically based reporting is left wing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

LeeToRainesToRoach

Tiger Legend
Jun 4, 2006
33,186
11,546
Melbourne
A
If you believe that saying 'Climate change is happening, and is influenced by humans.' is a left wing agenda, then you're going to think any impartial, scientifically based reporting is left wing.

I've already shown amply that climate change is a socialist agenda driven by the United Nations and its climate mouthpiece, the IPCC, and hence finds most favour with the left wing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Djevv

Tiger Champion
Feb 11, 2005
3,091
252
NT
www.youtube.com
That is extremely unlikely. As I have said the word "consensus" causes confusion. It is a "convergence" and this is usually the case. The metrics begin to converge and thus it becomes more and more likely that current model is accurate. As above it will only ever be "close enough". That is all any theory in science ever is.

Well consensus is the word we keep hearing. Most climate scientists believe x so x must be true is a poor argument. Great scientific advances involve often going against a consensus. Acting on the scientific consensus means I have cane toads in by back yard today!

Not socialism. Moderatism. You do what you can the best you can and trust that good ideas catch on and bad ones get left behind. There will always be times where bad ideas catch hold and we seem to be in the grips of such a time. Severe right wing authoritarianism is on the rise in Europe. Hungary, Turkey, Germany, France. Left wing authoritarianism is also on the rise but moreso in Acedemia than politics. Authoritarianism is the problem. Moderatism is the answer, but it isn't sexy and is harder to promote.

I've got another word for your 'moderatism'. Tokenism. Where the worlds largest emitters won't reign in their emissions its hard to see why anyone else should.
 

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
17,666
11,712
Well consensus is the word we keep hearing. Most climate scientists believe x so x must be true is a poor argument. Great scientific advances involve often going against a consensus. Acting on the scientific consensus means I have cane toads in by back yard today!



I've got another word for your 'moderatism'. Tokenism. Where the worlds largest emitters won't reign in their emissions its hard to see why anyone else should.

not trying to pick on you Djevv, but this is typical of those who argue against action on climate change. firstly if the climate is changing it may not be due to the actions of humans, but then anyway what can we do about it.

Im sure there are some people in India and China saying if the countries with the highest emissions per person wont do anything why should we??
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

tigersnake

Tear 'em apart
Sep 10, 2003
23,484
11,636
I've got another word for your 'moderatism'. Tokenism. Where the worlds largest emitters won't reign in their emissions its hard to see why anyone else should.

This argument never ceases to amaze and disappoint me. Do people not see how pathetic and ethically and morally bankrupt it is? Why shouldn't I chuck this bit of rubbish out the car window? Its only 1 bit, it won't make any difference. Why should my mate Jedro who is a volunteer fire fighter bother heading out to fight the fires? He's hardly seen his family for a while and he's only one guy, he won't make any difference. What was the point of any single aussie soldier signing up for the WW2? There were heaps of other soldiers signing up, whats the point?

Pathetic. Doesn't stand up to the most feeble scrutiny, yet so many people who do not seem to be mean-spirited fools are latching on to it. Its got me stuffed how people can think like this. Its un-Australian in my view.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Djevv

Tiger Champion
Feb 11, 2005
3,091
252
NT
www.youtube.com
not trying to pick on you Djevv, but this is typical of those who argue against action on climate change. firstly if the climate is changing it may not be due to the actions of humans, but then anyway what can we do about it.

Im sure there are some people in India and China saying if the countries with the highest emissions per person wont do anything why should we??

Its worth asking the question. Nothing we do here will make any difference at all. There is no argument at all about that.

I'm sympathetic to India and China but if they don't stop their coal fired power stations everyone is doomed (according to the consensus). To not bring that fact to light is fairly suspicious is my opinion. It causes me to question the whole thing.

We should do something substantial but so should India & China. And what of the US? They are not even signatories to the Paris agreement!
 

Djevv

Tiger Champion
Feb 11, 2005
3,091
252
NT
www.youtube.com
This argument never ceases to amaze and disappoint me. Do people not see how pathetic and ethically and morally bankrupt it is? Why shouldn't I chuck this bit of rubbish out the car window? Its only 1 bit, it won't make any difference. Why should my mate Jedro who is a volunteer fire fighter bother heading out to fight the fires? He's hardly seen his family for a while and he's only one guy, he won't make any difference. What was the point of any single aussie soldier signing up for the WW2? There were heaps of other soldiers signing up, whats the point?

Pathetic. Doesn't stand up to the most feeble scrutiny, yet so many people who do not seem to be mean-spirited fools are latching on to it. Its got me stuffed how people can think like this. Its un-Australian in my view.

Not sure I can be bothered answering this drivel but if you look at what I have posted previously I am in favor of emissions trading scheme.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

LeeToRainesToRoach

Tiger Legend
Jun 4, 2006
33,186
11,546
Melbourne
Im sure there are some people in India and China saying if the countries with the highest emissions per person wont do anything why should we??

The rest of the world already contributes $100 billion a year so that countries like China and India will make some effort to keep their emissions in check. That is the foundation of the Paris Accord, which is not typical of other international agreements. Without it, those countries will not even come to the table.

Geographic dispersion accounts for Australia's high relative emissions per capita. As our population has grown, transport emissions have increased by 60% since 1990. We also have low patronage of public transport compared with e.g. Europe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user