Page 712 of 715 FirstFirst ... 212612662702711712713 ... LastLast
Results 24,886 to 24,920 of 25002

Thread: Oz Politics.

  1. #24886
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Sorrento Australia
    Posts
    1,594

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    NSW Labor and Chinese money, again.
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-...minns/11191042

    Chinese money and corruption........... I'm waiting for the spotlight to go on Queensland. Trouble is with virtually all major players being bought, who's going to be spot operator? .........and if the spot does go on It's a safe bet that the lighting console operator will pull the fader for the spot down pretty quick........in other words its just about over bar the shouting, and those with the money in their pockets won't be listening anyway. It's all rather depressing.
    Last edited by Hallam; 06-11-2019 at 05:09 PM.
    If war is the answer........... it must be a profoundly stupid question

  2. #24887
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    57,968

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by skuthorp View Post
    Originally Posted by WX
    The government subsidises the coal industry in a number of ways.



    Another arrogant claim with nothing to support it.


    "But what about the economic cost? A new report has revealed that the financial “propping up” of the Australian coal export industry, through a range of government subsidies aimed at boosting production, is cost costing taxpayers roughly $5.2 per tonne of coal produced, or a total of $1.8 billion a year.

    https://reneweconomy.com.au/coal-pro...-a-year-77543/

    Coal will be with us for a while yet, but the industry will be smaller, and on notice.

    It all depends really on how much warming we get. 2, 4, 6, and over how long as to where our species end up. The species will probably survive, western civilisation maybe not so as billions attempt to move
    Joke. What's a "capital subsidy"?

    Fuel exercise exemption isn't a subsidy. Any significant operator - including IIRC farmers - who operate off road don't pay fuel excise. It isn't a subsidy... it's just them not paying road tax because they aren't using roads.

    Tax deductions aren't a subsidy per se. You need to explain that one a lot more.
    "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome and charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" Mark Twain... so... Carpe the living sh!t out of the Diem

  3. #24888
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    57,968

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hallam View Post
    It seems to me the above post smacks of hypocrisy Ian. Firstly attacking the man is a frequent strategy of yours! It was your very first response to me on this forum, and I will not forget it. But more to the point i will address your refusal to answer a question, to respond to a post or series of posts in a linear fashion to facilitate a conversational exchange of differing opinions.

    In my post #54 http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthre...ustralia/page2
    i clearly invited you to respond in specifics as I have done several times in discussions with you. You are determined it seems, not to follow a linear argument but rather dodge around aspects od a discussion to complicate and obstruct clear argument. Here is my post post Ian. I invite you to respond in the relevant thread...........

    #54http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthre...ustralia/page2
    Nah... you confuse "attacking the man" with taking exception to the substance of what the man wrote... as in the example you instance.
    "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome and charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" Mark Twain... so... Carpe the living sh!t out of the Diem

  4. #24889
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,695

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    The fossil fuel industry has a capitalisation of something like 4.65 TRILLION. Total revenue is around 2 TRILLION a year, which is about 2 to 3% of the world's revenue. Are you seriously going to claim that an industry that includes some of the world's biggest companies and the world's richest people cannot afford to fund climate science?

    No, I'm not saying they can't afford it, I'm saying the rich are not all on one side, and further, I am saying that all of the government money (i.e. money confiscated from you and me) is going to fund things like the IPCC, which is mandated to address man-caused climate change (i.e. they find that it's not man-caused, they shut up shop, or it's not changing dramatically, they shut up shop).


    The theme that everybody with a different view is "funded by coal" is playing the man, it isn't true, and it poisons the discussion. Which of course is what it's meant to do...


    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    It is beyond bizarre to claim that all the money is on the side of the alarmists - it is utterly against the truth. For someone who claims to hate lies, you come up with a lot of.........less than truthful information, shall we say.

    It would add to your credibility as the scientific and modest voice you seem to think of yourself as, if you could decide to address what is actually said (you know, read the actual words, understand them, and then reply) rather than carry this obvious prejudice that you have into every exchange with me, and get all morally superior. It makes you look emotional and ridiculous.


    OK, as we were.




    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    I'm not sure how many scientists I know, but I know many of them and none of them will say that it is career threatening to say things contrary to conventional wisdom. My wife's former boss and his under-funded little team came up with something contrary to the trendy views of the time a while back. He claimed that one of the basic ideas of astronomy was wrong.


    So what did "the crowd" do when he refused to run with them?


    They gave him the Nobel Prize, that's what. Just as they did to so many other scientists who broke with the crowd. Because that is the way that scientists work - those who break the established ideas are those who win the big gigs, not those who run with the crowd.

    I doubt that you really disagree with what I said. Let's see how we go getting FACTS on the table, then we can look at interpreting them.


    For a start, my contention was that scientists generally feel that saying anything contrary to the IPCC on the "climate change" issue is career threatening. Do you have any data against that contention? No, you don't. I know that, because I do know scientists, and I know that what I am saying is accurate.


    Secondly, let's look at the case you are describing. Names, please, and we can get some data on the table.


    It sounds similar to the Barry Marshall and Robin Warren case. I worked with Warren's son. These were Perth researchers and the work all happened here. I followed the case and was fascinated by it. Read this: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/nobel-wi...ll-of-ridicule and this: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/11/h...he-system.html


    Here's the kindest explanation for what they confronted: << Medicine's peer-review system for deciding what articles to publish and which grants taxpayers should support "discriminate against the truly inventive, exciting, far-out ideas, Dr. Hellman said. Peer review "tends to adhere to things that are consistent with prevailing beliefs and models," he said, and "really new ideas usually just get thought of as crazy." >>


    Michael Mosley made a documentary on it called "Ulcer Wars."


    "According to Mr Mosley, it took Mr Marshall 10 years to convince 10 percent of doctors of what he was doing was legitimate." From: http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/...04/4418884.htm


    How much peer-reviewed scepticism about current climate-change fashion will get into print? About zero.


    The scientific community is constituted of human beings. It's as prejudiced, small-minded, careerist, etc., as every other field. It just doesn't like to admit it. The notion that scientists are constitutionally more honest, or have higher moral standards, is frankly absurd. Like journalists, another modern kind of "saint." People who think such things haven't met a journalist. Or a scientist.


    Note (because you need to be told what I didn't write) I have NOT said that journalists and scientists are WORSE than other people. My contention is that basically they are like everybody else, which is not how they like to think of themselves, and it's certainly not how the media present them.


    (Funny story about Warren that his son told me. He got one of those notifications from Australia Post saying that there was a parcel for him. He went into the Post Office to collect, but forgot to take the card. They said they couldn't give him the parcel without ID. He realised that he had also forgotten his wallet, he had no ID. They said "sorry mate, no go." Then he realised that on the wall beside him was this huge poster displaying a new stamp, and it had his face on it. He pointed to it and said, "well that's me, will that do for ID?" They gave him the parcel.)


    I would also point out that about the most fundamental idea in science is falsifiability, with the concept that one's focus should be on falsifying a thesis, not confirming it. In other words, a kind of built-in procedural scepticism. But that's not how it really works, at least where vested interests exist (which is usually the case). How it really works is that the politics ensures that as soon as possible all real dissent will be silenced, and the ideal is to get to a stage where you can say "the science is settled." The idea that the science is settled is, of course, TOTALLY CONTRARY to the sceptical approach that one is meant to take, but few seem to notice or care. I'd say that the moment you hear "the science is settled," grab your wallet.
    http://fairmaid.blogspot.com.au/

    "It's dawning on me that I should have worked out the tumbler details more in advance, rather than rely on bluster and over confidence. But that's just silly." Jim Ledger.

  5. #24890
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,695

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    BTW, another thing I didn't write is that the climate change alarmists are wrong. I really have no idea whether they are right or wrong. What I do know is that the people with all the power in the debate are posing as though they are battling huge forces, and they are the underdogs. That's pretty disconcerting. I also happen to be old enough, just, to have been shown a documentary in the 'seventies, which I recall remarkably well, in which it was explained that the climate models of the scientists showed that we are headed for an ice age. Apparently the models were wrong. Having been around for a while, it isn't hard to imagine that in say, thirty years, we'll be hearing that yes, the models were pretty unsophisticated and NOW we understand so much better, and here's our latest predictions...
    http://fairmaid.blogspot.com.au/

    "It's dawning on me that I should have worked out the tumbler details more in advance, rather than rely on bluster and over confidence. But that's just silly." Jim Ledger.

  6. #24891
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    54,787

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    According to the long established natural cycles we should be heading towards a cooler earth. We are not.

  7. #24892
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,695

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by skuthorp View Post
    According to the long established natural cycles we should be heading towards a cooler earth. We are not.
    The ex-Greenpeace guy has a lot to say about the long-term data, have a look at it. I don't know who's right, I only know that there are credible voices on both sides (with the courage all being on the sceptical side), and in that case nobody seems to have engaged his arguments, they have instead just called him a voice for polluters. Playing the man, defaming him, saying to the rest of us, "Don't listen to that guy, he's a bad guy, listen to us, we're the good guys." But Greenpeace was political from the start, it was never an objective or rational organisation.

    Here he is again: https://www.technocracy.news/former-...nge-to-shreds/
    http://fairmaid.blogspot.com.au/

    "It's dawning on me that I should have worked out the tumbler details more in advance, rather than rely on bluster and over confidence. But that's just silly." Jim Ledger.

  8. #24893
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    28,800

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    BTW, another thing I didn't write is that the climate change alarmists are wrong. I really have no idea whether they are right or wrong. What I do know is that the people with all the power in the debate are posing as though they are battling huge forces, and they are the underdogs. That's pretty disconcerting. I also happen to be old enough, just, to have been shown a documentary in the 'seventies, which I recall remarkably well, in which it was explained that the climate models of the scientists showed that we are headed for an ice age. Apparently the models were wrong. Having been around for a while, it isn't hard to imagine that in say, thirty years, we'll be hearing that yes, the models were pretty unsophisticated and NOW we understand so much better, and here's our latest predictions...
    You use the word alarmist which seems to put you in the denier camp. Also who are all these people with all the power?
    Can’t be the scientists because they are being ignored. Can’t be the greenies because they are being ignored and it certainly isn’t the farmers because they are being ignored as well.
    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  9. #24894
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    57,968

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by skuthorp View Post
    According to the long established natural cycles we should be heading towards a cooler earth. We are not.
    Cite your reference please
    "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome and charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" Mark Twain... so... Carpe the living sh!t out of the Diem

  10. #24895
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,695

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    You use the word alarmist which seems to put you in the denier camp. Also who are all these people with all the power?
    Can’t be the scientists because they are being ignored. Can’t be the greenies because they are being ignored and it certainly isn’t the farmers because they are being ignored as well.
    Gary, I don't know how to refer to the camp that is spreading alarm about climate change unless we use a term like that. The NASA and other scientists I showed giving their congressional testimony were not "deniers" at all, and yet they were arguing against "alarm" in this matter. How else to distinguish?

    "Denier" is of course a tendentious term, used because it alludes to "holocaust denial" and brings all of the memes to mind that are associated with that subject. Clever. Politics.
    http://fairmaid.blogspot.com.au/

    "It's dawning on me that I should have worked out the tumbler details more in advance, rather than rely on bluster and over confidence. But that's just silly." Jim Ledger.

  11. #24896
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    54,787

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Bigfella View Post
    Cite your reference please
    Has to do with the Milankovitch cycles, and the human effects postponing the next glaciation cycle. For about 300 years according to this MIT article.
    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/4...-next-ice-age/

  12. #24897
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,685

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    No, I'm not saying they can't afford it, I'm saying the rich are not all on one side, and further, I am saying that all of the government money (i.e. money confiscated from you and me) is going to fund things like the IPCC, which is mandated to address man-caused climate change (i.e. they find that it's not man-caused, they shut up shop, or it's not changing dramatically, they shut up shop).


    The theme that everybody with a different view is "funded by coal" is playing the man, it isn't true, and it poisons the discussion. Which of course is what it's meant to do...





    It would add to your credibility as the scientific and modest voice you seem to think of yourself as, if you could decide to address what is actually said (you know, read the actual words, understand them, and then reply) rather than carry this obvious prejudice that you have into every exchange with me, and get all morally superior. It makes you look emotional and ridiculous.


    OK, as we were.







    I doubt that you really disagree with what I said. Let's see how we go getting FACTS on the table, then we can look at interpreting them.


    For a start, my contention was that scientists generally feel that saying anything contrary to the IPCC on the "climate change" issue is career threatening. Do you have any data against that contention? No, you don't. I know that, because I do know scientists, and I know that what I am saying is accurate.


    Secondly, let's look at the case you are describing. Names, please, and we can get some data on the table.


    It sounds similar to the Barry Marshall and Robin Warren case. I worked with Warren's son. These were Perth researchers and the work all happened here. I followed the case and was fascinated by it. Read this: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/nobel-wi...ll-of-ridicule and this: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/11/h...he-system.html


    Here's the kindest explanation for what they confronted: << Medicine's peer-review system for deciding what articles to publish and which grants taxpayers should support "discriminate against the truly inventive, exciting, far-out ideas, Dr. Hellman said. Peer review "tends to adhere to things that are consistent with prevailing beliefs and models," he said, and "really new ideas usually just get thought of as crazy." >>


    Michael Mosley made a documentary on it called "Ulcer Wars."


    "According to Mr Mosley, it took Mr Marshall 10 years to convince 10 percent of doctors of what he was doing was legitimate." From: http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/...04/4418884.htm


    How much peer-reviewed scepticism about current climate-change fashion will get into print? About zero.


    The scientific community is constituted of human beings. It's as prejudiced, small-minded, careerist, etc., as every other field. It just doesn't like to admit it. The notion that scientists are constitutionally more honest, or have higher moral standards, is frankly absurd. Like journalists, another modern kind of "saint." People who think such things haven't met a journalist. Or a scientist.


    Note (because you need to be told what I didn't write) I have NOT said that journalists and scientists are WORSE than other people. My contention is that basically they are like everybody else, which is not how they like to think of themselves, and it's certainly not how the media present them.


    (Funny story about Warren that his son told me. He got one of those notifications from Australia Post saying that there was a parcel for him. He went into the Post Office to collect, but forgot to take the card. They said they couldn't give him the parcel without ID. He realised that he had also forgotten his wallet, he had no ID. They said "sorry mate, no go." Then he realised that on the wall beside him was this huge poster displaying a new stamp, and it had his face on it. He pointed to it and said, "well that's me, will that do for ID?" They gave him the parcel.)


    I would also point out that about the most fundamental idea in science is falsifiability, with the concept that one's focus should be on falsifying a thesis, not confirming it. In other words, a kind of built-in procedural scepticism. But that's not how it really works, at least where vested interests exist (which is usually the case). How it really works is that the politics ensures that as soon as possible all real dissent will be silenced, and the ideal is to get to a stage where you can say "the science is settled." The idea that the science is settled is, of course, TOTALLY CONTRARY to the sceptical approach that one is meant to take, but few seem to notice or care. I'd say that the moment you hear "the science is settled," grab your wallet.
    No, I was not referring to Marshall and Warren, but to Brian Schmidt.

    I find that scientists are, in general, vastly more driven by data and evidence than most people. They are not saints, as I am well aware; some former colleagues of my wife and friends of ours are quite prominent in publicising scientific fraud and systemic issues. Jim Coyne (named as one of the top 200 pyschology scientists in a 2014 paper) is a complete **** stirrer about it, and James Heather with his GRIM test does some fascinating work. But while science is far from perfect, it is IMHO vastly closer to it than most other pursuits.

    Yes, doctors may have been slow to convince, but medical doctors are not scientists so your example proves nothing about science. Yes, science is imperfect - but individual problem are not proof that the system is rotten.

    I DID deal directly and factually with your claims - far more than you did, in fact. You asserted "The money and power is all on the side of the alarmists. " The fact is that those who could benefit from silencing the "alarmists" (a term which shows bias, as others have pointed out) have enormous money and enormous power and therefore your claim was not true. Just as in earlier threads (such as the one involving the social security system) you have said something that is untrue and then insult the person who has proven it to be so. It is not "emotional and ridiculous" to prove that your claims were factually incorrect - it is setting out the truth against your rhetoric.

    As far as your claim that I'm prejudiced, while we are all prejudiced I utterly reject any implication that I suffer more from it than you - you are the person who launched a thread about science in the belief that "the longer this thread goes, the more obvious it will become that you rely solely​ on authority for your belief, as I already think is the case." That was utterly wrong - although I'm not a scientist it is a field I am fascinated by, in which I have been a subject for experiment, and which is a vital factor in my life - and also a clear case that you were prejudiced (as is evident from your claim that I relied on authority, which is untrue) and may also be an example of you claiming to be morally superior.

    Your claim "I know scientists I know that, because I do know scientists, and I know that what I am saying is accurate" appears to be arguing from authority - the very practise you attacked in an earlier thread. I can also say that I know scientists, and I know that what you are saying is not accurate - and I have at least as much evidence and authority for my claim as you do.

  13. #24898
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    28,800

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    Gary, I don't know how to refer to the camp that is spreading alarm about climate change unless we use a term like that. The NASA and other scientists I showed giving their congressional testimony were not "deniers" at all, and yet they were arguing against "alarm" in this matter. How else to distinguish?

    "Denier" is of course a tendentious term, used because it alludes to "holocaust denial" and brings all of the memes to mind that are associated with that subject. Clever. Politics.
    North polar cap has pretty much lost all it's old sea ice, Greenlands glaciers are melting at accelerating rates, Antarctic ice cap is thinning and a number of major glaciers (Thwaites) are seriously worrying scientists, Coral reefs around the planet are bleaching, the oceans are becoming more acid due to co2 takeup, Countries that don't usually experience bushfires are. Bangladesh and a number of Pacific island nations are losing land to inundation, maximum temperatures around the planet are breaking records, the Polar Vortex has destablised and has been generating extreme weather events, Record droughts, bushfires out of season, migration patterns are changing, in Siberia methane craters are forming, in Alaska forests on Tundra are falling over....and that's without thinking too hard. You don't think we should be alarmed?
    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  14. #24899
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    28,800

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    Gary, I don't know how to refer to the camp that is spreading alarm about climate change unless we use a term like that. The NASA and other scientists I showed giving their congressional testimony were not "deniers" at all, and yet they were arguing against "alarm" in this matter. How else to distinguish?

    "Denier" is of course a tendentious term, used because it alludes to "holocaust denial" and brings all of the memes to mind that are associated with that subject. Clever. Politics.
    When I did a search on that I get a very different picture.
    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  15. #24900
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    54,787

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Aeguing against alarm is probably a very good idea i a country where the political administration is forbidding mention of climate change in it's official documents. But change is happening and alarm will come soon enough and we will not be, and are not ready with planned mitigation of the effects. It's in the 'politically unaceptable' basket.

  16. #24901
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,695

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Chris, yeah, you rely on authority, like everybody else who doesn’t spend their time with raw data, and no, that thread revealed nothing to affect that obvious truth. Goodness.

    I will answer the rest of your post later, but in the time available, how about compiling a list of articles in scientific or mainstream press organs attacking climate alarmism.

    Won’t take you long.

    Then you can explain how all those rich, powerful people can’t seem to get any air-time.

    Cheers,
    John.
    http://fairmaid.blogspot.com.au/

    "It's dawning on me that I should have worked out the tumbler details more in advance, rather than rely on bluster and over confidence. But that's just silly." Jim Ledger.

  17. #24902
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,695

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    You’re good at text selection, Chris. It’s not scientific, but it is reminiscent of, er, scientism...

    Here’s what I said: “The moment a scientist expresses any scepticism about the packaged up scare campaign being run by the IPCC or other globalists, he is defamed as a spokesman for coal or some such. Let's be real, most scientists will tell you they dare not say anything contrary to the current trendy views, they feel that it would be career threatening. The money and power is all on the side of the alarmists. So if you're running with the crowd, be clear about that, and please don't talk like the problem is the rich and powerful. Plenty of the rich and powerful are pushing the alarmist thing for all it's worth. Bucking it is the act of a very brave man.”

    How about answering the argument, instead of looking for a gotcha? Or are you trying to illustrate my point, by suggesting that anybody who doesn’t take the climate models on authority, like you do, is a paid shill for super-yacht owning coal miners?

    Show me the the effect of the anti-alarmist money in the scientific literature and the mass media.

    Cheers,
    John.
    http://fairmaid.blogspot.com.au/

    "It's dawning on me that I should have worked out the tumbler details more in advance, rather than rely on bluster and over confidence. But that's just silly." Jim Ledger.

  18. #24903
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,695

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Chris,

    You deny prejudice, but you could perhaps give credence to your claim that this is a real discussion rather than you attacking me by explaining why you went back a page to that post, and ignored my answer - directly to you- above, in which I clarified, if any was necessary: “No, I'm not saying they can't afford it, I'm saying the rich are not all on one side, and further, I am saying that all of the government money (i.e. money confiscated from you and me) is going to fund things like the IPCC, which is mandated to address man-caused climate change (i.e. they find that it's not man-caused, they shut up shop, or it's not changing dramatically, they shut up shop).”

    You might also address each point, instead of cherry picking text samples. Do you think there’s any taxpayers’ cash on offer for disputing the current orthodoxy?

    Regards,
    John.
    http://fairmaid.blogspot.com.au/

    "It's dawning on me that I should have worked out the tumbler details more in advance, rather than rely on bluster and over confidence. But that's just silly." Jim Ledger.

  19. #24904
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    28,800

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    North polar cap has pretty much lost all it's old sea ice, Greenlands glaciers are melting at accelerating rates, Antarctic ice cap is thinning and a number of major glaciers (Thwaites) are seriously worrying scientists, Coral reefs around the planet are bleaching, the oceans are becoming more acid due to co2 takeup, Countries that don't usually experience bushfires are. Bangladesh and a number of Pacific island nations are losing land to inundation, maximum temperatures around the planet are breaking records, the Polar Vortex has destablised and has been generating extreme weather events, Record droughts, bushfires out of season, migration patterns are changing, in Siberia methane craters are forming, in Alaska forests on Tundra are falling over....and that's without thinking too hard. You don't think we should be alarmed?
    So no comment on this list?
    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  20. #24905
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    28,800

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    When I did a search on that I get a very different picture.
    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
    Or this list?
    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  21. #24906
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    54,787

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Inconvenient facts Gary. I think perceived personal slights are seen as more important.

    Don't get distracted.

  22. #24907
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    28,800

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by skuthorp View Post
    Inconvenient facts Gary. I think perceived personal slights are seen as more important.

    Don't get distracted.
    Yes, John uses interesting language that betrays his attitude towards global warming.
    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  23. #24908
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    28,800

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    CO2 and temperature.
    https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

    The correlation between co2 and temperature has been known about since 1824.
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...se-gas-effect/
    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  24. #24909
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,685

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    You’re good at text selection, Chris. It’s not scientific, but it is reminiscent of, er, scientism...

    Here’s what I said: “The moment a scientist expresses any scepticism about the packaged up scare campaign being run by the IPCC or other globalists, he is defamed as a spokesman for coal or some such. Let's be real, most scientists will tell you they dare not say anything contrary to the current trendy views, they feel that it would be career threatening. The money and power is all on the side of the alarmists. So if you're running with the crowd, be clear about that, and please don't talk like the problem is the rich and powerful. Plenty of the rich and powerful are pushing the alarmist thing for all it's worth. Bucking it is the act of a very brave man.”

    How about answering the argument, instead of looking for a gotcha? Or are you trying to illustrate my point, by suggesting that anybody who doesn’t take the climate models on authority, like you do, is a paid shill for super-yacht owning coal miners?

    Show me the the effect of the anti-alarmist money in the scientific literature and the mass media.

    Cheers,
    John.
    I do NOT take the climate models on authority. I have read many detailed papers. I have read a significant number of climate sceptic websites and understand their arguments on (to pick just one factor) Stevenson screens. I have discussed the issue with earth scientists in my family. Those are not the acts of someone who is taking the models on authority.

    The fact that you refer to things such as a "packaged up scare campaign...run by globalists" is an indication that you are very far from being a dispassionate and objective observer.
    Last edited by Chris249; 06-12-2019 at 09:11 PM.

  25. #24910
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    54,787

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Is our Aq. one of those that believe that god will put his foot out of heaven and reset the world to perfection?
    I could support the prospect if the reset was pre the evolution/creation (whatever rocks your boat) of modern man.
    The single most beneficial thing man could do for the planet and whatever species we haven't shot or poisoned out yet is to disappear.

  26. #24911
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    28,800

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  27. #24912
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    57,968

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    That's a dodgy looking report... especially when you dig into some of the claims. "Climate change" appears to be a catch-all... despite, say, the drying up of the world's 6th largest lake being more attributable to deforestation and sucking more water out of it...

    Meanwhile, Uncle Rupert tells me that global carbon emissions are increasing at twice the rate of Australia's...

    Average global greenhouse gas emissions are rising at double the rate of Australia’s, exposing the mismatch between the “hope and reality” of meeting Paris Agreement goals, a report has found.

    A major report by energy giant BP said the world was returning to coal, and without shale gas from the US and LNG exports from Australia the emissions reduction picture would be much worse.

    Massive investments in renewable energy were needed but would not be enough to satisfy increasing demands for power, most notably in China and India.

    BP said global emissions overall were up 2 per cent last year as the unexpected return to coal gathered pace.

    The increase of 600 million tonnes of greenhouse gases from energy was greater than Australia’s total output.

    Officials said the report confirmed Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions were “minuscule in absolute terms and lower (than the world average) in percentage terms as well”.

    BP said last year’s global energy demand and carbon emissions from energy use had grown at its fastest rate since 2010-11.

    The BP statistical review of energy is a highly respected annual report that examines trends in energy demand and use, including from renewables.

    The findings mirrored those of the recent Global Carbon Project, which reported global greenhouse gas emissions had been steadily accelerating since 2016.

    Increased demand for power in China, India and the US underpinned most of the increase in demand. Unusually hot and cold weather led to a spike in demand for heating and cooling, notably in North America, but BP could not say if this was a one-off due to natural variation or part of a worrying climate change trend.

    The report made clear that, without shale gas in America and LNG exports to Asia, notably from Australia, greenhouse gas emissions would be much higher.

    Energy Minister Angus Taylor last night reiterated Australia’s contribution to lowering global carbon emissions.

    “We have clearly mapped out how we will achieve the 326 million tonnes of (carbon) abatement needed to meet our 2030 Paris target — down to the last tonne,” Mr Taylor said.

    Australia’s emissions from energy, and the energy intensity of the economy, fell in 2018, but overall carbon emissions were up 0.7 per cent due largely to industrial demand from the export LNG sector.

    BP chief economist Bob Dudley said the 2018 figures showed globally there was “a growing divide between societal demands for an accelerated transition to a low carbon energy system and the actual pace of progress”.

    The BP report said building more renewable sources of energy could not keep pace with rising demand.

    “Even if renewables are growing at truly exceptional rates, the pace of growth of power demand, particularly in developing Asia, limits the pace at which the power sector can decarbonise,” the BP report said.

    Coal production (up 4.3 per cent) and consumption (up 1.4 per cent) had increased at their fastest rate for five years.

    “This strength was concentrated in Asia, with India and China together accounting for the vast majority of the gains in both consumption and production,” the BP report said.

    The growth in coal demand was the second consecutive year of increases following three years of falling consumption.

    “As a result, the peak in global coal consumption which many had thought had occurred in 2013 now looks less certain. Another couple of years of increases close to that seen last year would take global consumption (of coal) comfortably above 2013 levels,” the BP report said.

    Mr Dudley said developments detailed in the review highlighted a critical challenge facing the global power sector.

    “The shift towards greater electrification can play an important part in the energy transition only if it is accompanied by a decarbonisation of the power sector,” Mr Dudley said.

    Despite the continuing rapid growth in renewable energy last year, it provided only a third of the required increase in power generation, with coal providing a broadly similar contribution.

    “Decarbonising the power sector while also meeting the rapidly expanding demand for power, particularly in the developing world, is perhaps the single most important challenge facing the global energy system over the next 20 years,” Mr Dudley said.

    “Renewable energy has a vital role to play in meeting that challenge. But it is unlikely to be able to do so on its own.

    “A variety of different technologies and fuels are likely to be required, including extensive coal-to-gas switching and the widespread deployment of carbon capture, use and storage.

    “This is not a race to renewables, it is a race to reduce carbon emissions across many fronts.”
    "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome and charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" Mark Twain... so... Carpe the living sh!t out of the Diem

  28. #24913
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,685

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Aquinian.


    I did NOT "go back a page". You wrote something in post 24856 and I replied to it on the same page on my screen, using factual information to rebut your point. What do you find objectionable about that process?

    You say "you might address each point". However, as just one example when I DID exactly that and addressed your untrue claim that "The money and power is all on the side of the alarmists. " your response was to try to change the argument. You made a simple, blunt, straightforward statement that was incorrect - that is the fact.

    This is not just a point of rhetoric. The fact is that "climate sceptics" DO have access to funding for studies and for promotion of their point of view. See for example the list of Exxon's funding here from Exxon itself; https://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/g...ide-giving.pdf There are funds there going to bodies such as the Manhattan Federation and the US Chamber of Commerce - both involved in promoting the fossil fuel industry. See for example the US Chamber of Commerce's promotion of fossil fuels here; https://www.uschamber.com/series/exp...merican-energy It is either a lie or very careless to claim " "The money and power is all on the side of the alarmists. "when companies as powerful and rich as Exxon are giving money to bodies that are campaigning against controls to prevent AGW.

    Those who are in the fossil fuel industry have trillions of dollars. If their businesses are suffering because of a lack of funding of "sceptics" or promotion of their views, why don't they use a minute fraction of their wealth to fund the science or media to prove their case? The Saudi royal family alone could pay for more than the US and Australian governments have ever put into climate science research, with barely a dent in their wealth.

    It is incorrect to imply that failure to fund studies to research one side of a subject is firm evidence of bias. It can also be evidence that the evidence in that area is so strong that no reasonable funding body would bother to fund further examination on the issue. It's a bit like the fact that there is little to no funding available for studies to find out whether whether smoking causes cancer or whether mobile phones cause cancer. Such areas do not receive much funding because there is no real dispute, not because of bias. Whatever one may believe about AGW, the simple fact is that lack of funding is NOT proof of bias.

    I am NOT cherry picking text samples. I am examining the claims you make in order to assess the value of your argument. When I do so I am finding out that many of your claims are not truthful. The presentation of truth and facts is a basic requirement in a reasoned argument and a real discussion.
    Last edited by Chris249; 06-12-2019 at 09:13 PM.

  29. #24914
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    28,800

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Bigfella View Post
    That's a dodgy looking report... especially when you dig into some of the claims. "Climate change" appears to be a catch-all... despite, say, the drying up of the world's 6th largest lake being more attributable to deforestation and sucking more water out of it...

    Meanwhile, Uncle Rupert tells me that global carbon emissions are increasing at twice the rate of Australia's...

    Average global greenhouse gas emissions are rising at double the rate of Australia’s, exposing the mismatch between the “hope and reality” of meeting Paris Agreement goals, a report has found.

    A major report by energy giant BP said the world was returning to coal, and without shale gas from the US and LNG exports from Australia the emissions reduction picture would be much worse.

    Massive investments in renewable energy were needed but would not be enough to satisfy increasing demands for power, most notably in China and India.

    BP said global emissions overall were up 2 per cent last year as the unexpected return to coal gathered pace.

    The increase of 600 million tonnes of greenhouse gases from energy was greater than Australia’s total output.

    Officials said the report confirmed Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions were “minuscule in absolute terms and lower (than the world average) in percentage terms as well”.

    BP said last year’s global energy demand and carbon emissions from energy use had grown at its fastest rate since 2010-11.

    The BP statistical review of energy is a highly respected annual report that examines trends in energy demand and use, including from renewables.

    The findings mirrored those of the recent Global Carbon Project, which reported global greenhouse gas emissions had been steadily accelerating since 2016.

    Increased demand for power in China, India and the US underpinned most of the increase in demand. Unusually hot and cold weather led to a spike in demand for heating and cooling, notably in North America, but BP could not say if this was a one-off due to natural variation or part of a worrying climate change trend.

    The report made clear that, without shale gas in America and LNG exports to Asia, notably from Australia, greenhouse gas emissions would be much higher.

    Energy Minister Angus Taylor last night reiterated Australia’s contribution to lowering global carbon emissions.

    “We have clearly mapped out how we will achieve the 326 million tonnes of (carbon) abatement needed to meet our 2030 Paris target — down to the last tonne,” Mr Taylor said.

    Australia’s emissions from energy, and the energy intensity of the economy, fell in 2018, but overall carbon emissions were up 0.7 per cent due largely to industrial demand from the export LNG sector.

    BP chief economist Bob Dudley said the 2018 figures showed globally there was “a growing divide between societal demands for an accelerated transition to a low carbon energy system and the actual pace of progress”.

    The BP report said building more renewable sources of energy could not keep pace with rising demand.

    “Even if renewables are growing at truly exceptional rates, the pace of growth of power demand, particularly in developing Asia, limits the pace at which the power sector can decarbonise,” the BP report said.

    Coal production (up 4.3 per cent) and consumption (up 1.4 per cent) had increased at their fastest rate for five years.

    “This strength was concentrated in Asia, with India and China together accounting for the vast majority of the gains in both consumption and production,” the BP report said.

    The growth in coal demand was the second consecutive year of increases following three years of falling consumption.

    “As a result, the peak in global coal consumption which many had thought had occurred in 2013 now looks less certain. Another couple of years of increases close to that seen last year would take global consumption (of coal) comfortably above 2013 levels,” the BP report said.

    Mr Dudley said developments detailed in the review highlighted a critical challenge facing the global power sector.

    “The shift towards greater electrification can play an important part in the energy transition only if it is accompanied by a decarbonisation of the power sector,” Mr Dudley said.

    Despite the continuing rapid growth in renewable energy last year, it provided only a third of the required increase in power generation, with coal providing a broadly similar contribution.

    “Decarbonising the power sector while also meeting the rapidly expanding demand for power, particularly in the developing world, is perhaps the single most important challenge facing the global energy system over the next 20 years,” Mr Dudley said.

    “Renewable energy has a vital role to play in meeting that challenge. But it is unlikely to be able to do so on its own.

    “A variety of different technologies and fuels are likely to be required, including extensive coal-to-gas switching and the widespread deployment of carbon capture, use and storage.

    “This is not a race to renewables, it is a race to reduce carbon emissions across many fronts.”
    Whatever works. Sadly the only carbon capture being done on any scale worth mentioning is tree planting but deforestation is probably negating that. What that is saying is we are now beyond the creek and it's proverbial paddle.
    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  30. #24915
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,695

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    I do NOT take the climate models on authority. I have read many detailed papers. I have read a significant number of climate sceptic websites and understand their arguments on (to pick just one factor) Stevenson screens. I have discussed the issue with earth scientists in my family. Those are not the acts of someone who is taking the models on authority.
    You're either a scientist with the relevant training and knowledge, studying raw data, or you're like most people, an amateur who studies secondary sources and forms reasoned judgements on their relative credibility. In doing so, you take a very great deal on authority, starting with the assumptions, or judgements, that the sources have told the truth honestly, and that they have not made some major error which vitiates their findings. Those are big things, obviously.

    Nothing you've said supports the idea that you're in the first category rather than the second, you're just more thorough and interested in the details than most.

    Indeed, just like the hopeless discussion on scientific knowledge in which everybody who commented grabbed the wrong end of the stick and clung to it like a terrier, you clearly have not understood what the difference between doing science and taking it on authority really is. It makes modern man very nervous to be confronted with this fact, as we are told from birth that "we" have scientific knowledge, whereas people in the past had only guesses and superstition. It produces major cognitive dissonance to face the reality of the situation. Human faith (as distinct from divine faith) is inescapable, important, valuable, and not to be scorned. The trouble is precisely that people don't know they're taking things on human faith, and don't like the idea that they are. It irritates them to be told the truth.

    On the question of how objective scientists in practice are, and how much fraud or error there may be, you actually agree with me while wrapping your comments in language designed to make it sound like you disagree. We both distinguish between the scientific method and how it is actually practiced, we both know scientists are not paragons of virtue compared with everybody else, and we both have actual knowledge of particular examples of when that difference was stark. I lack your piety, that's about the difference. You, like so many modern men, are a lot more credulous and religious than I am.

    Here's another example of science as practiced not being very much like science as theory, and this time it's an entire field which an undisputed expert tells us needs to be started pretty much from scratch all over again - quantum physics: http://worrydream.com/refs/Mead%20-%...Interview.html

    Cosmology is in even more trouble than quantum physics, I reckon. 95% of all the matter and energy it tells us is presently in the universe is "dark matter" and "dark energy," neither of which has been observed, and indeed only "exist" in order to make the math work without changing some assumptions that would wreck existing theory. Time to start from scratch in that field also.

    What you're witnessing here, I add, is somebody failing to take on human faith stuff which makes no sense. The difference between my view of quantum physics and cosmology, and most peoples', is not that they understand it and I don't. The difference is that they have human faith in those things, and I don't. They are pious and I'm agnostic.

    I've got no specific problem with the long-range weather forecasting models which are predicting global warming. They may be right. The previous iterations were wrong, and these might be too. Time will tell.

    Cheers,
    John.
    http://fairmaid.blogspot.com.au/

    "It's dawning on me that I should have worked out the tumbler details more in advance, rather than rely on bluster and over confidence. But that's just silly." Jim Ledger.

  31. #24916
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    57,968

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Well, that's a surprise - Adani has been approved. It's a good thing for the environment.... it means higher quality coal will be used between now and when cleaner technologies come on line than would otherwise have been the case - less pollution... albeit some. Better to have less pollution than the alternative, eh lads?
    "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome and charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" Mark Twain... so... Carpe the living sh!t out of the Diem

  32. #24917
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    28,800

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    You're either a scientist with the relevant training and knowledge, studying raw data, or you're like most people, an amateur who studies secondary sources and forms reasoned judgements on their relative credibility. In doing so, you take a very great deal on authority, starting with the assumptions, or judgements, that the sources have told the truth honestly, and that they have not made some major error which vitiates their findings. Those are big things, obviously.

    Nothing you've said supports the idea that you're in the first category rather than the second, you're just more thorough and interested in the details than most.

    Indeed, just like the hopeless discussion on scientific knowledge in which everybody who commented grabbed the wrong end of the stick and clung to it like a terrier, you clearly have not understood what the difference between doing science and taking it on authority really is. It makes modern man very nervous to be confronted with this fact, as we are told from birth that "we" have scientific knowledge, whereas people in the past had only guesses and superstition. It produces major cognitive dissonance to face the reality of the situation. Human faith (as distinct from divine faith) is inescapable, important, valuable, and not to be scorned. The trouble is precisely that people don't know they're taking things on human faith, and don't like the idea that they are. It irritates them to be told the truth.

    On the question of how objective scientists in practice are, and how much fraud or error there may be, you actually agree with me while wrapping your comments in language designed to make it sound like you disagree. We both distinguish between the scientific method and how it is actually practiced, we both know scientists are not paragons of virtue compared with everybody else, and we both have actual knowledge of particular examples of when that difference was stark. I lack your piety, that's about the difference. You, like so many modern men, are a lot more credulous and religious than I am.

    Here's another example of science as practiced not being very much like science as theory, and this time it's an entire field which an undisputed expert tells us needs to be started pretty much from scratch all over again - quantum physics: http://worrydream.com/refs/Mead%20-%...Interview.html

    Cosmology is in even more trouble than quantum physics, I reckon. 95% of all the matter and energy it tells us is presently in the universe is "dark matter" and "dark energy," neither of which has been observed, and indeed only "exist" in order to make the math work without changing some assumptions that would wreck existing theory. Time to start from scratch in that field also.

    What you're witnessing here, I add, is somebody failing to take on human faith stuff which makes no sense. The difference between my view of quantum physics and cosmology, and most peoples', is not that they understand it and I don't. The difference is that they have human faith in those things, and I don't. They are pious and I'm agnostic.

    I've got no specific problem with the long-range weather forecasting models which are predicting global warming. They may be right. The previous iterations were wrong, and these might be too. Time will tell.

    Cheers,
    John.
    Still trying to have bob each way eh John. Still waiting on a reply to at least two of my posts.
    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  33. #24918
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    28,800

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Bigfella View Post
    Well, that's a surprise - Adani has been approved. It's a good thing for the environment.... it means higher quality coal will be used between now and when cleaner technologies come on line than would otherwise have been the case - less pollution... albeit some. Better to have less pollution than the alternative, eh lads?
    Given Adani"s track record overseas I think it's a seriously bad idea. Also, they don't even have the finance in place to start mining. As for the environment, they have already badly polluted a protected wetland.
    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  34. #24919
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,695

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    I did NOT "go back a page". You wrote something in post 24856 and I replied to it on the same page on my screen, using factual information to rebut your point. What do you find objectionable about that process?

    That you didn't take the reply as clarifying my meaning, and instead went back a page, found a sentence you could take out of context, and quoted that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    You say "you might address each point". However, as just one example when I DID exactly that and addressed your untrue claim that "The money and power is all on the side of the alarmists. " your response was to try to change the argument.

    I'm not trying to change the argument at all. My stand is exactly the same as it was. If you think otherwise, state precisely how my position has changed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    This is not just a point of rhetoric. The fact is that "climate sceptics" DO have access to funding for studies and for promotion of their point of view. See for example the list of Exxon's funding here from Exxon itself; https://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/g...ide-giving.pdf There are funds there going to bodies such as the Manhattan Federation and the US Chamber of Commerce - both involved in promoting the fossil fuel industry. See for example the US Chamber of Commerce's promotion of fossil fuels here; https://www.uschamber.com/series/exp...merican-energy It is either a lie or very careless to claim " "The money and power is all on the side of the alarmists. "when companies as powerful and rich as Exxon are giving money to bodies that are campaigning against controls to prevent AGW.

    OK, so here's how that funding is manifesting itself, from the document you referred us to: "As for climate change, it’s about finding the right policies. Just as the problem is global, a solution must also be global in scope, be realistic and achievable – and not put the United States at a competitive disadvantage. The approach that President Obama’s administration is pushing — EPA’s Clean Power Plan — doesn’t meet any of these criteria."


    So, the people you tell us are funded to oppose climate change science, actually openly accept it, say it's a "global problem" and only disagree with specific policies aimed at addressing it.


    I think my position is looking pretty safe. I did suggest you compile some examples from mainstream media or scientific publications which oppose the IPCC view. And I was confident you couldn't.


    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    Those who are in the fossil fuel industry have trillions of dollars. If their businesses are suffering because of a lack of funding of "sceptics" or promotion of their views, why don't they use a minute fraction of their wealth to fund the science or media to prove their case? The Saudi royal family alone could pay for more than the US and Australian governments have ever put into climate science research, with barely a dent in their wealth.

    So, let me clarify, your position is that you can't find any evidence that anti-science funding is at work, and you're asking me to explain why these rich people are not funding it?


    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    The presentation of truth and facts is a basic requirement in a reasoned argument and a real discussion.

    So is reading comprehension. It's gentlemanly to try, at least, to understand what the other guy is trying to communicate. But hey, maybe you're doing your best!

    Cheers,
    John.
    http://fairmaid.blogspot.com.au/

    "It's dawning on me that I should have worked out the tumbler details more in advance, rather than rely on bluster and over confidence. But that's just silly." Jim Ledger.

  35. #24920
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,695

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    Still trying to have bob each way eh John. Still waiting on a reply to at least two of my posts.
    Sorry Gary, don't know which ones you want a reply to?
    http://fairmaid.blogspot.com.au/

    "It's dawning on me that I should have worked out the tumbler details more in advance, rather than rely on bluster and over confidence. But that's just silly." Jim Ledger.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •