JC Political Thread - For All Things Political Part 2

[DAKSTER]

God dammit who let the staffer out?



Errr..so Queensland has never flooded the way it has before? Nor the US had big storms?

Right...So with no carbon we will see no floods? Interesting, what were the cause of floods and heatwaves in the 1800's? Don't even get me started on the wild fires..that funnily enough most have been deliberately lit or started because of sparks from machinery...amazing how forests burn when you are not allowed to clear them of dead rubbish.

Deary me.

The blind shall remain blind. Yes, these events have always happened. Its the frequency and extremity that is changing. Please feel free to quote any period of recorded history when such frequent and dramatic events have occurred prior to now?

 

[Reaper]

So, a change of circumstances will cause Abbot to break pledges? But that wont make him a liar? hmmm interesting...

It depends entirely on the circumstances surrounding said change in circumstances.

Do a deal with another party that goes back completely and utterly on a pre-election unequivicable pre-election commitment to save your own skin then yes - hang him out to dry. Make (say) $20bill in pledges but only deliver $15bill because economic circumstances are different to what you have been led to believe before the election - very different situation.

Agreed. He needs to get the cash from somewhere, if he takes that one away, something else will take its place. You need to worry, he will take it from the top end of town, despite any bleatings to the contrary. Abbot just wants to get and keep the job, he isn't going to risk taking any more from Joe Average.

It is probably the one thing I'd like to see spelled out before the election more than any other.

The mining tax is also a problem for him.. SO FAR it has raised no cash.. but the cash it was SUPPOSED to have raised is a major amount of money he is going to have to find from somewhere. In time, the tax will probably bring in a fair slab of income, it just isn't doing it yet. When the good times start rolling again, so will the income from that sector. I don't agree with the tax, but it WILL eventually bring home the bacon, does he have a spare pig?

Overall this is actually a great election (for either party) to win. NA is slowly coming out of it's recession and Europe is showing signs of the same. Australia is also slowly improving. Although the Victorian housing market is still terrible, the rest of Aus is showing slow growth again. What that means is that general company and other tax receipts will slowly improve in Australia as our outlook improves (being sucked along by the rest of the world) and the job for the treasurer balancing the books will be significantly easier.

When the other alternative has exactly the same faults.. yes.

The problem is one has a proven track record on the matter. The other has faults that at best are your perception without the opportunity to prove himself either way as you pointed out below.

There is one factor you aren't mentioning here.. Gillard is in power, anything she does has to be accounted for, and her failings have been exposed.

Abbot so far has only had the opportunity to make promises.. lets just see how many 'Lies' he is accused of after (if) he is in power for a couple years shall we? Or in his case, will he use the Johnny Howard line of 'core and non core promises' .. of course then you wouldn't call him a liar would you? Only the ALP tells lies.. :rofl2:

Did the Howard government deliver all their pre-election commitments: NO
Did they say X 2 days before the election and within 3 months of being returned do **completely** the opposite??? NO
Did he say "never ever" in relation to the GST: YES
Did he change his mind? YES
Did he put his nuts on the line and give the public the opportunity to vote on such a fundamental change in policy? YES

I think that record speaks for itself, particularly the last 3 lines.

And of course he will never use changes in circumstances as an excuse will he?

See above

Reaper

 

[Cheap6]

Errr..so Queensland has never flooded the way it has before? Nor the US had big storms?

Record rainfall, flooding and storms. Qld has had 2 "once in a hundred year" events in three years.

Right...So with no carbon we will see no floods? Interesting, what were the cause of floods and heatwaves in the 1800's? Don't even get me started on the wild fires..that funnily enough most have been deliberately lit or started because of sparks from machinery...amazing how forests burn when you are not allowed to clear them of dead rubbish.

Deary me.

It's not that severe cold, floods, droughts and fires have never occurred before, it's that they will be more intense and occur more frequently with more energy in the atmospheric system.

The recent (and current) bushfires were (are) so difficult to deal with because of unusually low humidity coupled with high winds. That was made even worse when there was high ambient temps. as well.

You are of at least of average intelligence (you have a university degree ). You should be able to discover what climate science has - and is - actually predicting rather than rely on what is alleged they have predicted from denialist sources.

 

[Reaper]

Do you have any idea of how scientific discovery is conducted? It's sole purpose is to discover the objective truth about the rules by which the physical world operates. Try to fabricate something and, because it's not the objective truth, sooner or later it will be discovered. If it was being done with intent, that's end of career. No more funding of any kind.

Tim Flannery - Govco's appointed expert on the subject:

2005: Predicted NSW could be in a permanent drought because of global warming and dams will be dry within 2 years.
2008: Adelaide may run out of water by 2009
2007: Brisbane will never again have dam-filling rains
2007: Global warming will dry out Australia so much that Desal will be the only salvation for our 3 biggest cities
2011: "There are islands in the Torres Strait that are already being evacuated and are feeling the impacts," (which ones? - I can't find any)

But, let's humour you a little and suggest that there is a world with no such thing as AGW. Would there no longer be scientists studying how the Earth's climate works? Of course not because it's useful for us to know when and where to expect drought and floods etc. and to adjust our behaviour accordingly. We would still want to know whether or not it was an acceptable risk to build on areas where we might expect severe flooding occasionally or plant crops with some knowledge of the risk of drought. Climate science would still be funded because it is about discovering how the Earth's climate works and not just about AGW.

I am fine with the concept of climate change persae. Has been happening for as long as the world has existed I'm sure. I do however greet stupid outlandish claims with a very healthy dose of sceptasism. Just because a so-called expert comes to some conclusion, I always look at the motivation. No different to presenting evidence at a trial. You can get 50 experts on both sides of the fence to both argue in equally convincing fashion that their point of view is correct (although completely opposite to the other side). What we are talking about is drawing a conclusion about evidence presented and that conclusion is nothing more than opinion. When opinions are involved, I always look at potential motivating factors at which case is mostly where the money is coming from.

I should also point out that most scientists - except in some areas of specialty - don't actually get paid a whole lot. Probably less than you. That's despite having spent 4-8 years on training at tertiary level. And, yes, they would get paid more doing something else in private enterprise for equivalent effort .

On the other hand, let's say you have a business or businesses, in which you have a rather large investment, that will disappear because it is a major contributor to AGW. What then is your incentive to understand how the climate works, if the outcome of that understanding means you can no longer conduct that business? There will be no oil, coal or gas industries nor high global warming potential refrigerants in a world where AGW is addressed.

Actually my business is indirectly good for the environment, locking up carbon within timber products that are stored in houses.

What if you had religious beliefs that conflicted with the reality of AGW? How hard would it be to reconstruct your belief system within the forced understanding that the climate responds to physical phenomena in conflict with what you now hold to be true?

Then ask: Who has the incentive to figure out how the Earth's climate works in an objective way and who has the incentive to obfuscate? Who has the money? Who has the PR departments? Who has the political influence? Here's a hint: it's not the scientists.

I don't see your point??? If you are asking can money/beliefs sway opinion the other way??? Yep. No doubt about it.

Have you even read the Stern or Garnaut - including update - reports? If not, how do you form an opinion as to whether they are inaccurate or not? Have you seen any credible analysis that, acknowledging AGW is occurring, suggests it's a better outcome to allow it to happen and pay for the consequences?

Nope. Haven't read either report. My opinion is that it's impossible to say one way or the other how much humans contribute to climate change. That said, I don't see a down side to lowering co2 emissions. Taxes don't do that. Actions do. I have mentioned before, there is a very real probability that our carbon tax will increase world co2 emissions, not lower them. Direct action is measurable and very clear weather it's working or not. Incentives like banning incandesant light globes - great idea (any idea who implemented it??). I support phasing out coal fired power. My personal preferance is go nuclear. Plonk it next to a desal plant and kill 2 birds with 1 stone. Both of these things are clear and measurable as to their effectiveness. As for the Carbon wealth redistribution scheme - pffft. Who knows???

It's not that severe cold, floods, droughts and fires have never occurred before, it's that they will be more intense and occur more frequently with more energy in the atmospheric system.

The recent (and current) bushfires were (are) so difficult to deal with because of unusually low humidity coupled with high winds. That was made even worse when there was high ambient temps. as well.

You are of at least of average intelligence (you have a university degree ). You should be able to discover what climate science has - and is - actually predicting rather than rely on what is alleged they have predicted from denialist sources.

Not to mention DSE and the greenies preventing clearing of grass/undergrowth allowing the fuel load getting to levels not seen in history

Reaper

 

[Jesterarts]

Reaper; love your work

Cheap6; your climate change related posts are highly entertaining, keep them coming.

As you broadly infered, science is undeniable, and the science shows the world has gone through climate change cycles for as far back as it is possible to see through core samples, etc.

Also, just because someone decided to brand a weather event, once in a hundred years, doesn't actually mean it will only happen every hundred years. Just means that statistically, it may not be probably, but I don't think nature is across the arbitrary concept of statistics nor does nature seem to abide by and statistic based predictions.

 

[minux]

Record rainfall, flooding and storms. Qld has had 2 "once in a hundred year" events in three years.

It's not that severe cold, floods, droughts and fires have never occurred before, it's that they will be more intense and occur more frequently with more energy in the atmospheric system.

The recent (and current) bushfires were (are) so difficult to deal with because of unusually low humidity coupled with high winds. That was made even worse when there was high ambient temps. as well.

You are of at least of average intelligence (you have a university degree ). You should be able to discover what climate science has - and is - actually predicting rather than rely on what is alleged they have predicted from denialist sources.

Ok, so first things, once in a hundred year flood, hmm, how old is the planet?

Just to confirm, is it global warming or Climate change? It seems the goal posts keep switching. Given the planet has warmed something like .4 degree in 16 years (not what the climate models predicted lol) I do not think it is that bad. We have great crops, higher yields etc. Interestingly the weather patterns are still following a good trend. Even better is we are gaining water even though we have had no new dams built and our population here in vic has quadrupled!

Anyway, heads you win, tails I lose, thats climate change right? First it was droughts blah blah blah now its about floods, blah blah blah.

Didn't the leak IPCC report have aa statement saying major weather events have actually decreased not increased and severity is relatively unchanged?

As for the fires, ask any firey and they will tell you, fighting fires in wood lands that have 5-6 years of dead growth build up is near impossible, heaven forbid this actually shows a bit of common sense in why it is bad green policy to allow them to build up so much fuel.

PS: I have seen what climate science has not and is not predicting, all I have seen is changing goal posts, first it was dramatic sea rise, which have not happened, then years of drought and bugger all rain, not much has changed with la nina and el nino cycles so meh, when the preachers start practicing what they preach, I will stand up and listen, until then the fact flannery and all his followers live in coastal towns or on tidal river systems I think there is not much to worry about.

Then ask: Who has the incentive to figure out how the Earth's climate works in an objective way and who has the incentive to obfuscate? Who has the money? Who has the PR departments? Who has the political influence? Here's a hint: it's not the scientists.

Just curious, how much money have governments handed out to "climate science"?

 

[DAKSTER]

Did the Howard government deliver all their pre-election commitments: NO
Did they say X 2 days before the election and within 3 months of being returned do **completely** the opposite??? NO
Did he say "never ever" in relation to the GST: YES
Did he change his mind? YES
Did he put his nuts on the line and give the public the opportunity to vote on such a fundamental change in policy? YES

I think that record speaks for itself, particularly the last 3 lines.

Reaper

Did he receive a mandate for that tax? NO.

I support the GST, don't get me wrong, I think a consumption based tax is the best and fairest possible. The more you use, the more tax you pay, good stuff.... but I am a little bored with hearing about how he took it to the polls and won a mandate for it.

He LOST the popular vote, the election was decided on preferences. In order to get those preferences he had to do a deal with the Democrats on the GST, a deal which in turn split and eventually became the demise of the Democrats altogether.

A deal incidentally which complicated the hell out of the GST, because the bleeding hearts among the Democrats wanted a bunch of exempted stuff. It should have been a blanket tax, no exemptions in my view.

Mandate? I think not... The majority of people voted against him. And he knew it. And he knew why. And still he went through with it, because he had done the deals and got the job anyway, and what the hell, he soooooo wanted to.

You gotta love the silly way democracy can work sometimes huh?

They all speak with the same forked tongues mate..

 

[DAKSTER]

I would just like to say that although I am obviously not nor have ever been a fan of John Howard's politics, and I disagree with many of his views and actions, I have always admired and respected his integrity.

Many of the things I believe he did wrong I am sure he did not see as being wrong. In the case of the GST he obviously believed in it enough to put aside any other misgivings, such as whether this was really what the people voted for.

I certainly believe his intentions were always honourable, well considered, and genuine, and that he always believed he was acting in the best interest of the people. In the case of the GST, the people got over it and a genuinely fair tax was introduced.

All politicians open their mouths a little too far and make promises they can't keep, and he certainly had his share of that, but a much smaller share than most. He is a man that thinks before he speaks, an admirable trait.

 

[minux]

Did he receive a mandate for that tax? NO.

I support the GST, don't get me wrong, I think a consumption based tax is the best and fairest possible. The more you use, the more tax you pay, good stuff.... but I am a little bored with hearing about how he took it to the polls and won a mandate for it.

He LOST the popular vote, the election was decided on preferences. In order to get those preferences he had to do a deal with the Democrats on the GST, a deal which in turn split and eventually became the demise of the Democrats altogether.

A deal incidentally which complicated the hell out of the GST, because the bleeding hearts among the Democrats wanted a bunch of exempted stuff. It should have been a blanket tax, no exemptions in my view.

Mandate? I think not... The majority of people voted against him. And he knew it. And he knew why. And still he went through with it, because he had done the deals and got the job anyway, and what the hell, he soooooo wanted to.

You gotta love the silly way democracy can work sometimes huh?

They all speak with the same forked tongues mate..

Had Gillard done the same thing regarding the Carbon tax I could accept her policy but they flat out said "there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead". How ####ing hard is it to understand the differences? One went to an election with it as policy, one went to an election stating it will not happen.

PS: Growing old discracefully?

 

[DAKSTER]

PS: Growing old discracefully?

oops :bomb: