• If you are having trouble logging in to the forum please contact admin@puntroadend.com // When reseting your password or awaiting confirmation please check your junk/spam emails.

Global Warming

Coburgtiger

Tiger Champion
May 7, 2012
2,826
390
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. One only has to stay home from work and be bombarded with 3 hours of endless garbage "news" to know why going to work is a pleasure. In the evenings it really ramps up. Maybe this is why our PRE friends on this thread are so pent up with anger and rudeness :oops: .
Like converstations or so called debate with climate change activists they state crap like hurt feelings and how they dont care, well there are no hurt feelings here just plain old good manners. Your attitude and behavioir would not be the same if we met face to face because communication doesn't work like it does on a keyboard.
We have given them the blueprint on how to win the next election but as usual they think abuse and hysteria will win over the masses.
A few people giving away their demographics here whining about free to air TV.
 

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
35,494
2,391
What i did for you was represent news corp to you with a few examples of news corp that were not right winged, in fact the opposite is quite often evident. Even today and yesterday they are publishing far from right leaning articles. Im not sure what you want from a "news" outlet to be honest, maybe totally biased reporting in only items you agree with?
That's cool HR, I'm not debating the News Corp political leaning with you because it's a non-starter. If that's what you believe then we'll never agree, never influence the other and to debate it is a waste of time, at least for me.

My belief is that this is the issue with you and your hard leaning left friends. You are unable to see past your bias. Regardless of the "what" its the "who" that you take humbrance with. Well that and the other few things i have mentioned ad nauseam over the past month.

The bubble is yours.
Believe whatever you want HR, but you might sound a bit more credible if you stick to what you know, see and hear from me, rather than hypothesise on my friends leaning and use that in your argument. The fact that you're so deeply rooted in the right, as is clearly evidenced by your views on News Corp, I expect nothing else but to be called hard left by you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
35,494
2,391
This is delusional. All commercial media skews towards supporting the LNP or at least going easy on them, and much of the ABC does the same, eg. watch the Insiders episodes that Fran Kelly hosted.
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!
You're both wrong. The commercial free to air stations are a mix. Some shows and political correspondents lean one way, some the other. I wouldn't accuse any other them of being overly biased one way or another, unlike News Corp and CNN.

ABC I view a bit differently. Maybe because they pay less many of their shows do have a left lean, but to counter that the ABC traditionally have taken politicians to task on both sides.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Jun 4, 2006
24,440
1,543
Melbourne
ABC I view a bit differently. Maybe because they pay less many of their shows do have a left lean, but to counter that the ABC traditionally have taken politicians to task on both sides.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

tigerman

Nank should grow a mullet.
Mar 17, 2003
9,712
1,156
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 think you are doing a disservice to the ABC, especially ABC radio.
Having worked in an isolated part of Australia for years, ABC radio was all that we had, there was no TV.
I'm a massive ABC radio fan, a huge fan.
I've retired now, but i still go to bed every night with my little ear piece in listening to my beloved ABC.
"Nightlife" and "Overnights" are an institution as far as i'm concerned .


 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

TigerMasochist

Walks softly carries a big stick.
Jul 13, 2003
18,995
1,411
Pretty sure we haven't.
So no adapting from cro magnon or neanderthal? No ice age either? Pretty sure there was also a fair few years of weather disruption not that long ago when Krakatoa or some such large volcano **** itself not that long ago.
 

lamb22

Tiger Legend
Jan 29, 2005
10,936
472

Murdoch runs papers at a loss in order to spread his particularly bankrupt form of toxicity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

HR

Tiger Superstar
Mar 20, 2013
1,498
164
A few people giving away their demographics here whining about free to air TV.
Got me.
I admit that i do watch footy and cricket and motor sport.
And now you have an issue with peoples demographics too! What's next Coburg, come on humour me?
 
Last edited:

Djevv

Tiger Champion
Feb 11, 2005
2,924
40
NT
www.youtube.com
You're both wrong. The commercial free to air stations are a mix. Some shows and political correspondents lean one way, some the other. I wouldn't accuse any other them of being overly biased one way or another, unlike News Corp and CNN.

ABC I view a bit differently. Maybe because they pay less many of their shows do have a left lean, but to counter that the ABC traditionally have taken politicians to task on both sides.
Actually I watch little FTA tv apart from quiz shows and the news. I do like the ABC TV news because it is local & radio and listen in every morning. Regional Australia would be lost without it, but I rarely watch political style shows as they irritate me too much.

I’m talking more about the print media: Fairfax, News.com, Guardian etc. These are full of left wing propaganda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

KnightersRevenge

Baby Knighters is on board.
Aug 21, 2007
6,185
159
Ireland
Climate science is very very political. The politics is what to do about it. I’m not against pulling down carbon emissions but everyone is in or no one will be.
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?

In the science of how the climate is changing there seems to me to be a lot of room for scepticism. Nothing is settled till everything is fully understood.
Again, black and white. No mate, this just isn't how science is done. See the example of Newtonian gravity above.

In debate the ad hominem (ridicule) is a fallacy with no value in a debate. Those who use it are engaging in politics.
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.
 

Djevv

Tiger Champion
Feb 11, 2005
2,924
40
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 on board.
Aug 21, 2007
6,185
159
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 on board.
Aug 21, 2007
6,185
159
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
16,019
207
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 on board.
Aug 21, 2007
6,185
159
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
Jun 4, 2006
24,440
1,543
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 on board.
Aug 21, 2007
6,185
159
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
11,774
811
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.