Page 715 of 734 FirstFirst ... 215615665705714715716725 ... LastLast
Results 24,991 to 25,025 of 25669

Thread: Oz Politics.

  1. #24991
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    29,123

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post

    Secondly, the funding for scientific research into climate change is going only one way. There's a politically correct position, and then there's academic and professional suicide. That's how it stands. Show me some research grant for a project that questions the politically correct position. You can't, you can only show me articles by interest groups defending their industries. I've no doubt that you could pile up such links all day, every day. Articles by the lobster industry arguing in favour of their industry, defending it against "ethical vegans" or whatever, articles by the hotels association arguing for longer trading hours or against more licensing restrictions. None of it would even begin to touch on the point that was under discussion here - to say that a sceptical scientist is "funded by coal" is simple defamation, because as far as anybody can show, there's no such funding.

    Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is part of the global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.[2][3][4] Some deniers endorse the term, while others prefer the term climate change skepticism.[3] Several scientists have noted that "skepticism" is an inaccurate description for those who deny anthropogenic global warming.[5][6][7] Climate change denial can also be implicit, when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action.[8] Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism[9][10] and pseudoscience.[11]
    The campaign to undermine public trust in climate science has been described as a "denial machine" organized by industrial, political and ideological interests, and supported by conservative media and skeptical bloggers to manufacture uncertainty about global warming.[12][13][14]
    The politics of global warming have been affected by climate change denial, undermining the efforts to act on climate change or adapting to the warming climate.[15][16][17] Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.[18][19]
    Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO

    2
    emissions.[20] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and conservative think tanks, often in the United States.[16][21][22][23] More than 90% of papers sceptical on climate change originate from right-wing think tanks.[24]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

    In 2006 a leaked memo f
    rom the General Manager of Intermountain Rural Electric
    Association (IREA) in Colorado, a cooperative owning coal
    -
    fired power stations, stated that ‘Dr.
    Michaels has been supported by electric cooperatives in the past and also receives financial support
    fr
    om other sources... In February of this year, IREA alone contributed $100,000 to Dr. Michaels’
    (Lewandowski, 2006)
    .
    Yet Michaels is generally described in the media as being from the
    University of Virginia without any reference to the corporate funding he receives

    Beder, S. 2011, 'Corporate discourse on climate change', in G. Sussman (eds),
    The Propaganda Society: Promotional Culture andPolitics in Global Context,
    Peter Lang, New York.
    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  2. #24992
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    55,241

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Doesn't matter Gary, it's going to happen to his kids and grandkids too……...

  3. #24993
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,895

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial


    Beder, S. 2011, 'Corporate discourse on climate change', in G. Sussman (eds),
    The Propaganda Society: Promotional Culture andPolitics in Global Context,
    Peter Lang, New York.
    [/FONT]
    That article sums it up nicely.

    The message is, the science is settled (a most unscientific stance to take), nearly all scientists agree (an appeal to authority, not reason), and therefore any scepticism (a virtue in any other context) is organised and funded by fossil-fuel interests (the usual defamation).

    So we agree?

    And that's not entirely rhetorical. If we actually disagree, please say in which specific point.

    I did look through that article for any evidence of funding what is called pseudo-science and could not see anything except allegations that PR articles are funded by fossil fuel interests. But apart from the fact that this misses the point (scientists who fail to toe the line are defamed as coal-funded, not merely think-tank staff), the problem with that is that any article putting any position forward at all which fails to go along with the extreme alarmist position, is considered anti-science. So if you're against the Green New Deal because it's a power grab dressed up in nutty socialist naivety, what you're really about is promoting lots of new coal-burning power stations because you hate your own grandchildren.

    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.

  4. #24994
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,895

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Gary, just stand back and look at the situation as a whole. The way that the narrative has been constructed, there's only a scientific consensus, there's no doubt that could conceivably be rational. The scepticism of many is therefore, by definition, anti-science. So the academic work on that becomes the discussion. That is, the discussion is all about how it could be that ordinary folk don't buy what the elites are selling. It's a whole genre of academic research in itself, as the article you linked to shows. Loads of citations, nearly all of the more serious ones to papers exploring "denialism" but without the slightest attempt to address any scientific criticism. Because, again I repeat, such cannot exist, coz the science is settled.

    In the mean time, the scientists who are sceptical - and in my experience there are loads of them - only speak in private, and would not dare try and say anything publicly (the few exceptions prove the rule), or apply for grants to prove any scientific point they may want to explore, precisely because they've seen how that would be career suicide. Now, however you slice it, that's awesome power.

    Over the years the construct has been self-fulfilling. As some scientists made the mistake of saying something publicly, they got crushed, and the voices became fewer, until now we have the situation described, where of course all the research confirms what has already been decided. How could it be otherwise?
    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. #24995
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    58,170

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by skuthorp View Post
    Doesn't matter Gary, it's going to happen to his kids and grandkids too……...
    You obviously didn't take any of the positive comments on Q&A on-board, did you?

    Is your middle name Hanrahan?
    "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

  6. #24996
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    55,241

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    I have less faith in the capacity of our species to make the changes necessary. Not the desire or even the knowledge how, but the actual capacity of the mass of humanity to follow through.

  7. #24997
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    29,123

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    That article sums it up nicely.

    The message is, the science is settled (a most unscientific stance to take), nearly all scientists agree (an appeal to authority, not reason), and therefore any scepticism (a virtue in any other context) is organised and funded by fossil-fuel interests (the usual defamation).

    So we agree?

    And that's not entirely rhetorical. If we actually disagree, please say in which specific point.

    I did look through that article for any evidence of funding what is called pseudo-science and could not see anything except allegations that PR articles are funded by fossil fuel interests. But apart from the fact that this misses the point (scientists who fail to toe the line are defamed as coal-funded, not merely think-tank staff), the problem with that is that any article putting any position forward at all which fails to go along with the extreme alarmist position, is considered anti-science. So if you're against the Green New Deal because it's a power grab dressed up in nutty socialist naivety, what you're really about is promoting lots of new coal-burning power stations because you hate your own grandchildren.

    Regards,
    John.
    The world is to all intents and purposes a sphere, it is not flat or a disc...the science is settled. The escape velocity a rocket has to achieve is greater the 15 LBs per square inch, it's fact, the science is settled. Gravity exists, you can dispute it and jump off a roof to prove your point but sadly the science is settled. Therefore the fact that all reliable data shows the Earths atmosphere is warming and there is a correlation between co2 concentrations and heat proves that the science behind all those facts is, in a word SETTLED.
    Now you can play with semantics, syntax and rhetorical devices in your desire to embrace your love of the Age of Pre-Enlightnment... but it won't stop the ice melting or the temperature from rising.
    Give me one reason why I should not ignore any further posts on the subject from you, because I'm getting very tired of arguing with people who refuse to actually look?
    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  8. #24998
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    29,123

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    That article sums it up nicely.

    The message is, the science is settled (a most unscientific stance to take), nearly all scientists agree (an appeal to authority, not reason), and therefore any scepticism (a virtue in any other context) is organised and funded by fossil-fuel interests (the usual defamation).

    So we agree?

    And that's not entirely rhetorical. If we actually disagree, please say in which specific point.

    I did look through that article for any evidence of funding what is called pseudo-science and could not see anything except allegations that PR articles are funded by fossil fuel interests. But apart from the fact that this misses the point (scientists who fail to toe the line are defamed as coal-funded, not merely think-tank staff), the problem with that is that any article putting any position forward at all which fails to go along with the extreme alarmist position, is considered anti-science. So if you're against the Green New Deal because it's a power grab dressed up in nutty socialist naivety, what you're really about is promoting lots of new coal-burning power stations because you hate your own grandchildren.

    Regards,
    John.
    Forum rules forbid me from using the descriptor I would like, so I shall settle for saying, you are being obtuse.
    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  9. #24999
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,895

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    No problem, Gary. If you really think the science is settled, then why do scientists point out that ice core data is only a proxy measurement for atmospheric CO2, and that other records stubbornly fail to agree with the numbers calculated based upon them? Further, why is this kind of objection not calmly answered, instead of repeating the mantra, the science is settled?

    I emphasise that I am not a scientist either, and don’t have any opinions on the strictly scientific questions, only on the totally unscientific manner in which this agenda has been prosecuted. Like you, and Chris, and Rick, I have to decide based on secondary factors whom to believe, and then IF I can achieve confidence in the people offering instruction, I can have human faith in their conclusions. That is yet to occur in my case, and I have no criticism of those who have that faith.

    Happy to drop it.

    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.

  10. #25000
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    29,123

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    No problem, Gary. If you really think the science is settled, then why do scientists point out that ice core data is only a proxy measurement for atmospheric CO2, and that other records stubbornly fail to agree with the numbers calculated based upon them? Further, why is this kind of objection not calmly answered, instead of repeating the mantra, the science is settled?

    I emphasise that I am not a scientist either, and don’t have any opinions on the strictly scientific questions, only on the totally unscientific manner in which this agenda has been prosecuted. Like you, and Chris, and Rick, I have to decide based on secondary factors whom to believe, and then IF I can achieve confidence in the people offering instruction, I can have human faith in their conclusions. That is yet to occur in my case, and I have no criticism of those who have that faith.

    Happy to drop it.

    Regards,
    John.
    Are we discussing Global Warming or Anthropomorphic Global Warming?
    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  11. #25001
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    29,123

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    No problem, Gary. If you really think the science is settled, then why do scientists point out that ice core data is only a proxy measurement for atmospheric CO2, and that other records stubbornly fail to agree with the numbers calculated based upon them? Further, why is this kind of objection not calmly answered, instead of repeating the mantra, the science is settled?

    I emphasise that I am not a scientist either, and don’t have any opinions on the strictly scientific questions, only on the totally unscientific manner in which this agenda has been prosecuted. Like you, and Chris, and Rick, I have to decide based on secondary factors whom to believe, and then IF I can achieve confidence in the people offering instruction, I can have human faith in their conclusions. That is yet to occur in my case, and I have no criticism of those who have that faith.

    Happy to drop it.

    Regards,
    John.
    Do they?
    http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/gla...e-core-basics/
    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  12. #25002
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    55,241

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Largest concentration of CO2 in 800,000 years…………. That's us, but carry on……………..

  13. #25003
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    58,170

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    The world is to all intents and purposes a sphere, it is not flat or a disc...the science is settled. The escape velocity a rocket has to achieve is greater the 15 LBs per square inch, it's fact, the science is settled. Gravity exists, you can dispute it and jump off a roof to prove your point but sadly the science is settled. Therefore the fact that all reliable data shows the Earths atmosphere is warming and there is a correlation between co2 concentrations and heat proves that the science behind all those facts is, in a word SETTLED.
    Now you can play with semantics, syntax and rhetorical devices in your desire to embrace your love of the Age of Pre-Enlightnment... but it won't stop the ice melting or the temperature from rising.
    Give me one reason why I should not ignore any further posts on the subject from you, because I'm getting very tired of arguing with people who refuse to actually look?
    Velocity greater than 15 pounds per square inch? Riiiiight.
    "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

  14. #25004
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    55,241

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    I see many of the industrial unions have come out i support of Setka. Could be a bit of fun in the ACTU.
    But it would not be the first time that there's a clash between who the Union elects, and the wider public and media opinions. This is however somewhat different. I venture that if Setka resigned and stood again he'd be elected again.

  15. #25005
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    29,123

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Bigfella View Post
    Velocity greater than 15 pounds per square inch? Riiiiight.
    Okay I stuffed up on that one I admit but the science behind getting a payload into orbit around the Earth or any other object in the solar system is very well understood. In other words the science is settled.
    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  16. #25006
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    58,170

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Yeah - there's some who are too silly to learn. He's not a nice chap.

    Meanwhile... I don't see much commentary around here about the wrap-up of the election. Labor ended up with just one Senator being elected in Queensland. One too many, but nevertheless, they got one. LibNats got three, ON got Roberts back in and the Greens snuck in for one, with under 10% of the vote.

    A great result. Oh... and I did tell you that the Senate riff-raff would get cleaned out... didn't I?
    "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

  17. #25007
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    55,241

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Well the voters were given a choice and they chose their pockets, ably assisted by campaign lies from Clive and the LibNats.

    Electoral fraud being legal that is that. I guess we'll see where it goes soon enough.

  18. #25008
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    58,170

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by skuthorp View Post
    Well the voters were given a choice and they chose their pockets, ably assisted by campaign lies from Clive and the LibNats.

    Electoral fraud being legal that is that. I guess we'll see where it goes soon enough.
    Pockets? Labor needs to understand jobs. People want jobs. People want a degree of certainty. Bowen told 'em "no, we won't tell you how much they will cost you, but if you don't like our new taxes vote for someone else" - and they did.
    "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

  19. #25009
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    55,241

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    There is no job certainty/security any more. And whatever the rhetoric that is a certainty.

  20. #25010
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Melb, Vic, Aus
    Posts
    668

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Bruce Pascoe, author of Dark Emu has just spoken at The Lowitja Institute Conference
    I'm hoping they will upload it to YouTube. Its trending on twitter at the moment.
    https://m.youtube.com/user/LowitjaInstitute/videos

  21. #25011
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Sorrento Australia
    Posts
    1,664

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Bigfella View Post
    Pockets? Labor needs to understand jobs. People want jobs. People want a degree of certainty. Bowen told 'em "no, we won't tell you how much they will cost you, but if you don't like our new taxes vote for someone else" - and they did.
    The trouble with that myopic and overly simplistic account of the election result is it's singularly partisan viewpoint that will result in winners and losers. Firstly and most obviously, there are different and competing interests in the understanding of jobs. If Labour need to understand jobs, as you say, equally Liberal needs to understand employees, and redistribution of income and wealth.
    Stating the obvious, there are the perspectives of two competing interests to account for and juggle with any government with the desired outcome of a win win scenario for the competing interests.
    A party who wins govt should govern for all not just in the interests of their side of politics and I am of the opinion that the Labor Party's record in this regard is better than the Liberal party's.

    A reality for many in the workforce and awaits many more is one with limited options for what used to be known as full time employment. Obviously there are arguments for the casualisation and deregulation of the labour market and these drive legislation and the agenda of the Liberal party to the advantage of employers so there will be winners and losers and for what should be obvious reasons, the losses should be mitigated for that demographic which lose out.

    What is also becoming apparent with the current direction being followed is that those who are the winners also stand to become losers in some respects, as outlined in this article:

    What happens when labour markets are deregulated? | World Economic Forum
    Last edited by Hallam; 06-18-2019 at 09:50 PM.
    Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Leonardo da Vinci.

    If war is the answer........... it must be a profoundly stupid question.




  22. #25012
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,895

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Yes, absolutely they do. The science is progressing all the time, and a major step forward in understanding was made recently in time-scale measurement, reducing the lag of CO2 concentration to temperature (yes, temp rises PRECEDE CO2 rises) by thousands of years. The lag used to be thought to be 1 or 2 thousand years, sometimes more, but recent research claims that it's as little as 200 years in many cases at least. The fact that temperature rises precede CO2 rises has been, as you can imagine, highly controversial. There's an answer, obviously, but it's pretty complex and Occam's Razor doesn't seem to make an appearance in cases like these. The complicated theory is preferred over the obvious intuitive suggestion of the actual data...

    All of the numbers we see for temp and CO2 etc., from these sources, are DERIVED numbers, the results of complex calculations performed according to a set of principles, including assumptions, and the underlying theory and the actual practice are evolving all the time. It's a moving target.

    On that page, have a look at the author's reply to this question, posted by a member of the public: "Michael O'Brien on 13/07/2016 at 5:31 amsaid:I worked for many years in a National Association of Testing Laboratories (NATA) registered lab in Australia. We were required to quote UncertInty of Measurement within a stated Confidence Interval for our tests. I would like to see this information for data on carbon dioxide and other gases in ice cores, particularly for oxygen isotopes at extremely low concentrations. I note that this information dates back many years. Surely more modern measurements would have lower uncertainty.
    Also what about the uncertainty of temperature measurement in past centuries.
    Regards."

    The reply outlines the uncertainty factors in coming up with the numbers. It's nicely done, with links to several papers.

    The point I was raising was only to do with other proxy data, such as plant stromata, which suggest historical CO2 concentrations of 400+ ppm at many times, plus a lot more variation in the numbers (i.e. CO2 concentrations bounce around a lot, historically, according to other measures, whereas ice core derived numbers are very flat and low). The question at issue is, why choose the ice core numbers over other proxy sources? It just so happens that the ice core numbers provide a platform for alarmist views, and the others don't. Generally this is stepped around by "reconciling" the different sources, which frankly is code for fudging the graphs and numbers to get a consistent picture. This is not as unreasonable as it might sound, if the theory really is super-strong, but if you're less certain about the theory, then you're going to be more sceptical of this kind of fiddling.

    With respect to gases trapped in glaciers, note that glacial ice is compressed progressively over time, squeezing out the gases. This is apparent visually if you stand at the foot of a glacier which has an exposed face, and see the stunning deep blue of the ice. I was told that this is because the oxygen normally present in ice has been squeezed out over thousands of years of compression. This needs to be compensated for in deriving a measurement of atmospheric concentrations of gases from core samples. In other words, you have to decide what the effects (diffusion etc.) have been under varying conditions, over long time scales, then develop calculations to reconstruct the original concentrations.

    I'm not a scientist, so I'm not getting into the judgements about what's good science and what's not, but as a layman I am required to form judgements about the reliability of various work, and persons, and to try and grasp the level of uncertainty present in the conclusions. There's a LOT more uncertainty at every level than the typical lay-orientated material admits to.

    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.

  23. #25013
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    58,170

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hallam View Post
    The trouble with that myopic and overly simplistic account of the election result is it's singularly partisan viewpoint that will result in winners and losers. Firstly and most obviously, there are different and competing interests in the understanding of jobs. If Labour need to understand jobs, as you say, equally Liberal needs to understand employees, and redistribution of income and wealth.
    Stating the obvious, there are the perspectives of two competing interests to account for and juggle with any government with the desired outcome of a win win scenario for the competing interests.
    A party who wins govt should govern for all not just in the interests of their side of politics and I am of the opinion that the Labor Party's record in this regard is better than the Liberal party's.

    A reality for many in the workforce and awaits many more is one with limited options for what used to be known as full time employment. Obviously there are arguments for the casualisation and deregulation of the labour market and these drive legislation and the agenda of the Liberal party to the advantage of employers so there will be winners and losers and for what should be obvious reasons, the losses should be mitigated for that demographic which lose out.

    What is also becoming apparent with the current direction being followed is that those who are the winners also stand to become losers in some respects, as outlined in this article:

    What happens when labour markets are deregulated? | World Economic Forum
    Myopic, eh? Guess what. Your mob lost.
    "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

  24. #25014
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,895

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Amen, Hallam.
    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.

  25. #25015
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Sorrento Australia
    Posts
    1,664

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Bigfella View Post
    Myopic, eh? Guess what. Your mob lost.
    Correction.......they’re not my mob! Come on man tackle the issues and respond to the points I made.
    Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Leonardo da Vinci.

    If war is the answer........... it must be a profoundly stupid question.




  26. #25016
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    58,170

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hallam View Post
    The trouble with that myopic and overly simplistic account of the election result is it's singularly partisan viewpoint that will result in winners and losers. Firstly and most obviously, there are different and competing interests in the understanding of jobs. If Labour need to understand jobs, as you say, equally Liberal needs to understand employees, and redistribution of income and wealth.
    Stating the obvious, there are the perspectives of two competing interests to account for and juggle with any government with the desired outcome of a win win scenario for the competing interests.
    A party who wins govt should govern for all not just in the interests of their side of politics and I am of the opinion that the Labor Party's record in this regard is better than the Liberal party's.

    A reality for many in the workforce and awaits many more is one with limited options for what used to be known as full time employment. Obviously there are arguments for the casualisation and deregulation of the labour market and these drive legislation and the agenda of the Liberal party to the advantage of employers so there will be winners and losers and for what should be obvious reasons, the losses should be mitigated for that demographic which lose out.

    What is also becoming apparent with the current direction being followed is that those who are the winners also stand to become losers in some respects, as outlined in this article:

    What happens when labour markets are deregulated? | World Economic Forum
    I will say it again

    Quote Originally Posted by The Bigfella View Post
    Myopic, eh? Guess what. Your mob lost.
    BTW - the number of votes cast for the LibNats massively outweighs the number of employers. Your class warfare crap just doesn't cut it.
    "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

  27. #25017
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Sorrento Australia
    Posts
    1,664

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Bigfella View Post
    I will say it again



    BTW - the number of votes cast for the LibNats massively outweighs the number of employers. Your class warfare crap just doesn't cut it.
    A classic example of tactical stupidity, the fall back response of the passive aggressive. Game over.
    Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Leonardo da Vinci.

    If war is the answer........... it must be a profoundly stupid question.




  28. #25018
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    29,123

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Bigfella View Post
    Pockets? Labor needs to understand jobs. People want jobs. People want a degree of certainty. Bowen told 'em "no, we won't tell you how much they will cost you, but if you don't like our new taxes vote for someone else" - and they did.
    There is no job security anymore. The NSW government is about to shed a whole stack of public service jobs. Do you know what the definition of paid work is in this country?
    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  29. #25019
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    29,123

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    Yes, absolutely they do. The science is progressing all the time, and a major step forward in understanding was made recently in time-scale measurement, reducing the lag of CO2 concentration to temperature (yes, temp rises PRECEDE CO2 rises) by thousands of years. The lag used to be thought to be 1 or 2 thousand years, sometimes more, but recent research claims that it's as little as 200 years in many cases at least. The fact that temperature rises precede CO2 rises has been, as you can imagine, highly controversial. There's an answer, obviously, but it's pretty complex and Occam's Razor doesn't seem to make an appearance in cases like these. The complicated theory is preferred over the obvious intuitive suggestion of the actual data...

    All of the numbers we see for temp and CO2 etc., from these sources, are DERIVED numbers, the results of complex calculations performed according to a set of principles, including assumptions, and the underlying theory and the actual practice are evolving all the time. It's a moving target.

    On that page, have a look at the author's reply to this question, posted by a member of the public: "Michael O'Brien on 13/07/2016 at 5:31 amsaid:I worked for many years in a National Association of Testing Laboratories (NATA) registered lab in Australia. We were required to quote UncertInty of Measurement within a stated Confidence Interval for our tests. I would like to see this information for data on carbon dioxide and other gases in ice cores, particularly for oxygen isotopes at extremely low concentrations. I note that this information dates back many years. Surely more modern measurements would have lower uncertainty.
    Also what about the uncertainty of temperature measurement in past centuries.
    Regards."

    The reply outlines the uncertainty factors in coming up with the numbers. It's nicely done, with links to several papers.

    The point I was raising was only to do with other proxy data, such as plant stromata, which suggest historical CO2 concentrations of 400+ ppm at many times, plus a lot more variation in the numbers (i.e. CO2 concentrations bounce around a lot, historically, according to other measures, whereas ice core derived numbers are very flat and low). The question at issue is, why choose the ice core numbers over other proxy sources? It just so happens that the ice core numbers provide a platform for alarmist views, and the others don't. Generally this is stepped around by "reconciling" the different sources, which frankly is code for fudging the graphs and numbers to get a consistent picture. This is not as unreasonable as it might sound, if the theory really is super-strong, but if you're less certain about the theory, then you're going to be more sceptical of this kind of fiddling.

    With respect to gases trapped in glaciers, note that glacial ice is compressed progressively over time, squeezing out the gases. This is apparent visually if you stand at the foot of a glacier which has an exposed face, and see the stunning deep blue of the ice. I was told that this is because the oxygen normally present in ice has been squeezed out over thousands of years of compression. This needs to be compensated for in deriving a measurement of atmospheric concentrations of gases from core samples. In other words, you have to decide what the effects (diffusion etc.) have been under varying conditions, over long time scales, then develop calculations to reconstruct the original concentrations.

    I'm not a scientist, so I'm not getting into the judgements about what's good science and what's not, but as a layman I am required to form judgements about the reliability of various work, and persons, and to try and grasp the level of uncertainty present in the conclusions. There's a LOT more uncertainty at every level than the typical lay-orientated material admits to.

    Regards,
    John.

    https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11362
    This article is September 2013
    Is there any merit to the studies that show that historical CO2 levels lag behind temperature, and not lead them?Climate scientist Peter Hildebrand, Director of the Earth Science Division at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, says yes, there's merit to those studies. In the pre-industrial age, the CO2 response to temperature was that the temperature would go up and CO2 would go up. Or if the temperature went down, CO2 would go down. And the reason for that is when the temperature went up, the whole biosphere revved up and emitted CO2, and we had more CO2 in the atmosphere. So we understand that process.
    In the post-industrial age, the opposite is true. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is leading to increased temperature. So two different things happened, one pre-industrial, where temperature was driving the CO2, and post-industrial, where CO2 was driving temperature. Which means a completely different physical-biological process is going on. And we don't understand what the consequence of that change is.
    It is a fundamental change to how the earth works and the earth's radiation balance works. And so, we're very concerned because we don't see any restraining force on continued increase in temperature due to continued increase in CO2. And that's a problem.
    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  30. #25020
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    55,241

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Permafrost Degredation Spreads In Canadian High Arctic / Greenland Loses Lots Of Ice

    [1] link
    Though I'm not sure what to conclude from the final sentence.
    [2] Melting at levels not expected til 2090?
    [3] Greenland lost 2,000,000,000 tons of ice yesterday, which is a lot.
    Though not unprecedented.
    [4] Though unprecedented for June, apparently.
    [5] You want to get people to take this stuff more seriously, you should tell them that it will make more of these terrifying tunnels of horrible, horrible death.



    "Mould Bay on Prince Patrick Island was the worst-affected site, according to the study, published on the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
    There, permafrost thawing levels were 240 per cent higher than historic levels and the ground sank 90cm over the course of the study which ran for over 12 years, between 2003 and 2016.
    Researchers also recorded thawing at depths not expected until air temperatures rose to levels that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted it would reach in 2090.
    "

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...rce=reddit.com

  31. #25021
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,895

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11362
    This article is September 2013
    Gary, “there’s merit to those studies” is a euphemism for, yes, CO2 historically follows temperature rises, period. That’s what the ice core data show. You can question the value or accuracy of ice core data - an excellent suggestion - or you can argue that it’s different now - which is what this guy is saying - but you cannot argue that there’s any doubt about what the ice core data show. They show temp rises followed by CO2 rises.

    Anyway, that quote illustrates what I described - the theory is considered so strong that contrary data is interpreted in its light, not vice versa.

    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.

  32. #25022
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    29,123

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    Gary, “there’s merit to those studies” is a euphemism for, yes, CO2 historically follows temperature rises, period. That’s what the ice core data show. You can question the value or accuracy of ice core data - an excellent suggestion - or you can argue that it’s different now - which is what this guy is saying - but you cannot argue that there’s any doubt about what the ice core data show. They show temp rises followed by CO2 rises.

    Anyway, that quote illustrates what I described - the theory is considered so strong that contrary data is interpreted in its light, not vice versa.

    Regards,
    John.
    Until now. I think we both accept that the temperatures are rising and the ice is melting. However I take it you are claiming it is natural and not anthropomorphic?
    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  33. #25023
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    29,123

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    Gary, “there’s merit to those studies” is a euphemism for, yes, CO2 historically follows temperature rises, period. That’s what the ice core data show. You can question the value or accuracy of ice core data - an excellent suggestion - or you can argue that it’s different now - which is what this guy is saying - but you cannot argue that there’s any doubt about what the ice core data show. They show temp rises followed by CO2 rises.

    Anyway, that quote illustrates what I described - the theory is considered so strong that contrary data is interpreted in its light, not vice versa.

    Regards,
    John.
    Until now. I think we both accept that the temperatures are rising and the ice is melting. However I take it you are claiming it is natural and not anthropomorphic?
    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  34. #25024
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    29,123

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

  35. #25025
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    29,123

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Remember my comment about the Himalayan glaciers?
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48696023
    To do something good
    with no
    Because.

Posting Permissions

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