Global Warming

[HR]

Australia’s bushfire crisis has been shockingly bad and it looks set to keep deteriorating — so how will Scott Morrison compensate for his mistakes?
So not wanting to be too bothered by the news.com.au being a murdoch patsy stuff spoken about yesterday, this is the headline this morning.
Left, Right, right or wrong. Certainly not Right. Anyway......

 

[Giardiasis]

I thank the Labour Party everyday for Medicare, and for Superannuation.
The Labour party making superannuation compulsory has allowed me to retire at 60 and to live a very comfortable life.

Certainly helped doctors and fund managers retire.

 

[Baloo]

Australia’s bushfire crisis has been shockingly bad and it looks set to keep deteriorating — so how will Scott Morrison compensate for his mistakes?
So not wanting to be too bothered by the news.com.au being a murdoch patsy stuff spoken about yesterday, this is the headline this morning.
Left, Right, right or wrong. Certainly not Right. Anyway......

Yet I think the headline is dead on right

Morrison isn't to blame for the fires directly, but as PM he made plenty of mistakes on how he dealt with it and his reputation copped a hit.

Is the article about fixing the crisis or fixing his standing as PM?

 

[tigerman]

Certainly helped doctors and fund managers retire.

I thought they’d be thanking Costello, because he allowed the top end of town to put a lump sum of $1 million and then $150,000 a year into super.
Remembering of course the Liberal party voted against Keating’s compulsory superannuation.

 

[fastin bulbous]

Who would that have been represented by? The whole premise that Labor was a vote for the planet is juvenile . Their policy was so poorly executed, democracy stood up and gave them the bird. Aintno way the greens are stealing votes from the conservatives with their current regime, they are beyond politics.

Yeh you vote for the guys who mismanage our resources, economy, environment and policies and be fearful of the greens or vote green and know they will get a couple of those things right and at least think about the health of our planet. Personally that’s the most important thing to me. I don’t like politicians or believe the current issues can be resolved through politics. The whole left vs right debate on here seems to be about which comforting box people want to inhabit. How about we smash the boxes and start talking about coming together to resolve frightening issues that effect us all. Politicians won’t do that for us.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Good read. What will the true cost of this disaster be over time?

Doctors say bushfires are creating an 'unprecedented public health crisis'

An influential medical organisation has warned of the "unprecedented public health crisis" brewing during Australia's nationwide bushfire disaster.

www.sbs.com.au

 

[HR]

But again

Yeh you vote for the guys who mismanage our resources, economy, environment and policies and be fearful of the greens or vote green and know they will get a couple of those things right and at least think about the health of our planet. Personally that’s the most important thing to me. I don’t like politicians or believe the current issues can be resolved through politics. The whole left vs right debate on here seems to be about which comforting box people want to inhabit. How about we smash the boxes and start talking about coming together to resolve frightening issues that effect us all. Politicians won’t do that for us.

Whilst i agree with the premise of the comment, Fastn you just come straight out and blame people. Or a party. Whateva. Its the whole problem summed up in a word. Blame.
The blame has to stop. The greens are their own worst enemy. You vote for them you vote for what? (rhetorical ok) Labor cant even accept why they lost the last election, they lost it big time because they missed the point. Again, big time! #Unfuckinglosable yeah.
Its not about a comfort box, its about the whole. Dont throw away us just to spite who we are. This crew who protest and carry on like pork chops are embarrassed by who they are, we are. They miss the point entirely. They are who they are and get to be who they are by what we have achieved. Collectively. Australia, good and bad.
Someone had a go at white males the other day. Well them along with white females and all others are responsible for giving these people the choice to speak up. These people are the embarrassment of who we are. I truely wished they respected the reason why they have a choice. They will never get it. And neither will i probably.
Politics is the only way to smash the "boxes", do you believe there will be a new party in our next election to change the way we run the country? Nope! not in a million years.
How about some of these lecturers and inner city folk become the next climate champions for the world by actually being brave, give up what they know and run for a spot which will make a difference in politics. Well, in the theory they teach its easy, but who pays thier salaries....... c'mon wake up to these institutional plebs. They are loading the bullets, never pulling the trigger because they have too much to loose and im not talking about the climate.
As for the rest of us, PRE is a good read.

 

[HR]

But again

Yeh you vote for the guys who mismanage our resources, economy, environment and policies and be fearful of the greens or vote green and know they will get a couple of those things right and at least think about the health of our planet. Personally that’s the most important thing to me. I don’t like politicians or believe the current issues can be resolved through politics. The whole left vs right debate on here seems to be about which comforting box people want to inhabit. How about we smash the boxes and start talking about coming together to resolve frightening issues that effect us all. Politicians won’t do that for us.

Whilst i agree with the premise of the comment, Fastn you just come straight out and blame people. Or a party. Whateva. Its the whole problem summed up in a word. Blame.
The blame has to stop. The greens are their own worst enemy. You vote for them you vote for what? (rhetorical ok) Labor cant even accept why they lost the last election, they lost it big time because they missed the point. Again, big time! #Unfuckinglosable yeah.
Its not about a comfort box, its about the whole. Dont throw away us just to spite who we are. This crew who protest and carry on like pork chops are embarrassed by who they are, we are. They miss the point entirely. They are who they are and get to be who they are by what we have achieved. Collectively. Australia, good and bad.
Someone had a go at white males the other day. Well them along with white females and all others are responsible for giving these people the choice to speak up. These people are the embarrassment of who we are. I truely wished they respected the reason why they have a choice. They will never get it. And neither will i probably.
Politics is the only way to smash the "boxes", do you believe there will be a new party in our next election to change the way we run the country? Nope! not in a million years.
How about some of these lecturers and inner city folk become the next climate champions for the world by actually being brave, give up what they know and run for a spot which will make a difference in politics. Well, in the theory they teach its easy, but who pays thier salaries....... c'mon wake up to these institutional plebs. They are loading the bullets, never pulling the trigger because they have too much to loose and im not talking about the climate.
As for the rest of us, PRE is a good read.

 

[HR]

Sorry about the double up above, Murdoch obviously agrees with my far right sentiment and made it happen twice. To be more convincing and stuff......

Now for some more Murdoch propaganda,

The Atlantic asks: ‘How long will Australia be liveable?’
Smoke is filling our major cities, and country and coastal towns are burning during a fire season that shows no signs of ending anytime soon.


Rohan Smith

Pretty sure Rohan got the election wrong too but at least he is reporting about the "Atlantic" reporting on Australia not actually himself of course.

 

[fastin bulbous]

But again

Whilst i agree with the premise of the comment, Fastn you just come straight out and blame people. Or a party. Whateva. Its the whole problem summed up in a word. Blame.
The blame has to stop. The greens are their own worst enemy. You vote for them you vote for what? (rhetorical ok) Labor cant even accept why they lost the last election, they lost it big time because they missed the point. Again, big time! #Unfuckinglosable yeah.
Its not about a comfort box, its about the whole. Dont throw away us just to spite who we are. This crew who protest and carry on like pork chops are embarrassed by who they are, we are. They miss the point entirely. They are who they are and get to be who they are by what we have achieved. Collectively. Australia, good and bad.
Someone had a go at white males the other day. Well them along with white females and all others are responsible for giving these people the choice to speak up. These people are the embarrassment of who we are. I truely wished they respected the reason why they have a choice. They will never get it. And neither will i probably.
Politics is the only way to smash the "boxes", do you believe there will be a new party in our next election to change the way we run the country? Nope! not in a million years.
How about some of these lecturers and inner city folk become the next climate champions for the world by actually being brave, give up what they know and run for a spot which will make a difference in politics. Well, in the theory they teach its easy, but who pays thier salaries....... c'mon wake up to these institutional plebs. They are loading the bullets, never pulling the trigger because they have too much to loose and im not talking about the climate.
As for the rest of us, PRE is a good read.

I agree with a lot of what you say H.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

That for me would be the extreme rather than far. It's normally extremists who are blowing things up.

Far, in my way of thinking, would be you and EzyT

Examples of far right and extreme right politicians, please. Just so I understand exactly where you're coming from. Or are you attempting to split hairs for the sake of it?

 

[eZyT]

Examples of far right and extreme right politicians, please. Just so I understand exactly where you're coming from. Or are you attempting to split hairs for the sake of it?

Its one hell of a bell curve here on PRE L2!



you and me baaaaaby

O we're from ti ger land.

a fighting fury were from ti ger land

 

[Baloo]

Examples of far right and extreme right politicians, please. Just so I understand exactly where you're coming from. Or are you attempting to split hairs for the sake of it?

Extreme Right - Anning
Far Right - Dutton

 

[HR]

Bell curves suck balls........

 

[DavidSSS]

Right/Left, whatever. You do understand that what was considered centre about 30 or 40 years ago is now considered far left? It has shifted a long way.

Labor's policies on climate change were better than the coalition (do very little (ALP) vs deny everything (Lib/Nat)), very marginal difference.

Whoever you vote for the government gets in.

Given the current arrangement isn't going anywhere soon I reckon most of us vote for the least of all evils, and preference the lesser of 2 evils.

DS

 

[tigersnake]

Right/Left, whatever. You do understand that what was considered centre about 30 or 40 years ago is now considered far left? It has shifted a long way.

Labor's policies on climate change were better than the coalition (do very little (ALP) vs deny everything (Lib/Nat)), very marginal difference.

Whoever you vote for the government gets in.

Given the current arrangement isn't going anywhere soon I reckon most of us vote for the least of all evils, and preference the lesser of 2 evils.

DS

Agree on the drift to the right, spot on. But labor did enact the carbon tax, which by any rational economic and ecological measure, was working a treat. Just that it occurred during the whole rudd/Gillard horrorshow so was built on a fragile political foundation.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Not sure if I have done this before on this thread but I wanted to sum up my main problem with the arguments I glean from the posters usually identified (rightly or wrongly) as "climate change deniers" on here (or anywhere really).

It is that they always want to delve into what they percieve as the literal science of global climate systems. They pull out a line here or a graph there and want to discuss it in detail. My objection is a simple one; we aren't qualified to do that. To me that is requiring that your opponent rebuild a discipline (or group of disciplines) that has (have) taken hundreds of years to develop to this point, from 1st principles. Some may argue that I am taking it too far but that is how I see it. Each of these areas of research require many years of study to become proficient in and to speak broadly would require such committment in not one but several of these disciplines. There are precious few individuals on the planet who have accomplished that.

So I say; follow the science. Listen to the experts. They have done all this work and committed great swathes of their time and intellect so that we don't have to. They have submitted their ideas to rigourous and repeated scrutiny, only the strongest survive these incursions. The usual objections I see are either: That's an "argument from authority fallacy". It plainly isn't. The fallacy involves argument from improper authority or sumission to authority regardless of expertise (eg: Einstein said "drinking 7 litres of water a day is good for you".)
The other is of course the grand conspiracy idea; all these researchers are only following along with their masters and are brow beaten into agreeing with their peers. The consensus. That is just a fundamental misunderstanding of how peer review works. Peer review works to undermine the hypothesis it is testing. Everytime a hypothesis withstands this scrutiny it is bolstered. But it will always be under scrutiny. The longer it holds up the more likely it is to be a good explanation of the phenomena it is trying to describe. This is often called "consensus" but that can conjure up in the mind of a lay person a council of experts "deciding" what the agreed science is. This isn't a good analogy. It is closer to "convergence". As more data is generated the results may diverge and thus the hypothesis is not useful and may be incorrect, or the results converge and thus the hypothesis is useful and further tests can be designed to test it.

Hence why I tend to ask those arguing the science on here to stick to policy. We can have opinions on policy and wish to argue a conservative approach to spending money on mitigating our contribution to greenhouse gases and environmnental degridation. Or a liberal approach, all renewable all the time. Or a centrist approach, wind down coal production and use, wind up renewable and build nuclear to get us from one to the other.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

It is that they always want to delve into what they percieve as the literal science of global climate systems. They pull out a line here or a graph there and want to discuss it in detail. My objection is a simple one; we aren't qualified to do that. To me that is requiring that your opponent rebuild a discipline (or group of disciplines) that has (have) taken hundreds of years to develop to this point, from 1st principles.

Well I've previously conceded that being a skeptic is easier.

My main argument is that models upon which most of the alarmism is based are deeply flawed and deviate from the science. Fortune telling ≠ science. If someone tries to sell you a system to beat the races, it'll probably out-perform climate models because it's simulating a less complex system with far fewer variables. Don't accept my word for it, listen to the scientists themselves.

There is a dynamical gap in our understanding. While we have conceptual models of how weather systems form and can predict their evolution over days to weeks, we do not have theories that can adequately explain the reasons for an extreme cold or warm, or wet or dry, winter at continental scales. More importantly, we do not have the ability to credibly predict such states.

Likewise, we can build and run complex models of the Earth system, but we do not have adequate enough understanding of the processes and mechanisms to be able to quantitatively evaluate the predictions and projections they produce, or to understand why different models give different answers.

Challenges and opportunities for improved understanding of regional climate dynamics

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Well I've previously conceded that being a skeptic is easier.

My main argument is that models upon which most of the alarmism is based are deeply flawed and deviate from the science. Fortune telling ≠ science. If someone tries to sell you a system to beat the races, it'll probably out-perform climate models because it's simulating a less complex system with far fewer variables. Don't accept my word for it, listen to the scientists themselves.


Challenges and opportunities for improved understanding of regional climate dynamics

And my point, that seems to have flown right by you, is that you (most likely) lack the expertise to make that call and (almost certainly) misunderstand the nature of the scientific consensus on the issue of AGW. The data supports the hypothesis, and there isn't a better one right now. The way to determine whether there are better explanations is to get your degrees and publish your studies. Let peer review test them and see how they perform. Without that level of expertise, your thought bubbles are not terribly convincing Lee. Here's a little secret for you; that is exactly what has been happening for the last half-century at least. And thus the consensus was born. What would be required for your statement to be accurate is for there to be a cabal of science bigwigs bullying labs all around the world forcing them to publish studies that confirm their deeply held belief. I hope you can see the nonsense contained therein. What you seem to want is a more authoritative data set than the one that supports the smoking cancer link. Not going to happen. That isn't how complex systems are studied or how the data accumulate. Dr Karl said it pretty well on twitter when asked about the link between the bushfires and AGW:
"

Dr Karl
@DoctorKarl

The PM is correct, in the very limited and specific sense that you cannot prove that it was the cigarette that you smoked at 3.20pm on Jan 5, 1999, that set off your lung cancer. But in the broad sense, smoking causes lung cancer, and CO2 causes Global Warming which caused fires."

 

[Tigers of Old]

Maybe I’m misreading it but the court of public opinion seems to be turning big time in the face of this seasons disaster. This is waking plenty on the fringes up. Not before time. Hopefully we start to see real change in climate policy from our leaders both at home & abroad..soon.