It’s time again, once again, for the Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. As usual, civilised discussion and no coarse language. Lengthy side discussions to the sandpit, please.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
Anthony Watts recently came to Australia on a lecture tour and has become politicized in our backyard.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
There is always another side to a story and here’s what the locals think of the stink.
Click to access neighbour-presentations.pdf
If you hold Christopher Mongton in such low esteem why did you refuse to debate him and why do you direct issues on DDT to a comment which has been rebuted clearly by those you denigrate? Is it some form of masochism?
I’m going to have to put my foot down here and ask you not to call Christopher Monckton a Mong, David. Yes, it is kind of funny, but it shows a lack of respect towards sufferers of trisomy 21.
I tried talking Graham Redfern out of debating the Lord, but he wouldn’t listen and look what happened to him.
@David Clerke
The organizers (Monckton fans) pulled my invitation.
On your second point, it’s possible that DDT fans have rebuted (sic) the conclusions of mainstream science, but they haven’t refuted them, which is what matters.
Science deniers are deniers of empirical evidence and logical reasoning. It is impossible to have a reasoned argument with them.
After a quick glance at Anthony Watts’ site, I noticed the tenor of his comments to be very smug and sneering. A profile of these deniers would note;
1. Preconceived belief systems of ideological, religious or magical origin.
2. Impervious to real world and scientific evidence.
3. Unshakeable sense of self-superiority.
4. Resort to rhetorical and emotive arguments.
These characteristics should convince us of the futility of arguing with science deniers. I’ve stopped being polite to such people. Now I just say, “I don’t debate with cranks.” Then I walk away.
The Denialati believe both sides of the debate are guilty of Ikonoclast’s four points.
So now they declare the crisis is over ….
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-19/europe-debt-crisis-abating-as-government-traders-see-yield-spreads-narrow.html
I wonder how long this euphoria will last. In any case I have been unable to find any source which totals up the amount trillions the globe has used to bailout capitalism.
Would it be near 100 trillion?
Here is one way a capitalists intruding into the Third world can win a court cases …
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/21/3017401.htm?section=justin
Pretty cheap too, I’d imagine.
@el gordo
There’s simply no evidence that “the denialati”
a) enjoy sufficient distinctive cultural or intellectual commonality to be considered a community in their own right
b) beyong naysaying, put a clear and consistent intellectual position (i.e one without fundamental contradictions) *
Neither of these considerations intellectually warrants anyone declaring on what “denialiati” believe. They may believe anything and everything, and what they assert from time to time is thus no reliable guide to their view of the world at all.
While it does seem that may broadly be called “cultural claims” (e.g the authenticity of the local, xenophobia, angst about one’s social status and personal space in relation to ill-defined others) developed in a context of misunderstandings about the social are at the heart of denier speech acts, this is ultimately no more than a hypothesis for which there is persistent anecdotal evidence.
* El Gordo’s claim above does attest to this, which is pleasing.
for those who believe, no proof is necessary
for those who do not, no proof is possible
(some guy called Stuart (Hopes?)
I think there’s something in that for all of us, don’t you?
@placator
That discusses “faith” (and was a reference, IIRC, to god) rather than reasoned acceptance or assertion. “Belief” is used in English in each of these senses, but in this context, we are discussing reasoning acceptance.
What those who naysay the conclusions of science on the post-industrial climate anomaly accept or do not accept on the basis of attempts at reason from observed reality remains unclear and is likely heterogenous. At least some (and perhaps most) may be incapable of such cognitive functions. Others plainly are capable of it (Lindzen for example), but let it be supposed that their reasoning acceptance leads them to contrary conclusions, as a result of causes that have nothing to do with an observable reality recognisable to them. One may conclude with some caution that this reflects his personal financial interests and/or a cultural attachment to existing social arrangements.
Why people utter the AGW naysayer nonsense one reads on the Internet with such vehemence, malice and persistence is surely a great topic for a book.
Let’s talk more about QLD privatisations! My own view is that selling the bulk coal-carrying parts of QR will create a new, Telstra-like verically integrated monopoly. This is a good thing because it will be inefficient, and slow the expansion of the heavily polluting coal export sector, just like what happened in the telco industry 15 years ago. Think of the CO2 emissions saved!
Sam, I was thinking along those lines also. Will any other industry/community suffer other than coal? (Hard to know from down here in Adelaide.)
Hard to say jakerman. I guess our enlightened state government leaders thought that some small sacrifices were necessary to achieve far-sighted environmental goals. Certainly one of those sacrifices will be the government itself.
I just love the way things have been twisted such that JQ “refused to debate Monkton”
What a lot of old crock…but nothwithstanding the Prof was considering not debating him…and the organisers pulled his invitation…and we were all in here saying “there are some things a serious Professor shouldnt sink low enough to do”.
Quite right – debating charlatans and lunatics is a waste of time.
I agree Alice, it was pure theatre and no place for an academic.
A new paper by Jennifer Marohasy takes a close look at the Murray, with the hope of returning it to pristine beauty. It’s a new perspective, eliminating the barrages which block up to 90 percent of the flows. Don’t be put off by Quadrant.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/09/the-murray-a-fresh-perspective
@el gordo
Jennifer is an idiot el gordo – back to the sandpit with you.
@el gordo
And el gordo – its perfectly obvious you are in here to post as many climate science delusionist links as you can. You are a one man propaganda machine for there is no one else in here agreeing with you. Now go straight to the sandpit before I lose my equilibrium (and in the sandpit I can). I dont have time for this garbage.
I thought it was an open forum?
@el gordo
in the sandpit gordy
Here is a little of what JM had to say about the early Murray.
‘Many academics and bureaucrats deny that the lakes were ever estuarine. But families that have lived in the region for generations explain, for example, that in 1915, before the barrages and during a period of prolonged drought, sea water penetrated beyond Lake Alexandrina up the River Murray as far as Mannum with the sightings of a shark at Tailem Bend and a dolphin at Murray Bridge.’
Might give you something to talk about at the next party meeting.
Michael Hudson, at Counter Point, asks the question, “Where is the Global Economy Heading?”
And it seems on the simplest interpretation to be few at the expense of the many, especially the global poor. And while Christopher Monckton right about many things, he is perhaps wrong about prospect anytime soon of communist world governance, or fails to understand that conspiracy would require a revolution. If the good Lord is ignorant, he is not alone.
If America slips into a double-dip recession, which lasts for a couple of years, there is an outside chance US citizens will revolt.
Apart from that, the Chinese communists appear unwilling to bring about the dictatorship of the proletariat on a universal level.
Contrary to claims that Christopher Monckton right about many things, he is demonstrated to wrong about many things:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/temperatures_and_projections.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/moncktons_testimony_to_congres_1.php
Yes wmmbb, your conspiracy theory example is very like the Proposition 21 variation that has it we are headed for Greens world dictatorship, imposed by the Jews, Communists and Wall st capitalists, with a giant population cull the result
Personally, I used to prefer the one about the secret Soviet armored divisons hidden in the mountains of Montana or Dakota or wherever, ready to sweep down on unsuspecting, peaceloving christian american folk. So much more amenable to survivalist day dreaming, “after the fall” fantasies.
@paul walter
Paul – personally I prefer your conspiracy theory too…far better than having to face fighting those well attired wall st bankers in mercedes who swoop down on a population of unsuspecting and unemployed god fearing peace loving tea drinkers and remove their life savings silently overnight with a well written legal document.
Just learned that there is an Australian group of people mimicking the “Teaparty Party”, including using the word “Teaparty”.
Now that is taking Americanization too far! [Irony intended in my spelling; iron alert intended for my American readers 🙂 ]
Does the Australian mob know the origins of the term “Teaparty”, and why it doesn’t really import well to Australian shores? [I don’t know, is their a town called “Boston” somewhere in Oz? They could set up their headquarters there.]
…and the Australian wipe-paper has headline about someone hating the NBN…except he doesn’t, if you get to the third column of print or thereabouts. Oh boy.
PS apologies for mis-spelt words and dropped letters. Accidentally used “their” instead of “there”, “irony” is missing a “y”, headquarters should be “HQ”, etc.
Donald Oats, re the OO, plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
As for the “Australian Tea Party”, I’m actually surprised. Most of our common or garden variety right wing lunatics in fact know more about and are more respectful of Australia’s post-colonial history than nearly anybody. They’re very happy to dredge up completely fossilised and irrelevant ideas from the history books to prove their bizarre points (c.f. Gerard Henderson, League of Rights, H R Nicholls Soc.).
@el gordo
When I lived in Adelaide I canoed and sailed on the Coorong and Lower Lakes. I’d ask a couple of tough questions
1) are we trying to interfere with geological destiny?
2) should the last 50km dictate the other 2000km ?
In my opinion a weir should be built across the river before the lakes, the lower barrages opened and the lakes left to the whims of fate, be it sea water inundation or turning into a foetid marsh.
My Adelaide relatives tell me the last bits of good arable land near the capital are being subdivided no doubt with new homes getting a generous water allowance. It’s a bit rich for Rann to deny upstream irrigators their livelihood so his property developer mates can cash in.
Donald,
I noticed the Former Australian’s headline as well, and no doubt it will serve its purpose- nobody reads down to the third column, but it will be seen by millions of shoppers as they queue up at the checkout, strengthening confirmation biases that the NBN is full of flaws (but what can you expect from an illegitimate government propped up by wacky Greens etc etc). It seems to me that the sole purpose of the FA is to get that daily headline (direct from Planet Rupert) in people’s faces – like a cry in the wilderness “You may think you are OK but the socialists are coming to get you”.
On another topic, I was listening to an old podcast of The Science Show and heard the Executive Director of FASTS (Federation of Australian Scientists and Technological Societies) relate the Lib/Nat coalition’s giving equal importance to “scientific evidence” and “opinion” when making decisions (downloadable from FASTS website). Is such post-modern relativism yet another reason why Abbot was unfit to govern?
the operative quote in el gordo’s article is:
I would have thought that if the scientific claims of Klaus and his ilk stood up they would not need to resort to ideological arguments to sustain their case.
The problem with disconnecting yourself from science and fact, as so many Quadrant contributors do, is that everything then gets dictated by the writer’s personal prejudices. They’v obviously decided that barrages = regulations and the river should be restored to its pristine state of nature free market origins. If that involves shutting down a number of cities and towns and farms then that’s just too and. You’d have to ask though, if the author really wants to convert the Lower Murray into a wild river on the Queensland model.
In my opinion a weir should be built across the river before the lakes, the lower barrages opened and the lakes left to the whims of fate, be it sea water inundation or turning into a foetid marsh.
And thus Hermit tries to give away responsiblity for the loss of one of Austalia’s 15 biodiversity hotspot. Bit by bit the Earth becomes less and less due to people’s carlessnees and greed.
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/hotspots/national-hotspots.html#hotspot6
Alan, I would have thought the Greens might be happy with her suggestions?
The towns and the agricultural land surrounding them must continue to function. There is time for the engineers to come up with a workable solution as widespread floods replace drought.
‘Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom.’ Very elegant.
@el gordo
So Jennifer M (M for maid of IPA and various other misleading and deceptive opinion tanks) thinks that the debate on global warming is a debate about freedom?
I dont think so. Its just a paltry excuse for JM to have the freedom to argue erroneously that nothing should be done… just as irresponsibly as Tony Abbott.
What happens in freedomsville when people who support her views get outvoted?
el gordo
That is vacuous, not elegant. If anthropogenic climate change is happening, then the question of freedom does nto enter into it. Ideology can only be important once the scientific question is answered. Klaus, without intending to, confirms that denialism is about the politics not the science. But, I guess he does make his confession, as you say, elegantly.
Yet another State Labor friend of KK and sister in law of Joe Tripodi caught rorting the public pay system. Small article last week or so about how even KKs dear husband gets to profit from an exclusive government tender. Just goes on and on right to the top doesnt it?
Theyve got 6 months..what a surprise
Theyve got 6 months…my brain hurts a lot
Theyve got 6 months…thats all theyve got.
A huge vote sweep is coming. There really ought to be legislation in place to be able to get rid of rotten, immoral and incompetent governments without having to wait this long.
‘If anthropogenic climate change is happening’…..
Which is what the debate is all about. Please sir, do I have the freedom to express an alternative point of view to the widely held consensus?
That strictly depends on your qualifications. If you have a reasonable publication list in a relevant discipline, please go right ahead. If not (like me) then all you can rationally do is listen to those who are experts.
Science is motherfucking elitist, it makes no apologies for that. I’m not elite, I expect you’re not elite, your opinion is almost certainly completely worthless. Which may not make you feel special enough, but you’ll just have to deal with that.
@el gordo
Why ask? You’ve been posting your opinion. It hasn’t been deleted. Others putting the delusionist position (that’s what it’s called here) are also accepted here. There is an impatience here with the persistence of your kind in reduxing stale and long debunked delusionist talking points.
We’re all familiar with them and their refutation so reposting them adds nothing to insight. You might consider directing your trolling spam to a place with a more sympathetic audience, but that is a matter for you and the patience of PrQ.
@el gordo
Irony alert!
I wonder how many science denialists ask themselves if electricity is real, if magnetism is real, if combustion is real etc etc? I mean, why limit the science scepticism to AGW?
Fran did you like the way EG undercut two of his claims in one short sentance?
Apparenty todays debate is essentially about freedom, however similtaneiously “the debate is all about“ ‘If anthropogenic climate change is happening’.
You well identified the other manner in which EG undercut himself.
sorry guys I used a mothertrucking rude word in replying to el gordo, so numbers #41 on are going to be muckled up.
‘If anthropogenic climate change is happening’…..
Which is what the debate is all about. Please sir, do I have the freedom to express an alternative point of view to the widely held consensus?
You have the freedom to argue that the earth is flat, the moon is made of green cheese or that the international scientific community and the governments of the world have entered into a conspiracy of such fabulous effectiveness that it rivals the Illuminati at their worst. That does not mean you can expect to have such drivel go unquestioned.
@Alan
Quite right. Too often, the partisans of the right/delusion blur the distinction between the right to speak as one sees fit with the right to do so with cultural impunity. Free speech carries with it such a right no more than the right to flatulence implies a right to let and be respected for one’s want of inhibition.
@jakerman
Not real. One expects incoherence from such as EG. One suspects that amongst his aims is to annoy people by insulting their intelligence and to eventually demoralise those favouring mitigation by persuading them that large swathes of the populace are irremediably stupid and annoying and thus unworthy of the effort to secure their interests.
I’m not sure the plan is feasible, if that’s what it is, but he may well believe it to be so.
Fran, el gordo’s plan seems to be working, at least at the local level.
Wiful, short term success for the EG’s of our world is translating into parliamentary change that may have long term effects. The ALP is getting a much needed shakeup and the Green’s swing exceeded the Coalitions. The electorate is Greening and the 2 party duopoly is looking fragile.
jakerman, I admire your optimism, I really do.
Acknowledging that the election result was pretty much the best possible one, as a matter of fact I don’t think I could be happier (as long as it lasts), it was a mere handful of votes in a handful of seats away from being an unmitigated disaster. Tony Abbott was *this close* to being PM, and there would have been absolute inaction for the next three years.