Jump to content
Rocket Salad

The Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

I haven't read the past few pages but I have a gist of the discussion.

Context: I work in the media (newspapers). I have met (literally) hundreds of journos from council hacks to the Canberra bubble. I was the Secretary and a Director of the largest community newspaper association in Australia.

There are some absolute morons in the profession who think their sh!t don't stink and seem to have fallen to the back of the line when brains were handed out. There's a good proportion of young upstarts who don't hold the old school values of journalism and would sell their grandmothers grave plot to climb one rung up the ladder. They pump out trivial bile thinking they've just broken the next watergate. My opinion of 'new' journalism isn't high.

However, a free press is essential. It's critical the voices of the unheard are heard. History is punctuated by stories so extraordinary they were hard to believe at the time but were brought to prominence by people who may well have been risking their lives to reveal them. There needs to be protection for credible journos doing their jobs, and the ability to kick the arse of the idiots who believe a press pass is a license to print anything.

Just as importantly, security of undercover operatives needs to be of paramount importance when their lives are at risk. There's no perfect answer, but both sides have valid arguments.

Edited by trinube
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/cerl/conferences/ethicsofsecrecy/papers/reading/Silver.pdf

not directly applicable to aus.

raises question if found to hold classified info just say I’m a journalist.

insta and fb valid platforms for a journalist.

can anyone use this defence. What is in the public interest and what is harming or risking national interest.

stikman makes valid points 

It didn't say Stickman didn't make any valid points - and he is absolutely correct that public interest is not typically served by disclosure of gory wartime details, particularly via twitter, buzzfeed or any of the other excuses for journalism that now exist - but that doesn't mean they are not served by the ability of a free "press" to do so. Public accountability and the media are issues that the military have been struggling with far more since the Vietnam era, and have forced reforms that perhaps would not have otherwise happened. The media must also be accountable for their reporting, and abide by the law, but using legislation to effectively curtail their ability to do so is anathema to the very concepts championed by the military as our "way of life".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just to extract from the abstract and return to the reality of these raids, ultimately what was achieved or revealed that was great public interest with the "Afghan files"?  It brought attention to the ABC, sure, but other than that there have been no suggestions of wrong-doing on the part of defence, no charges against individuals and no great organisational reform.  Basically everything was found to be in order and nothing has changed.  It severely damaged our international reputation in order to highlight that in a war zone bad stuff happens but there is oversight and it might not be perfect but works okay, thank you very much.  Bravo to that brave journalist.

The press has never and should never be free.  There are always limits to what can be said without repercussion, a fact that Rebel Wilson and Geoffrey Rush are both grateful for and News Corp and Bauer Media no doubt lament.  And while the legislation may say otherwise, the reality is that if a whistleblower or media organisation do reveal a true scandal of public interest then no government in their right mind would pursue it because of the blow back from doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Stikman said:

And while the legislation may say otherwise, the reality is that if a whistleblower or media organisation do reveal a true scandal of public interest then no government in their right mind would pursue it because of the blow back from doing so.

I suspect we are talking at cross-purposes here - reporting example vs. reporting ability.

Was the public benefit served by the reporting of the so-called Afghan files? - perhaps not, it smacks a bit too much of "gratuitism".

Is the public benefit served by the ability to report such incidents? - definitely so - and I think that's a lesson we should have learnt from the My Lai massacre all those years ago.

Legislation that criminalises unauthorised disclosure of facts or information, and relies on the law not being enforced because of possible embarrassment, is not a position we should be comfortable with.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, XCOM.! said:

 

Legislation that criminalises unauthorised disclosure of facts or information, and relies on the law not being enforced because of possible embarrassment, is not a position we should be comfortable with.
 

so how do you explain the USA trying to extradite Assange?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Prince said:

so how do you explain the USA trying to extradite Assange?

Seriously? Are you asking me to explain and/or justify the USA's actions? I would have thought it pretty clear we are discussing Australian law here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

Waleed. Isn’t this the guy that said labor will win in a landslide and attain up to 88 seats. Yep.... we should listen to this bloke.

'Interesting piece by Waleed Aly'

Not sure if you could find a better definition of 'contradiction in terms'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Tyno said:

But how do you KNOW that?

Do you trust the guys who want the power to spy on you without you knowing, without any reason at all?

Or do you trust the political spin masters who absolutely, positively have nothing to do with it?

Your question is based on several false premises, not the least of which is your suggestion of 'no reason at all'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IronJimbo said:

'Interesting piece by Waleed Aly'

Not sure if you could find a better definition of 'contradiction in terms'

Just out of interest, did you read it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see Al Gore burning the fossil fuels to come talk to some politicians that won't be in office long enough to do anything to preach his own climate change emergency - oh and collect a very nice paycheque along the way.  The same politicians that want to quickly approve Adani to save their own seats...

I wonder why the issue is not taken seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Cottoneyes said:

Good to see Al Gore burning the fossil fuels to come talk to some politicians that won't be in office long enough to do anything to preach his own climate change emergency - oh and collect a very nice paycheque along the way.  The same politicians that want to quickly approve Adani to save their own seats...

I wonder why the issue is not taken seriously?

What a joke, if he was serious he would use modern tech like video conference which is seamless these days...pack of stinking hypocrites lining their wallets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've been saying for years, I'll believe there's an emergency when the people telling me there's an emergency start behaving like there's an emergency 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing that seems to stand out as is the news corp journo was raided, not news corp itself whereas the abc was raided, not the journo.   I would assume in the modern age people work from home and work so your intel must be amazing to only do a persons house for one and only do a person workplace for the other.... 

There is massive self interest in the media debating this so very hard to get an unbiased opinion from the media.   

Whether you are right or wrong, whether you are aware or naive, if you woke up this morning and weren't assaulted, tortured or killed last night, Government is at least doing something right in this country.... which is an inconvenient truth for many Australians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, more said:

What a joke, if he was serious he would use modern tech like video conference which is seamless these days...pack of stinking hypocrites lining their wallets

you must have the nbn...lol.  100% correct in what you are saying though, massive hypocrisy in doing world tours... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and its time to go......John Setka.

You have been a disgrace for the past several years and do not help the CFMEU improve their badly needed public image. 

Well done Albo for doing something that Shortpantz ducked away from in his years. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Prince said:

and its time to go......John Setka.

You have been a disgrace for the past several years and do not help the CFMEU improve their badly needed public image. 

Well done Albo for doing something that Shortpantz ducked away from in his years. 

 

 

Indeed

After years of genuinely abhorrent behavior, finally Setka has fallen below the ALP's standards by saying something relatively innocuous 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another interesting article for you not to read IJ. It's about the benefits to the UK of adopting an ambitious emmissions reduction target which they've fast tracked to zero by 2050. It has financial stuff in there too. I'm interested in your opinion about why Tories since Thatcher have been all about climate change and emissions reductions and why they're obviously wrong.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/a-disorienting-sight-to-an-australian-how-the-uk-got-on-with-the-climate-change-challenge-20190614-p51xqf.html

Edited by Parkside

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listened to Bob Hawkes memorial yesterday. 

A great event befitting a great man. 

Finished with this from the Sydney Symphony Orchestra.  If something can be  both extremely happy and sad at the same time I think this captured it. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, roxii said:

Listened to Bob Hawkes memorial yesterday. 

A great event befitting a great man. 

Finished with this from the Sydney Symphony Orchestra.  If something can be  both extremely happy and sad at the same time I think this captured it. 

 

 

I heard a list of most of the important dignitaries that attended the Sydney memorial service for Hawke and noticed Abbott wasn’t mentioned. Does anyone know if he attended at all? Or just no longer considered important or dignified?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Parkside said:

Here's another interesting article for you not to read IJ. It's about the benefits to the UK of adopting an ambitious emmissions reduction target which they've fast tracked to zero by 2050. It has financial stuff in there too. I'm interested in your opinion about why Tories since Thatcher have been all about climate change and emissions reductions and why they're obviously wrong.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/a-disorienting-sight-to-an-australian-how-the-uk-got-on-with-the-climate-change-challenge-20190614-p51xqf.html

Apples ain’t Apples. The two countries are not comparable.

Australia is 31 x the size of the UK. And our landscape and climate is vastly different. 

UK’s population is nearly 3 times as big.

UK has 3 times the tax payers of Australia. This means over 30million people supporting a country 31 times smaller than Australia. Small countries with larger populations can afford to piss money up a wall. 

Besides , both sides or the fence show proof it either does exist or doesn’t exist.

One should look at Germany - one climate expert who was all for climate change targets etc admitted that after spending 72 billion it made absolutely zero change to climate change.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, IronmanFoz said:

spending 72 billion it made absolutely zero change to climate change.

Governments spending money ineffectively isn't exactly a new thing :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

Apples ain’t Apples. The two countries are not comparable.

Australia is 31 x the size of the UK. And our landscape and climate is vastly different. 

UK’s population is nearly 3 times as big.

UK has 3 times the tax payers of Australia. This means over 30million people supporting a country 31 times smaller than Australia. Small countries with larger populations can afford to piss money up a wall. 

Besides , both sides or the fence show proof it either does exist or doesn’t exist.

One should look at Germany - one climate expert who was all for climate change targets etc admitted that after spending 72 billion it made absolutely zero change to climate change.

 

You realise 3 x times the population equals 3 x the expenditure, right?  Come and try and get Drs appt, your kid into a decent school, a hospital appt. All these things are 'free' over here but it comes from somewhere.

I love it when folks that live 12,000 miles are experts on what's happening here. (it's why I don't comment on Brexit thread). Trust me, the streets here aren't awash with so much cash that the Gov. (any Gov) has enough to 'piss it up a wall'.

The biggest difference here was that years ago, there was a massive push for 2nd Gen clean diesel cars.  A few years ago in most western EU countries, you'd be flat out seeing a petrol car. The golden egg was lower CO2 emissions but lately that mantra has changed back in favour of petrol. (higher CO2 but less other nasty toxins).

Diesel sales have plummeted by something like 60%. EVs are becoming very popular here, things holding them back are non standardised charging and the stupid subscription models but by far the biggest issue is that an awful of the urban population in the UK don't have a driveway, so no charging point.  Tide is turning though, many many companies are installing charging points that are free for employees at company car parks. (my company has 10).

On the non vehicle front, that's a tougher nut to crack, mainly due to the way that the P/Kw is charged and the taxed amount. (approx 57% of all energy bills in the UK are tax).  Distributed Energy is becoming a big thing but storage is the issue.

CHP. (Combined Heat and Power) will be next shift in the way large corporates reduce their energy foot print. Ironically, that involves big Rolls Royce engines from Germany that produce huge amounts of power.   Folks always think about offices using a lot of power. (they don't).  By far, things like MTX and Data Ctrs are absolute power monsters.

There are probably more barriers in the UK to go green than Australia, especially running EVs in winter.  yet somehow, we seem to be able to adopt the willingness to give it a go.

I'm involved in a lot of this in my corporate life.  There are no simplistic answers but burying your head in the sand and shouting 'but we're different' sure as shit ain't one of them.

Edited by FatPom
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Parkside said:

Here's another interesting article for you not to read IJ. It's about the benefits to the UK of adopting an ambitious emmissions reduction target which they've fast tracked to zero by 2050. It has financial stuff in there too. I'm interested in your opinion about why Tories since Thatcher have been all about climate change and emissions reductions and why they're obviously wrong.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/a-disorienting-sight-to-an-australian-how-the-uk-got-on-with-the-climate-change-challenge-20190614-p51xqf.html

Because Thatcher herself admittedly invented co2 based climate change concerns back in the 80s as a ruse in order to win her war with coal mining unions

The rest of the article is a typical bunch of bullshit platitudes with little substance.  Just like your other article which was just another excuse for Waleed to peddle his 'terrorism isn't a big deal' agenda  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

Besides , both sides or the fence show proof it either does exist or doesn’t exist.

For the record, no publishing scientists deny the climate change data - that's the realm of the tin-foil-hat 'nasa conspiracy' you-tube crowd.

98% of publishing climate scientists support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, as detailed in the last IPCC report.

There are some scientists who question the accuracy of the IPCC projections, and a small number who question the cause, but none who question the data.

So for the non-qualified layman (that's most of us) it basically comes down to risk-analysis and mitigation. If the 98% of climate scientists are right, then we ignore them at our peril.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, XCOM.! said:

For the record, no publishing scientists deny the climate change data - that's the realm of the tin-foil-hat 'nasa conspiracy' you-tube crowd.

98% of publishing climate scientists support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, as detailed in the last IPCC report.

There are some scientists who question the accuracy of the IPCC projections, and a small number who question the cause, but none who question the data.

So for the non-qualified layman (that's most of us) it basically comes down to risk-analysis and mitigation. If the 98% of climate scientists are right, then we ignore them at our peril.

The actual question is how many million people are you willing to impoverish in order to try and probably fail to do something about it

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

The actual question is how many million people are you willing to impoverish in order to try and probably fail to do something about it

No, the actual question is how many people are you prepared to kill by choosing to ignore the warnings and do nothing.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that more people have been impoverished by climate change policy than have been proven to have been killed by climate change, I would suggest that my question is more topical

Edited by IronJimbo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Given that more people have been impoverished by climate change policy than have been proven to have been killed by climate change, I would suggest that my question is more topical

How many have been impoverished by climate change as compared to killed by climate change policy?

Edited by Ex-Hasbeen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

How many have been impoverished by climate change as compared to killed by climate change policy?

I'm not aware of anyone being killed by an event definitively linked to climate change

I am aware of many, many people who struggle to pay their power bills, to cite but one example

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IronJimbo said:

Given that more people have been impoverished by climate change policy than have been proven to have been killed by climate change, I would suggest that my question is more topical

No, it's just choosing to ignore the risk and potential cost. As I stated, if the 98% of climate scientist are correct, and the IPCC projections are anywhere near accurate, then the risk of catastrophe is serious. Low laying heavily populated regions such as Bangladesh or drought affected regions, would see mass exodus and strain resources that will risk wars, etc. Even if you ignore the human cost, that's nevertheless an economic cost that needs to be accounted for, not just ignored and dismissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose  as one example if you don't think that that those more regular bigger than normal typhoon/cyclone/bushfire has been created/increased due to climate change and thus an increased body count then none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool

So what do you propose we do about it?  What difference will it make, and how much will it cost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, symo said:

I suppose  as one example if you don't think that that those more regular bigger than normal typhoon/cyclone/bushfire has been created/increased due to climate change and thus an increased body count then none.

My understanding is that there have been less cyclones here, and less tornadoes in the US

If you have evidence to the contrary, happy to have a look at it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Cool

So what do you propose we do about it?  What difference will it make, and how much will it cost?

Right, the old "unless you can guarantee success we shouldn't do anything because it's expensive" argument.

There is only one 98% guarantee available at the moment - do nothing and we will pay dearly for it.

Reducing CO2 emissions is currently the only game in town, and power generation is the primary source. Whether that means renewables + storage or nuclear (preferably LFTR technology) or other non-emitting power-generation tech, we can't choose to do nothing without accepting the risk and cost that may be imposed on our children.

If you think we struggle with keeping a lid on 'illegal immigrants' now, just wait until entire areas of the planet become uninhabitable. We will then either have to spend a small fortune building a fortress, or contribute sufficient foreign aid to avoid that migration from happening - either way, if the projections are correct, doing nothing will not be a no-cost option.

Of course, we could invest in developing tech for this, that may even be advantageous to our economy, but why do that when we could spend public funds building a new coal-fired powerstation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, XCOM.! said:

Right, the old "unless you can guarantee success we shouldn't do anything because it's expensive" argument.

There is only one 98% guarantee available at the moment - do nothing and we will pay dearly for it.

 

Both statements above are ridiculous! And not true!

But given you are so convinced.......... what you should do is sell your house and take a gamble. Invest all your proceeds into a company that’s going to solve the worlds climate change issues. Are you going to make that bet........ well are you punk!

I am guessing not!

Edited by IronmanFoz
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FatPom said:

You realise 3 x times the population equals 3 x the expenditure, right?  Come and try and get Drs appt, your kid into a decent school, a hospital appt. All these things are 'free' over here but it comes from somewhere.

I love it when folks that live 12,000 miles are experts on what's happening here. (it's why I don't comment on Brexit thread). Trust me, the streets here aren't awash with so much cash that the Gov. (any Gov) has enough to 'piss it up a wall'.

The biggest difference here was that years ago, there was a massive push for 2nd Gen clean diesel cars.  A few years ago in most western EU countries, you'd be flat out seeing a petrol car. The golden egg was lower CO2 emissions but lately that mantra has changed back in favour of petrol. (higher CO2 but less other nasty toxins).

Diesel sales have plummeted by something like 60%. EVs are becoming very popular here, things holding them back are non standardised charging and the stupid subscription models but by far the biggest issue is that an awful of the urban population in the UK don't have a driveway, so no charging point.  Tide is turning though, many many companies are installing charging points that are free for employees at company car parks. (my company has 10).

On the non vehicle front, that's a tougher nut to crack, mainly due to the way that the P/Kw is charged and the taxed amount. (approx 57% of all energy bills in the UK are tax).  Distributed Energy is becoming a big thing but storage is the issue.

CHP. (Combined Heat and Power) will be next shift in the way large corporates reduce their energy foot print. Ironically, that involves big Rolls Royce engines from Germany that produce huge amounts of power.   Folks always think about offices using a lot of power. (they don't).  By far, things like MTX and Data Ctrs are absolute power monsters.

There are probably more barriers in the UK to go green than Australia, especially running EVs in winter.  yet somehow, we seem to be able to adopt the willingness to give it a go.

I'm involved in a lot of this in my corporate life.  There are no simplistic answers but burying your head in the sand and shouting 'but we're different' sure as shit ain't one of them.

So my take on this is..... diesel is better for the environment that petrol which is cleaner.....

And if 57% of your energy bills is tax then yes....... the govt is clearly pissing your money up a wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, XCOM.! said:

For the record, no publishing scientists deny the climate change data - that's the realm of the tin-foil-hat 'nasa conspiracy' you-tube crowd.

98% of publishing climate scientists support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, as detailed in the last IPCC report.

There are some scientists who question the accuracy of the IPCC projections, and a small number who question the cause, but none who question the data.

So for the non-qualified layman (that's most of us) it basically comes down to risk-analysis and mitigation. If the 98% of climate scientists are right, then we ignore them at our peril.

I see what you sneakily did there Xcom!........... 

You took my “Besides , both sides of the fence show proof it either does exist or doesn’t exist.”........ and made it about “scientists” to suit you agenda. I never said anything about scientists. I was referring to the debate on climate change itself. 

But whilst we are on the subject of scientists, let’s go back many years and it was the scientists that busted Al Gores “inconvenient truth”. And just because someone is a scientist doesn’t mean they know what they are talking about....it depends who is paying them.

Remember all thos scientist who work for sugar and soft drink and tobacco companies who say there products aren’t addictive and aren’t harmful........ how could they be wrong.......... welll we know they are wrong!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IronmanFoz said:

Both statements above are ridiculous! And not true!

But given you are so convinced.......... what you should do is sell your house and take a gamble. Invest all your proceeds into a company that’s going to solve the worlds climate change issues. Are you going to make that bet........ well are you punk!

I am guessing not!

Right...

The only sides of the fence qualified to argue are those scientists working in the field, and everything else is just noise.

It's not about me being personally convinced, as I suspect like yourself, I'm not a qualified climate scientist, and I'm not about to start going down the "it's all a conspiracy" or the "I don't believe the experts" route, as that's just another version of "anti-vaxxer" mentality.

Instead, it's about acknowledging the advice of the 98% of publishing climate scientists supporting the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, as detailed in the last IPCC report, and their projection of a dire situation.

Of course, it's possible that the 2% of dissenting scientists *COULD* be right (regarding the IPCC projections and/or cause of climate change) but on a crude basis of odds, it's highly unlikely they are... and so it's about risk assessment and the cost associated.

As a tax-payer, I would prefer to see public funds be invested in development of solutions to the problem, and not in pointless lip-service programs or investing in exacerbating the problem simply to support denialist dogma and vote buying.

However, if you are so convinced they are all wrong, then perhaps you might consider selling your own house and mounting a campaign to illuminate us all to the "facts" according to you.

Edited by XCOM.!
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IronmanFoz said:

So my take on this is..... diesel is better for the environment that petrol which is cleaner.....

And if 57% of your energy bills is tax then yes....... the govt is clearly pissing your money up a wall.

If that's what you took from that,,I'm out. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, XCOM.! said:

As a tax-payer, I would prefer to see public funds be invested in development of solutions to the problem

So would I.  Windmills and solar panels are not solutions however

BTW, a more honest reference to your '98% of scientists' claim would acknowledge the very broad question that was actually asked of them, and that within that 98% there is quite a lot of conjecture about the extent of our contribution and whether we can or should do anything about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

So would I.  Windmills and solar panels are not solutions however

BTW, a more honest reference to your '98% of scientists' claim would acknowledge the very broad question that was actually asked of them, and that within that 98% there is quite a lot of conjecture about the extent of our contribution and whether we can or should do anything about it

I'm not sure why you proclaim "Windmills and solar panels are not solutions" - they would appear to be perfectly valid options for low-carbon electricity generation. They require storage solutions (e.g. Redox and Hybrid Flow Batteries, thermal-salt storage, etc) and that's an area of development we could contribute to and benefit from.

As for the other statement, I'm not sure what vox-pop you are referring to, but please read my post again - "98% of publishing climate scientists supporting the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, as detailed in the last IPCC report". In fact it's actually reported to be less than 0.1% now, but I'll be generous and stick with the older official published survey figures.

That is not 98% of scientists, it's 98% of "publishing climate scientists" - this is not a dishonest statement, it's simply the state of consensus among those scientists actually working and publishing in the field of climate science. The dissenting scientist in that group primarily disagree on the modelling to date (i.e. projected rate, extent and reversibility of change) with only a very small minority of the dissenting group questioning the cause.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

98% of publishing climate scientists.  What would your chances be of getting published as a climate scientist if you disagree with the reason that all of your fellow climate scientists (who peer review your stuff) get paid?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Stikman said:

98% of publishing climate scientists.  What would your chances be of getting published as a climate scientist if you disagree with the reason that all of your fellow climate scientists (who peer review your stuff) get paid?

Ah yes, the global conspiracy of highly paid climate scientists. Lucky us for the plucky band of billionnaires and oil barrons who courageously fought their lies on our behalf.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, asmithaxe said:

Ah yes, the global conspiracy of highly paid climate scientists. Lucky us for the plucky band of billionnaires and oil barrons who courageously fought their lies on our behalf.

I wonder which scientists have a greater chance of getting a research grant... 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, more said:

I wonder which scientists have a greater chance of getting a research grant... 

I'm certainly not disputing that there may be a bias in research funding from some (perhaps many) sources. But both sides of this argument have money. Climate scientists can get money from organisations who have a vested interest in disproving climate change. Yet we still see an overwhelming majority of climate scientists saying that same thing. The main people who voice a dissenting opinion are NOT climate scientists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, asmithaxe said:

I'm certainly not disputing that there may be a bias in research funding from some (perhaps many) sources. But both sides of this argument have money. Climate scientists can get money from organisations who have a vested interest in disproving climate change. Yet we still see an overwhelming majority of climate scientists saying that same thing. The main people who voice a dissenting opinion are NOT climate scientists.

Massive biases and a rort.

just link where many people made a motza out of pink batts and the people who are now scamming the NBN. And yes I have spoken to people who admit it’s a rort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...