61 thoughts on “Monday Message Board

  1. Labor wrecker of 2007 claims union anti-privatisation campaign a threat to 2010 federal Labor campaign

    In 2007, Andrew Fraser, as Local Govenment Minister, imposed council amalgamations against the overwhelming wishes of affected residents, even threatening to dismiss councillors who dared hold ballots on amalgamation. For many months, the angry backlash threatened Labor’s federal election prospects. In 2010, the same Andrew Fraser, as Queensland Treasurer, claims that the unions’ campaign against his unpopular $15 billion fire sale, opposed by 79% of the Queenland public, will threaten Labor’s federal election prospects.

    What you can do: Attend Queensland Council of Union’s Rallies to stop the Sell-off before it starts: Innisfail – 28 Feb, Cairns – 2 Mar, Mackay – 3 Mar, Rockhampton – 3 Mar, Gladstone – 6 Mar, Brisbane – 10.30AM 9 Mar at Roma St Forum.

  2. Lambert claims to have beaten Monckton in their climate warming debate. Now it is claimed that Lambert used slight of hand by cherry picking Pinkers email. It is also claimed he was unclear that the recording he played was a re-enactment of what Pinker actually said rather than an actual recording.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/lamberts-pinker-tape-ambush-pr-stunt/#more-7043

    Is there an online video of the debate anywhere? I’m still keen to see it for myself.

  3. Sorry TerjeP – seems I have underestimated your research capabilities – my apologies 😐

  4. Yes TerjeP, it was a re-enactment. He had a female colleague of Lambert’s reading out Pinker’s email. Lambert was quite upfront about this however. I don’t see how this affects the issue.

  5. Terje have you often considered the possibility of talking less, quietly reflecting more? If it saved you posting links to idiotarian sites like Nova’s and ClimateGate’rUs before stopping to think how the reflected stupidity was going to make you look – that’d be a good thing, right? Talking less thinking more seems to work for scientists, maybe it could help engineers too.

  6. It is possible to stall just about any debate with enough obfuscation. Spurious statistical arguments, slurs on credibility, accusations of lying etc can all make an argument so opaque that a third party cannot tell who is right and who is wrong. I feel that this has been a favourite tool of the denialist.

  7. Terje have you often considered the possibility of talking less, quietly reflecting more?

    No not often.

    If it saved you posting links to idiotarian sites like Nova’s and ClimateGate’rUs before stopping to think how the reflected stupidity was going to make you look – that’d be a good thing, right?

    No. That may be your point of view but I don’t share it.

    For what it is worth I linked to the article because I regard it as topical. Likewise I linked to the Lambert response. Contrary to what you may presume I’m not posting either out of agreement with what they say. I’m usually prety explicit when I am agreeing or disagreeing with a statement or article. I may form a view on the articles in question but I have not done so yet.

  8. It is possible to stall just about any debate with enough obfuscation.

    Another tactic is to declare victory and to refuse to be a part of any further debate.

  9. True, but heated emotive discussion when none of the participants is remotely qualified in the issue at hand is not debate. If we restrict the climate debate to persons who are qualified in the area we get a pretty clear winner.

  10. I don’t see how you can be asking this question without being disingenuous, though if you are sincere and want to be involved with the nuts-and-bolts I suggest you look up literature using Google scholar. As a non expert I prefer to defer to expert opinion however and it is easy to locate it on the internet.

    If you have evidence that the overwhelming majority of scientists with relevant expertise do not support the IPCC account of climate change please direct me to it and I will happily change my position.

  11. TerjeP (say tay-a) :

    Another tactic is to declare victory and to refuse to be a part of any further debate.

    Yes when the science is in.

    Flat earthers can still falsely accuse others of “refusing to be part of any further debate” but this only indicates the paucity of their arguments.

    If flat earthers had real evidence (and not politically inspired unreasonable doubts) then they would be part of worthy debate. As it is they are just nuisances.

  12. Terje, that post from Joanne Nova has been up for a week. I’d ignored because it seemed that even Andrew “Confirmation Bias” Bolt hadn’t been taken in by it. How come you didn’t notice how blatantly Nova had quote mined Pinker?

  13. @Nick R
    TerjP re is there an online video somewhere? Appears that a full video or podcast is not up yet (many a consternation made), maybe Tim can enlighten as to why this has not occurred as yet. As past videos do not seem to be available at http://www.a-pac.tv/ , best bet is to monitor A-pac (foxtel) for when it will be back on. When you do watch it can you be objective? I am sure many will be interested in your view regarding how many misrepresentations were made by Monckton whom is a convincing presenter and influencer but not a scientist’s left boot.

    I also suggest (if you have not seen yet) Monckton v Rupert Posner Parts 1-3, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFfxCtjza3Q&feature=related part 3 includes the question and debate re barrier reef, claim by Monckton to have seen a graph demonstrating temperatures were not rising, Monckton was later to be misrepresenting the facts and whom actually monitored, Monckton manipulated facts and date on this matter at best.

  14. My God, I’m going to quote McCrann

    – “Our entire economy now pivots on just two pillars: resources and property. Not just any property, but second-hand property”

    – “In the mid-1990s … For every dollar spent on a new house, three went on a second-hand one. Today, for every dollar that goes on a new house, five go on second-hand ones”

    – “In 1989 … Commercial lending was more than 50 per cent higher [than home loans] at $90bn. Now it’s reversed. Bank commercial loans of $630bn are swamped by home loans of $910bn”

    – “we have now built our prosperity on an extraordinarily narrow base: China directly and indirectly, and lending for increasingly expensive second-hand homes”

    But nothing can go wrong in China, right? right?

  15. @TerjeP (say tay-a)

    Pretty clear according to who?

    According to every national “Academy of Science” or equivalent on the planet, for one. Your not understanding that doesn’t make for a “debate”.

  16. Flat earthers can still falsely accuse others of “refusing to be part of any further debate” but this only indicates the paucity of their arguments.

    Declaring victory and not participating in any further debate is not the key tactic that led to a triumph over flat earthers. The reason people don’t debate flat earthers is not due to tactics but rather it is due to the fact that almost nobody is persuaded by their arguments and their numbers have no material impact on public (or private) policy. The fact that the arguments made by sceptics still have efficacy indicates that the tactic of declaring victory and refusing to debate is in this instance a failing tactic.

  17. According to every national “Academy of Science” or equivalent on the planet, for one.

    The experts have a voice in this debate. Are you saying they should just get a blank cheque? Does it matter what the rest of us think about the experts, their advice or the broader public policy issue?

  18. How come you didn’t notice how blatantly Nova had quote mined Pinker?

    Tim – I did not see the debate between you and Monckton. I wasn’t that sold on Monckton to be honest until I watched his debate with Barry Brook. I’m more sold on him now but certainly not convinced. I have not gone back to the sources to check on Nova. I have only skimmed your responce. I did not post the Nova article because it is correct, I posted it because it is topical. I posted it here because I’m more likely to get a critical response here. So far most of the criticism is pointed at me rather than Nova but I suppose shooting the messenger is an ancient tradition.

  19. @TerjeP (say tay-a)

    The experts have a voice in this debate. Are you saying they should just get a blank cheque? Does it matter what the rest of us think about the experts, their advice or the broader public policy issue?

    You can’t even keep track of your own talking points Terje. There is the matter of science where your opinion doesn’t exist and you’re not a scientist. Then there’s the matter of “policy issues” where your position you’ve told us plenty of times is noncontroversial and reality-based. But you posted a link to delusional rantings by Nova which you and she thought were about science matters, not policy matters. You’re just plain confused.

  20. Not to mention the fact that only an arrogant fool would presume to set up their own opinion against that of thousands of professional scientists without bothering to acquaint themselves with the data or learn the meaning of such basic terms as “statistically significant”. if you’re unwilling to do this basic work, you should indeed shut up and accept the view of the experts. If you’ve done the work, and have even a modicum of honesty, you should be pointing out that the vast majority of ‘sceptics’, who have uncritically accepted the latest talking point on this topic, are either ignorant or dishonest.

  21. Terje, I’d be interested in knowing your opinion on the fundamental differences between flat earthers and armchair AGW skeptics. I’m not saying that there are no differences and I am not asking for the sake of rhetoric- I would genuinely like to know.

  22. Well the primary way in which flat-earthers were defeated was that they all died out. Which I fear is the way it’ll have to work with climate science deniers.

  23. Frankis – it is you that is confused about talking points. I merely asked who it is pretty clear to? Go back and read the context of my question.

  24. Nick – further to my above response I am of the view that most armchair AGW sceptics have little clue about the issues just as most armchair energy policy sceptics and armchair free trade sceptics have little clue. However not all sceptics are uninformed. And on all of the above topics I think armchair sceptics have a place in the debate. When we cut tariffs we did not refuse to debate the critics merely because a lot of them were uninformed or came to the debate with few relevant qualifications.

  25. Ok fair point. I take it you would agree with me though that uninformed skeptics have no significant role to play in the policy arena? Obviously informed skeptics would be different…

  26. Colin, I’d like you to meet Julia. If you put your heads together you may just have enough neurons to form a synapse.

  27. Julia and Colin below are sockpuppets posting Liberal party talking points. It looks as if they have access to dynamic IP addresses in the range 114.78.2x.xxx. Both J and C posted from 114.78.24.168. Any advice on outing the puppeteers gratefully received and shared

  28. Nick R :
    Ok fair point. I take it you would agree with me though that uninformed skeptics have no significant role to play in the policy arena? Obviously informed skeptics would be different…

    If they vote then they have a role to play for better or for worse.

  29. Cyber-bullying, censorship, 9/11 Truth and Larvatus Prodeo

    In the last three months of 2009 a discussion on Larvatus Prodeo, about the controversy surrounding 9/11, turned into the online equivalent of a lynching. On 28 December at the point at which the intended victim (myself) was able to turn the tables on his tormentors, the moderators abruptly closed the disccussion. I have been barred from contributing to that site ever since, as if I had been blamed for the abuses of others.

    (The forum which the article writes is here. There are 1979 posts and the page size is 5.6Mb)

  30. I just posted this to the Australia Talks web site about their program just now about the outlook for Federal politics this year:

    I phoned in to say that they should be talking about important issues such as Australia’s record high immigration rate, record low housing affordability, Conroy’s plans to impose Chinese Firewall-style-Internet censorship.

    This is what I posted:

    This had to be one of the dullest “Australia Talks” that I can remember. It was even more dull than I remember Richard Fidler’s interview with Paul Kelly about his (misnamed) book “The March of Patriots” last year being.

    Whose decision was it to make two of the three guests journalists who work for two Murdoch-owed newspapers?

    Don’t Atkins and Kelly already get more than enough opportunity to push Uncle Rupert’s prescriptions of what is supposedly good for this country without them taking up more than half of one of only three programmes each week in which ordinary people can express their views before a National audience?

    Whilst I thought I could just discern a slight difference in opinions of Dean Jaensch (from looking at what he has written online and not from listening to the program) from those of Kelly and Atkins, very little of what he writes seems likely to fire people’s imagination.

    Why so little participation from callers?

    Was that all that phoned in?

    If so, wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to have given them each individually more time than to give so much time to allow Kelly and Atkins (and presumably Jaensch) about those same tired all themes, “uniting the party”, style in dealing with the states, how they play the Senate, credibility as economic managers (seen through the prism of Rupert’s World view), was Rudd’s apology genuine? (of course it wasn’t), etc.

  31. Public Rally against Queensland Fire Sale

    The Bligh Government has arrogantly proceeded with its privatisation plans despite over 80% of Queenslanders opposing the decision.

    The government’s original reason for the sell-off – to plug an alleged hole in the budget due to the Global Financial Crisis – just does not stack up anymore.

    Come to the rally and help send a message to the State Government that you don’t support its privatisation plans.

    Rally Details:
    When: Tuesday 9 March, 2010
    Time: 10:30am
    Where: Roma St Forum followed by a march to Parliament House

    Public Rally against Queensland Fire Sale

    For more information visit the Queensland Council of Union’s “Queensland Not for Sale” campaign site

    No government has the right to sell-off our kids’ future!

    Authorised Ron Monaghan, Queensland Council of Unions, 16 Peel St, South Brisbane 4101

    Thanks to “Your rights at work” for sending me this

    See also: “Labor wrecker of 2007 claims union anti-privatisation campaign a threat to re-election of federal Labor” of 28 Feb 10.

    (I just tried, unsuccessfully, to post this on to Larvatus Prodeo. It seems as if the LP thought police are still determined to prevent me from me from posting anything whatsoever onto their site.)

  32. Sorry, I didn’t intend to repost that link to my own article in the second last paragraph. Apologies failing to properly match an opening <strong> tag with a closing </strong> tag.

  33. daggett,
    After the long, long thread on 9/11 “truth” I am not surprised. While I personally enjoyed the discussion it did get a little bit too personal for LP’s normal taste. You should have tried Catallaxy – it would have been more likely to be allowed to continue there.

  34. Of course, as one of the main participants in that shameful spectacle I would expect you to write something like that, Andrew.

    Have you read my article?

    In any case, how could you be unaware that the prolongation of that forum perfectly suited all my detractors, including yourself as long as an impression could be created, by weight of numbers and unconscionable debating techniques, that they were winning the argument:

    “Welcome to StoushGym TM.”

    “Let’s face it folks, this thread has turned into StoushGym TM with Daggy as a multifunctional piece of workout equipment.

    “So far Fyodor’s been hogging it but at least he’s not leaving any sweat behind on the seat.”

    “WE really all should club together and buy Daggy a yearly StoushGym TM pass.”

    “100 comments to go! [until the 2,000th post]”

    “I really don’t think M. Fyodor is looking to change Daggy’s mind here so much as to work out the kinks in his left jab. Gotta work on not dropping the shoulder so slightly to telegraph the punch.”

    For months, as the LP trolls abused the forum in every conceivable way and revelled in their claimed humiliation of me, the moderators turned a blind eye. The abuse included a large number deliberately adding posts for no better purpose than to cause the already bloated forum to reach meaningless record benchmarks such as the 1,000th post and the 2,000th post and, no doubt, to smother the useful content within that forum.

    However, not long after the point when (I believe) I was clearly winning the argument and my main detractors, mysteriously started to lose their voices, the forum was suddenly closed down. I was smeared by one of the moderators as an anti-Semite and found myself banned since then from posting to that site.

    I believe that that forum demonstrates very important principles about online discussions. I believe that the way the LP moderators managed that forum and made me a scapegoat for abuses by others demonstrates a fundamental lack of integrity on their part.

    As a consequence of their claimed sudden rediscovered inability at the end of December last year to cope with any discussion of more than one side of the 9/11 controversy, they have barred me from making any comments about anything on their web site. This includes issues such as privatisation, population growth, state and federal politics, etc. — matters that are topics that are discussed on their site.

    Of course, I accept that they have the ultimate right to decide who can and cannot publish on their site and what they can and cannot publish. I am sure that I will somehow manage, should they decide to maintain their ban on me. Nevertheless, I believe that if they choose, at their whim to secretly ban certain people and material from their site, Larvatus Prodeo is not the site that it purports to be and people are entitled to know that and I am entitled to point that out.

    As we now may be staring down the barrel of mandatory Chinese-firewall-style Internet censorship on top of the grotesque subversion of democracy that the likes of Bligh, Rudd, Howard, and the corporate newsmedia have perpetrated for at least the last three decades, I think people need to understand just how shallow is the commitment to free speech and democracy by many supposed left-wing intellectuals, including many who contribute to LP.

    That is why I have taken the considerable trouble of putting it all on the public record by writing that article and have backed it up with documentary evidence, that is mostly the words of my detractors.

    Anyone who disagrees with what I have written is welcome to say so by adding their comments to my article, by adding comments here or even writing an article of their own.

  35. Perhaps it is the Larvatus Prodeo moderators also have chips on their shoulders, Andrew.

    They have continued, for over 2 months, to censor posts to their web site, even though not one since 28 December 2009 has raised 9/11 and refuse to ever pay me the courtesy of acknowledging that they have.

    Anyhow, Andrew, please feel free to show me where I am wrong, by addressing the substance of my article and my posts to this forum.

    Of course, Andrew thinks that Bligh’s fire sale doesn’t go far enough. No doubt Bligh and Fraser agree with him.

    Why would Andrew care in the least that 80% of the owners of these assets don’t want them sold, have given the Government no electoral mandate to sell the assets and were cheated out of having any say over the matter by the ABC, the Courier Mail and the Queensland Government at the 2009 elections?

  36. Deleted. The topic of 9/11 conspiracy theories has had more than enough of an airing here. Please take it elsewhere

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s