Over the past few weeks I have been having drives and talks with my elder son, whose interest are like mine, though he is more interested in the philosophical aspects of politics than its day-to-day jousting. What follows comes from one of these talks we have had while driving through back roads in the bush, which we both enjoy.
There is an incompatibility in all human societies in terms of what we want from our society and its government. We want X, but don’t always realise that it almost certainly involves Y, which we don’t want. Take our treatment of illegal immigrants. How many times have I heard, or read, that it is disgraceful what we do them. They are in what for other countries we might call ‘concentration camps’. It’s wrong, and they ought do something about it. ‘They’, of course, is our government. That is the X of the incompatibility. The Y is what government might do about it.
Now we in Australia are fortunate in that we inhabit a large island, and sea and air are the only means of entry. The air entry is governable, though not one hundred per cent effective. Sea is easier, and our government has most effectively blocked the conveying of would-be immigrants from Indonesia, Sri Lanka and elsewhere. We should be helping them, cry the Xers, not turning them around. It’s awful. Maybe it is, but if we allow them entry, won’t that encourage others, and the ‘people smugglers’? I think it would, and before long there would be larger and larger numbers of arrivals. What we would do with them? What jobs would they have, and where would they live? Those of us who are not Xers tend to shrug, when we think of the issue at all. Yes, it’s a bad thing, but what else can we do? Australia is a prime target for those who are seeking another land to live in. We do take in a lot of refugees who live in resettlement camps, and we do look after them. And so on.
Our government is caught between the Xers and the sheer practicalities of the matter. So it says what it is doing, and keeps doing it. Yes, it will lose votes, but votes are not everything. It might well lose more if it abandoned turning the boats around. Much of the time I have great sympathy for those around the Cabinet table. So many issues are in practical terms insolvable, at least for the moment. Some are simply intractable, and have cursed humanity since it began to live in settlements.
Here’s another example, familiar enough for readers of this website. Here the Xers are climate-action people. They want climate action now, whatever it is they mean by that. They support global action and local action and some of them undertake personal action in some respects, by not driving cars, or eating meat. Now Australia is one of the world’s great mining countries, and our mines produce the raw materials for the world’s industrial activity. Coal is an especial item here, because without it there is no cheap electricity, and without that there is little industry or civilisation. Now the Xers tend to bypass Australia’s contribution to what the Xers see as the problem through the export of coal, iron ore and the like. If they were serious, they would be demanding that we stop all such exports.
On the whole they don’t seem to, because to do that would greatly reduce their own standard of living. So they demand climate action now, without saying what might be involved if their demands were taken seriously. They see greenhouse gas emissions (GGE) as the core of the problem, and those have to be reduced. Push that forcefully (always assuming that GGE are the problem), and you go back to a much earlier form of civilisation. Our government has no intention of ending the export of coal and iron ore, and simply says that we are doing our bit. The Xers say that’s not enough, and the government shrugs. So do those who are not Xers, like me. Maybe the world will continue to warm, though there’s not much warming about. But if it goes on warming, and the warming becomes a problem — it’s not at the moment — then future generations will have a better handle on it then we have now.
A third example, in a tightly focused domain, is that of the treatment of severely handicapped children in school. Here there are two different categories of Xers. XAers say that their child MUST be given his or her education in a mainstream school, and so must all comparably affected kids, while the XBers claim that their child needs one-to-one education, wherever it is and whatever it costs. These two desires are straightforwardly incompatible, and both partisans appeal to government. No, they do not appeal: they Demand. Because the core of the demands involves children the demands are passionate and loud. What does government do?
Well, it tries to placate. When that doesn’t work it finds a loophole somewhere. We didn’t sign up to this or that, in the UN document about the rights of the child, an ancient document, this one. Or it says, look, education is really a State matter. Why don’t you write to the relevant Minister in your State? And it takes some time to get the right language into its letters to the passionate citizens, and the government hopes that that one will go away, at least for a while. There may not be all that many of the truly passionate, but they can raise a clamour. It’s a tough life, dealing with the passionate, who know as well as anyone the power of writing through their local member to the government, and the way in which to attract local media to their cause, knowing that whatever they say will cause a local fracas, which means more interest in their cause.
It’s not always fun and power, being the government.
ENDNOTE I would like to start this year with a new and powerful rule. I don’t write these essays as an invitation to people to add in whatever they’re interested in. From now on, I will moderate Comments to exclude themes that have nothing to do with the subject of the essay. If you want to talk about Australia’s relations with China in the Comments to this essay, go somewhere else. Too many of the Comments lately have been about the favourite subjects of the Commenters, and I am getting sick of that. I fancy that other readers feel the same. The rule applies also to those who want to cross swords with whoever wrote the irrelevant Comment in the first place. NEW RULE: Keep it relevant!
PERSONAL NOTE: My lovely and much-loved wife died the day before Christmas Eve. We had been together for nearly thirty years, and she leaves a great hole in my heart. I now have to construct a new life without her. It will be hard.
Relative to your first concern, one need only observe the endless hordes pushing through Guatemala thinking that a new administration in the USA will mean unfettered access to that country’s riches. It is not difficult to consider that when one is about to offer an abode for rent, that it is crucial to carefully discriminate when selecting a suitable tenant that will occupy that abode with the same values you cherish. The same is true in selecting a suitable new employee to fill that vacant position. By the same token, one could expect a country to behave similarly, defining its wants and needs concerning prospective immigrants, (and especially determining the desirable quantity of immigrants, and select accordingly. Not long ago, this was the norm. Why do some expect that to change?
Tackling your third dilemma, and drilling down to root cause, one finds an alarming volume of misinformation and dis information. Here society is dealing with a cult built upon myth and legend; for all intents a purpose a new religion. The extent to which this paranoia is fuelled by gover4nment itself can only lead one to the conclusion that there is far too much “government” for a healthy society to exist.
Insofar as your next cause for dismay, consider that most of that which we consider Western Civilisation has been careening down the rabbit hole towards a Totalitarian fascist state for several decades. One of the primary reasons for this (and one could do well to refresh themselves through the interview with Besemov in the seventies) is that we the people have sought government to provide services for which we should be responsible ourselves. Among these mistakes lie public “education” (which has become indoctrination in disguise) and public “health”; both enabling enslavement of the common man through discouragement of critical thinking processes. Individual liberty is best governed by the individual, the accountability and responsibility for one’s own actions. Adam Smith declared the new Constitution of the USA to be fit only for a good, moral and spiritual people. Stalin declared that the health of the USA was due to patriotism, morals, and religion. The attack over the past fifty years has fundamentally been based on destroying those very tenets.
Is it any wonder then that the “Greatest Democracy” (actually a Constitutional Republic) finds itself at the point of imminent implosion?
And mys sincere condolences on your recent loss, Don.
Deepest Sympathies on the passing of your beloved wife.
Thank you for the email. It is brave of you.
Mine also, Don. And do keep writing. As Bev would also wish.
Don I’m also sorry for the loss of your wife and it’s good to see you’ve been out and about with your son.
I’ll have to think about the rest of your post for a while.
Yes, the loss of a close partner after traveling through life for decades has to leave a hole in one’s heart.
Please add my commiserations to those of others.
Don, very sorry to hear about the loss of your darling wife. You are obviously summing up all your strength at the moment and congratulations for that.
So sorry to hear of the loss of your dear wife, Don, and appreciate your post written in difficult circumstances.
Sincere respects,
bts.
My condolences on your loss.
My gratitude for your continued effort to make a serious contribution with these essays.
Sincere condolences.
People often express contempt for politicians, sometimes deserved, but years ago I recall John Howard doing a media conference in a Sunday afternoon. He had put on a jacket, shirt and tie; he spoke about whatever topic was the purpose of the event and then dealt with all sorts of questions about topics far removed from that purpose and responded in detail. Who would really want to swap jobs with a PM, and sacrifice weekends, relaxation and face cross-examination aimed at showing up mistakes and weaknesses? A dog of a life, for which we might more often express gratitude.
Here’s a topic that everyone should be able to agree about. Africa requires reliable energy to supply the 53 countries of that continent and the population is increasing at the fastest rate on the planet, with an average ( age) population of about 18 years.
These two Nuclear specialists from S Africa think that SMRs are the way to go and I’ve linked to these small modular nuclear reactors in the past.
Anyway it looks like Russia will be involved soon and I’m sure China will not be far behind, because they are already involved in coal mining etc in Africa in a big way.
SMRs can be added whenever or wherever they are needed and I just wish we had the brains and foresight to use this technology here in Australia instead of dopey ruinables like S&W.
Whether Xers like this or not I’m sure this will happen along with the 1250 new coal+ gas power stns that are already planned for in Africa.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/19/sensible-sustainable-nuclear-power-for-africa/
By now we should know that ruinables like S&W are a disaster and Germany’s journey over the last few decades should be an exercise in how not to proceed towards a modern electricity grid.
The Xers have held sway with all parties over that period and today they have many very serious problems on their hands. And Germany’s economy is paramount for the prosperity and future of the EU and yet they seem to be recklessly abandoning reliable base-load power for their future energy requirements.
https://notrickszone.com/2021/01/19/last-ditch-effort-germany-weighs-electricity-rationing-scheme-to-stabilize-its-now-shaky-green-power-grid/
Usual spam from Neville – how boring.
I think Don is making the point that, unlike mathematics, most human problems have imperfect solutions.
Don
First, my deepest sympathy for the loss of your wife. It is good that your son could be with you.
At the risk of incurring Chris’ displeasure, I must point out that a combination of solar, wind and batteries, at their present state of development, cannot provide the reliable, continuous electric power required to support a modern industrial civilisation. Thus, unless a courageous Australian government is prepared to bite the nuclear bullet, we must continue to maintain and replace fossil fuelled plants until renewable technology advances significantly. If we do not, then economic and social disaster loom.
This will mean replacing old plants as they are retired. It also means that any advances in renewable technology must first be tested at pilot plant level, then at a moderate scale to ensure that they can do the job. The current practice of constructing large scale plants known to be inadequate simply bleeds off the funding needed for research to find an adequate solution.
None of this will placate the passionate without a government willing to tell the truth about engineering reality.
On one of your other issues, asylum seekers and the wider immigration program, the passionate seem able to both call for increases in these programs, while also wanting to reduce overall population levels. Perhaps their passion overcomes the cognitive dissonance?
I think the fault in the initial sending out was mine. The correct link is to
donaitkin.com/the-problem of-passionate-demands/
Test
Don, I am sorry to hear of the passing of your wonderful wife and can barely imagine how that affects you. Please accept my condolences.
Regarding your post I am reminded of a teacher well over half a century ago. He did not express it in terms if Xers as you did but I see a correlation. He was my ancient history teacher and we spent quite some time on the concept of democracy, related to Ancient Athens but linked to the then present time. He actually foretold of our current era of real time communication, though perhaps not our social media. The question he posed related to an ability to instantaneously express the views of those in the demes on any subject and therefore decision. His conclusion was negative on that prospect. I still agree with his conclusions.
Perhaps the current spread of unfiltered ideas too readily via social media is what he envisaged. He saw a need for quiet reflection and consideration of all consequences before decision making, akin to our sometimes frustrating ponderous political system. But he also saw danger in the power of sectional interests wielding power beyond their fair allowance. Did he foretell the immense power of industrial giants working to influence public policy and opinion though undisclosed sponsorship? And where would the not always polite discourse here feature on his scale I wonder.
There are many questions requiring policy decision such as those you reference, with no easy answers. Remember it is a world where everyone went to school and so see themselves as competent to comment and decide on any matter education related. The same applies to almost any ex lance corporal from army service and defence policy.
We live in interesting times. The USA today being a prime example.
Snip
Here’s Lomborg’s essay in the Australian where he clarified the sums for NZ to achieve net ZERO by 2050. Let’s hope the Xers read it and start to understand the stupidity of such a quest. Here are a few pertinent points and don’t forget this is from the NZ govt’s own report and Lomborg’s team agrees with their conclusion.
Here’s a link to the full Australian essay from Lomborg.
https://morningmail.org/bjorn-lomborg-on-greta-glumberg/
“It speaks volumes that few governments ever establish the costs of such promises. One of the few that has is New Zealand. A government-commissioned report found that aiming for net zero emissions by 2050 would cost more than the entire current annual national budget. There would be “yellow vest” riots worldwide if such policies were genuinely pursued.
We need to challenge the ever-more rampant talk about “catastrophic” climate change. Rhetoric has become unpinned from science.
According to the UN climate science panel’s last major report, if we do absolutely nothing to stop climate change, the impact will be the equivalent to a reduction in our incomes of between 0.2 per cent and 2 per cent five decades from now.
Work by Nobel laureate climate economist William Nordhaus based on the UN findings shows the likeliest outcome is a cost to the planet of about 3 per cent of gross domestic product in coming centuries. That should be taken seriously — but it does not equal Armageddon”.
Usual boring spam from neville.
I am not so sure there is a natural incompatibility between what ‘we want’ and our government. Society elects government and we have a reasonably close form of proportional representation. If there is some other incompatibility between wanting an X but not realising it involves Y, then this applies to government policies as well. In general we know what any X involves. The government wants to spend 50 billion on submarines but this is incompatible with maintaining a decent welfare state. The government wants a fossil fuel based economy (exports and cheap power) but this is incompatible with protecting the climate. Sco-Mo does not realise what harm his coal madness involves.
Why is reducing a standard of living incompatible with the gains this produces? Everything has a cost and cost is not incompatible with purchase. In the case of removing fossil fuels (a cost) we purchase a safe climate. There is no point hankering over a coal-based civilisation if this portends uncivilised conditions in the future.
There is no incompatibility or unknown involvements with various interests making claims on government whether for handicapped children, for housing, for medical services or whatever. All I see is resistance driven by other interests and a government not respectful of the needs of the people – so they respond in bad faith.
Maybe it is the government that is incompatible with the people and unaware of the harm its thirst for fossil fuels involves – across the board.
Your post is ridiculous and infantile and of course zero links to support your unscientific claims.
Neville – keep your snarks to yourself. You know where the evidence is. The links have been posted many, many, many times. Keep up or keep quiet.
The data again just for you. The CSIRO states clearly that the SH is a net co2 SINK and the NH is the net co2 SOURCE.
Your claims are unscientific and infantile. See CSIRO Cape Grim that I’ve linked to many times.
IOW there’s nothing the 800 mil people in the SH ( about 7% of global co2 emissions) can achieve against the 7 bil source of co2 from the NH.
Very simple maths+ data that supports my case. You are wrong.
Neville’s and others original claims were that Australia was a net sink. I pointed out that only the southern hemisphere as a whole was a net sink – which is obvious anyway due to the high proportion of water in the South compared to the North.
In any case whether any zone is a net source or sink is irrelevant because the earth as a whole is a net source and Australia too is a net source.
Oceans are a net sink – but everyone knew this for at least 100 years. However the capacity is limited by either the current concentration of previous dissolved carbon dioxide or by rising sea water temperatures.
Chrissy
Referring to comments by Neville as “spam” seems to qualify as snarks. Perhaps stick to the subject.
Define the subject.
What Don wrote about. See his comment at the end of his essay.
That was not an answer.
Chrissy
Perhaps you have difficulty with plain English. Go back and read the essay again, including the Endnote.
Chrissy
“If there is some other incompatibility between wanting an X but not realising it involves Y, then this applies to government policies as well.”
Has the thought entered your head that the wider community might not share your obsessions? That could explain your perpetual disappointment with the populace at large.
“There is no point hankering over a coal-based civilisation if this portends uncivilised conditions in the future.”
Let me offer you a different perspective, using most of your words.
There is no point hankering over a renewables-based civilisation if this portends uncivilised conditions in the future.
It is a simple reality that renewables (solar, wind and batteries) in their present state of development cannot provide the reliable, continuous electric power essential for a modern society. Offer the electorate a return to the lifestyle of 100 years ago, and watch the reaction.
I do not reply to copy cats nor to those who do not know what conditions will be if carbon dioxide continues to accumulate in the atmosphere.
Chrissy
Thank you, always a pleasure to engage in productive debate. Pity you are not capable of doing so.
PS, I have been meaning to ask for some time. In which specialty of climate science are you qualified? Atmospheric physics? Meteorology? Oceanography?
Or perhaps you are qualified on the renewables side? Solar cell development? Wind generator aerodynamics? Battery technology?
Xers seem to want to defy logic and reason and become very hostile if you point out the problems with their arguments.
S&W can never be an answer because they are unreliable and are dilute and have a very short useful duration of about 20 years. They ruin the environment and require an entire new mining structure for rare earth materials on an ongoing basis, while proper reliable base-load plants last for at least 40 to 60 years and require a very small area of land to provide that power.
The same is the case for EVs and it’s beyond belief that we should choose these dirty vehicles as the basis for our future transport.
And we know that none of the above will change the climate or temp by 2100 and beyond. Even if we were stupid enough to waste trillions $ trying to achieve this mission impossible the developing countries couldn’t care less and will continue to choose reliable base-load energy.
Neville
Chris W is almost a caricature of a passionate X. He knows what he thinks is best for the rest of us, and will not accept any disagreement. The possibility that the electorate does not share his obsessions is not allowed to divert him from his chosen course.
(Nanny) Chris knows best.
To be ignored.
Chrissy
Still haven’t told us your climate science qualification. Are you embarrassed to boast?
Stop and think for a moment. At any point in time and on any issue the legitimacy of the Xers title changes. It all depends on point of view and consensus. It is also valid to point to Nev and co as Xers based on their obstinate reactionary “all is good with the climate” position. They of course see the reverse position. It will be interesting going forward to see how their heroes like Morrison handle the world climate summit in April now that there is a 180 degree shift in US policy. Fascinating stuff. Still no definitive proof one way or the other but the times, they are a changing.
BTW still no comment from you guys on the US election “fraud” challenges. Is that a tacit surrender?
Stu
Read Don’s Endnote about off-topic comments.
BJ except for the last paragraph, which I believe is still relevant to the topic, (Jan 6 was classic Xer turf) where is the problem? I note you did not admonish Nevy for his Lomborg post etc. I think you are being typically obtuse but that is expected so no surprise. And of course you take the classic “duck the issue” approach. Never mind, we understand where you sit. At least try and be consistent.
Yes Boambee is just a persistent whinger. I cannot recall anything useful it has ever posted.
A true troll.
Chfissy
Suffering from short term memory lose? Sad.
You gave even forgotten what youelr qualifications are.
Stu
At best your last para was peripheral to the subject. You have also used your own interpretation on the X vs Y paradigm described by Don.
I am not the one demanding that the government spend trillions on what is yet to be proven (using measured data, not the computer model garbage favoured by alarmists) to be a significant problem. You and the other alarmists are the Xs, obsessed with introducing your passionately held opinions as policy.
Try again, with less wishful thinking.
“ I am not the one demanding that the government spend trillions on what is yet to be proven (using measured data, not the computer model garbage favoured by alarmists) to be a significant problem. You and the other alarmists are the Xs, obsessed with introducing your passionately held opinions as policy.”.
As usual you go off on wild ride with no provocation. I merely raised the point that the debate is shifting due to the government change in the USA. It shows you are twitchy, jumping at shadows and perhaps concerned your position is eroding. But like I wrote, still no definitive proof one way or the other. However there is a growing mountain of evidence pointing towards a man made problem. And I suggest we get back to honouring Don’s request, which I don’t believe I broke with my original post.
Stu
“I merely raised the point that the debate is shifting due to the government change in the USA”
We have gone through this on earlier threads. If you have forgotten what I wrote then, go back and check.
In short, change in the political wind does not alter scientific and engineering reality, however much you might wish.
You wrote “ In short, change in the political wind does not alter scientific and engineering reality, however much you might wish.”. Of course the same applies to your view of the “scientific and engineering reality” also. And you cannot deny the political wind is changing the dialogue and unless you are active and quick, the decisions that follow. Get over it.
Shorter Stu
“Stupid decisions are about to be made, so get used to intermittent and unreliable power. Tough luck for anyone dependent on continuous supply.”
And Stu regards this “passionate” response as sensible!
Yes those who lost the election are pure cases of passionate demands with no respect for what this involves for others. Except in their case, they come with violence and terror coupled with conspiracy theory and anti-science denialism.
These elements are so extreme they even cannot accept outcomes of elections.
Ignore. Not relevant.
Here’s another case of the ABC exers and their extreme agenda about extreme heat over the next few days for VIC.
Repeatedly they have told their audience that extreme heat is the biggest killer and they even had a BOM scientist on this morning to add to their impact.
But we know that moderate cold is the more dangerous killer in Australia and around the world.
In fact extreme heat is not as dangerous for Aussies as moderate heat as can be seen by the graphs at the links. Here’s my recent post from last week.
“I thought it’s about time we linked AGAIN to the largest study ever to attribute deaths to levels of temp around the world. This 2015 Lancet study found most deaths were attributable to cold temps 7.29% and about 0.42% to warmer temps.
That’s about 17.4 times more cold deaths than for warmer temps. But moderate cold deaths are the real surprise and they include handy column graphs for some countries, so we can easily see the difference. See 2nd link below.
Interesting that very wealthy hot countries like Australia seem to handle very hot (or extreme heat) conditions well and probably because of widespread use of ACs. Here’s the study link and below that is the link to the column graphs for deaths from different temps”.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext
https://marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/cms/attachment/79cee7d6-8e9d-4659-a6cf-f334e1403498/gr2.jpg
Today, the passionate demanders are falsely using their claim to virtue as a basis for their demands.
This is happening with climate alarmists as is well demonstrated here but you can’t believe Cricket Australia’s latest virtue gambit with complete culture-cancelling of Australian history.
As Jacinta Price just said; “All summer, Cricket Australia has had players bow down in reverence to Black Lives Matter – a foreign, radical and violent Marxist organisation.
And if that wasn’t enough, now they are banning any mention of our national holiday.
Fresh from losing the test series to India, CA would rather play toxic identity politics than focus on winning matches.
And CA is supposed to be the custodian of one of Australia’s most revered symbols, the sacred baggy green.
But rather than promoting and celebrating all that is good about the spirit of Australian cricket, they choose to use it to promote their own woke elitist corporate culture.
It’s been more important to CA that players take the knee or go barefoot in support of Black Lives Matter than win cricket games.
Each series started with a virtue-signaling gesture to a movement which in the American summer was responsible for 25 deaths and $2 billion worth of damage as rioters looted, smashed and burned their way across the country.
Anyone who has pointed out these facts about BLM, such as Senator Matt Canavan, has been jumped on by the left’s cancel culture.
But CA remains all in with BLM. Cancelling Australia Day at the three Big Bash League games scheduled on Australia Day is the last straw.”
We need to hit CA where it hurts and switch off.
SD
Switched off professional sports years ago. No regrets.
SD, the xers just ignore the facts and YELL LOUDER and they even invent a whole new history to further confuse the kiddies and ignorant adults.
Their ABC xers are hopeless about their CAGW, but they are also wrong about the Dark Emu fairy story.
But Andrew Bolt will win this one too because he is a tiger about proper data and evidence.
Just incredible that there are fools that actually believe this nonsense.
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/abcs-excellent-reporting-20-untruths-in-defence-of-bruce-pascoe/news-story/3b45a971bcdfb043e969881b39438663
Good link Neville.
Today’s generation simply cannot grasp the real lifestyles of Aboriginals prior to the arrival of the Brits.
I used to write letters for tribal elders to the tribal elders in neighbouring tribes about 65-70 years ago which were in turn read to them by someone like me and I remember asking why they couldn’t put these letters [I was writing quite a few] into smoke signals [which they also used to send regularly] and the bloke who was instructing me said he just couldn’t get the finer details into smoke signals.
He thought letters were a great invention.
A new book about Pascoe’s Dark Emu should make interesting reading. Here is a review of the book from Quadrant magazine…… ” Dark Emu skewered, grilled and served”.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/review/2020/01/dark-emu-skewered-grilled-and-served/
Stu
On the subject of climate change, I am still waiting for you to produce the measurable data to disprove the null hypothesis that climate varies naturally, with some limited human influence in recent decades.
BJ, stu don’t need no steenkin’ data. All he needs is access to the kiddies:
“Lessons in climate change, the environment and how to protest will be compulsory subjects at all schools worldwide as part of the Paris Agreement, under plans being developed for this year’s UN climate summit in Glasgow.
Teaching children about the environment, the green economy and how to take action against government to stop environmental harm are considered essential parts of preparing future workers for what campaigners say is the third industrial revolution.
Negotiators are hopeful details will be agreed at UN negotiations in Italy later this year so they can be adopted by leaders at the UN summit being hosted by the Boris Johnson-led government in December.”
Is that about teaching the kiddies how to think for themselves?
Or how to make passionate demands?
Terrifying stuff!
SD
Indeed. The whole climate change empire is built on passionate demands backed by little more than dodgy computer models.
“ On the subject of climate change, I am still waiting for you to produce the measurable data to disprove the null hypothesis that climate varies naturally, with some limited human influence in recent decades.”. No need, just go and look at any of the published papers from the reputable (almost all) players in the field. Why should I dig them out for you?
Stu
Go read all those papers, work out how many rely on computer models.
Still, thanks for admitting that you actually know nothing, and your argument is based simply on “science by consensus”, and, of course, your “passionate demands” that everything be sacrificed on tha altar od Gaia.
So you won’t be getting the Covid vaccine. They are developed with considerable input from computer modelling, like most high tech these days. And of course all your beloved nuclear (fission and fusion) power is going nowhere without heavy modelling. Your line of denial concerning climate change is becoming very dated and wrong. Oh, and we should stick to the Xers subject, this is getting offline again.
Stu
Demonstrating your ignorance again.
Modelling of hard engineering can quickly be tested against reality. Modelling of potential climate change in the far distant future cannot.
Stick to politics. You’re no better at that, but no-one cares about your opinions.
“ Modelling of hard engineering can quickly be tested against reality.”
Is that so? I never realised modelling the design and effectiveness of mRNA vaccine technology was hard engineering. But there you go eh.
And the fact that climate modelling is not as readily testable, except in hind sight where it is proving very capable of pointing to current outcomes from known past points, is no reason for complete dismissal as you so blithely claim. Your arrogant assumption of superiority is showing again.
“And the fact that climate modelling is not as readily testable, except in hind sight where it is proving very capable of pointing to current outcomes from known past points, is no reason for complete dismissal…”
What “current outcomes”, that are any different to past natural climate variability, might those be, stueyluv?
Last time I looked the score was 0 : 43.
They must be down at least 50 : luv by now:
https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2019/09/20/nolte-climate-experts-are-0-41-with-their-doomsday-predictions/
Stu
“ Modelling of hard engineering can quickly be tested against reality.”
Did you forget that you mentioned nuclear engineering? That sounds like “hard engineering”.
PS, I suspect that reality checks on vaccine development are on rather shorter time frames than climate change, or do we have to wait decades for the vaccine?
Dumb.
BJ you’re flogging a dead horse trying to get stu to use common sense and his love of climate models. I think the Russian model is okay but most of them are just more wishful thinking on the part of scientists who rely on consensus to get them through their day. Certainly not proper data and evidence. See Dr Christy’s talk about their CAGW and “putting their claims to the test “at the GWPF.
BTW I listened to Pip Courtney from ABC Landline this morning and I was very impressed with her annoyance at so called unemployed Aussies who wouldn’t stoop to picking fruit and harvesting veges etc.
She gave a number of examples and then talked about Islander people who were very happy coming to OZ and carrying out this fruit & vege work.
She’d been to Samoa and everyone was very happy to work in those industries as are backpackers from Europe and other places.
But she was well aware that it wasn’t PC to say such things in public and certainly not on their/her ABC.
Good for Pip for telling the truth and having the courage to do so.
Yes your Google degree really outweighs the decades of study and research put in by the climate scientists. Do you have the answer to getting the world back on its feet from Covid also. You are one of Don’s Xers for sure, but your pitch is for status quo, do nothingness. As for the rest of your post you are once again well outside the Don boundary. Time to just STFU.
Stu, when are you ever going to stop hand-waving, and:
either; supply some measurable EVIDENCE to support your passionate demands
or; be honest for a change and admit all you EVER offer is blither based on assumption.
If you have the knowledge you claim, It should be easy to do either one or the other.
Instead of your perpetual hand-waving.
Again, I am not a science expert and I suspect you are not either. Just like Greta Thunberg says “Go and listen to the scientists”. This is not a science platform even though you make out you are an expert.
Stu, when did I ever claim to be a science expert?
But who needs to be to make a point in a simple debate about whether there is anything happening to the climate because of additional CO2 emissions that has not happened in the CO2-reduced past?
There may or may not be a slight degree of AGW. That can never be proved one way or the other except wrt UHIE and land use change but not ACO2.
You have been asked to provide evidence if you disagree [which you do] but you can’t.
So on top of this inability you then claim CAGW!
With still no evidence. Just hand-waving.
Yet you can’t see how irrational you look.
We’ve provided many hundreds of studies from the PR science over a long period of time that support our claims.
But to start with tell us where Dr John Christy is wrong in his speech to the GWPF?
IOW there is no climate crisis or emergency or apocalypse at all, just look at the data/evidence over the last 50 or 100 years.
“Again, I am not a science expert”
Finally Stu says something we can all agree with.
Probably the biggest cover up by the left wing media is the alleged Biden family corruption scandal.
Surely this can’t last and it’s only a matter of time before this alleged scandal is properly investigated by the FBI and the truth is exposed before the American people?
Here’s the Sky News documentary coverage of the alleged scandal and there’s no doubt that Joe Biden has been economical with the truth about he and his son Hunter’s involvement over many years.
Oh come on that is months old and long debunked. Why do you think even Trump has given up on that one. Is this your new tack now that the “election fraud and steal” claims have all been thrown out? Notice how even Powell has suddenly gone silent. Your opening words give the game away ”the left wing media”. With a few small exceptions there is media and there is far right opinion mongering like Fox and Sky. Even they have admitted in court that their guys like Hannity and Carlson should not be taken seriously, because they are opinion people and entertainers just like Bolt and Jones etc here. Did you see Fox paid millions to the Rich family because of the lies they peddled about the death of their son. And a big question around that is why Fox insisted the settlement remained hidden until after the US election. Very curious.
Here’s an interesting video from Sky News where Warren Mundine and Sen Gerard Renick tell us the truth about Australia and our welcoming of new migrants over many decades. Then compare this to the vile accusations from Sen Wong about white supremacists and their so called treatment of Bruce Pascoe and Aboriginal history etc. That she believes the Pascoe nonsense is just more proof that she is not fit for her job and of course nothing to do with white supremacy.
In fact Warren Mundine is correct when he stated that Wong’s comments were “quite crazy”.
And you have to ask how this hateful fool could ever be made Labor’s leader in the Senate? She should be made to stand down immediately or ASAP. See video link and part of the transcript below.
https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6225191510001
“Senator Penny Wong was ‘bagging Australia’ with her critical November speech: Mundine”
22/01/2021|15min
“Indigenous leader Warren Mundine says Labor Senator Penny Wong’s statement about Australia’s background of white supremacism and the work she based her speech on is “quite crazy” as they did not provide evidence.
Senator Wong last November cited the work of writer Bruce Pascoe and said there were Indigenous cities and towns in Australia separate from what would be considered hunter gatherer and Australia’s history had ignored it due to “white supremacism”.
“These people, I don’t know what they’ve done, they haven’t produced any evidence of this stuff, I just find it quite crazy,” Mr Mundine told Sky News host Rowan Dean.
Mr Mundine criticised Senator Wong for her comments and said Australia is the “most successful” multicultural nation in world, particularly after World War II and she should not “bag Australia” for its history.
“To sit there and sort of bag Australia when she knows that Australia is the most successful multicultural country in the world and there’s no laws that have been discriminatory against Aboriginals in the last fifteen years that I know of, I’d like to see someone point those laws out.”
Don,
My condolences on your loss. I know you were prepared for it but when it happens the loss is in no way diminished. Unfortunately, as we get older losses of dear ones gets more frequent.
I normally put your posts to one side and read them later. I found this latest essay very interesting. I am constantly involved in discussions elsewhere with Xers who really have no understanding of the consequences that would flow if their passions were realised, nor do they wish to understand. For example the Xers proselytise the myth that stable baseload electricity generation can be entirely replaced with intermittent wind, solar and battery storage and are really unwilling or unable to understand the Y’s that will flow from that.
Social media provides a ready platform for the passionate to proselytise. Not only to pressure politicians and governments but also to de-platform or “cancel” their critics.
I don’t know whether or not you read Quadrant, but today a very interesting article appeared that I think has some relevance to your essay:
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2021/01/trofim-lysenko-looks-down-and-smiles/
I thoroughly endorse your Rule.
This is going off the rails again which Don did not want. So I am sitting out, argue amongst yourselves.
Helped off the rails by you and your obsession with US politics.
“….your obsession with US politics’. .????? Really? Check the Neville posts. BJ you are just as bad. Just saying. Cheerio.
Stu
Look back at the first time I chipped you about being off topic on this thread, on 22 January. You introduced the topic!
Just saying. Cheerio!
And stu disappears over the horizon with but another hand-wave.
I see the DEMs + Biden + Harris etc are up to their old sick tricks of transgender women competing against normal women, in whatever sport they choose.
This is very dangerous and unhealthy to put it mildly and Willis has checked the data comparing men and women in different sports and drawn the obvious conclusions.
https://rosebyanyothernameblog.wordpress.com/2021/01/23/women-are-not-men-who-knew/
Has Daniel Greenfield solved the very close relationship of BIGGGG govt and BIGGGG tech giants or Xers , who work together and protect each other? Certainly endless more billions $ to be made from now on.
Certainly GOOGLE seems to be cutting up rough and nasty against the more Conservative Morrison govt, who are trying to make them pay for their use of other media sources + resources etc.
https://joannenova.com.au/2021/01/besties-the-democrats-and-corporate-giants-in-bed-together-and-taking-out-each-others-trash/
More of what our passionate demanders are putting us through:
Toxic secrets behind your mobile phone: Electric cars, wind turbines and solar panels… how our so-called green world depends on the mining of rare metals which is a filthy, amoral industry totally dominated by China
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9179751/Toxic-secrets-mobile-phone-called-green-world-depends-mining-metals.html
SD
It’s OK. Even though China is increasing its coal mining output, they will get to “nett zero” by 2050. I wonder does that include the “carbins” output from the rare earths industry?
BJ, at least it’s possible China might solve a lot of Africa’s energy problems the right way. Since 2000 the China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China alone have supplied $6.5 billion of finance for coal projects in Africa.
But the Greens don’t like it:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/09/business/africa-coal-energy-goldman-prize-dst-hnk-intl/index.html
When “smart” people get the Climate Crazies and demand a net zero world, God help common sense and rationality:
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2021/01/when-smart-people-get-the-climate-crazies/
I passionately demand that you, Don, and everyone else here have a wonderful Australia Day.
The climate [and weather] is perfect.
This thread needs a clean-up.
Another stupid, unreliable, inaccurate Xer report from their Climate Council and we’re told Australia’s lack of action is to blame. That’s we dreadful Aussies who emit just 1.1% of Global co2 emissions and our entire SH is already a NET ZERO SINK.
Somebody should send xer Flannery the WIKI graphs and DATA on co2 emissions since 1990, because they surely have no idea.
Oceans are net sinks – Australia is a net source.
The world as a whole is a net source.
Stop trying to hide behind silly games. Your bath tub is a net sink.
Chrissy
You are a nett source, what action do you propose to take to rectify this ghastly offence?
Either Don is not checking or is not offended by the off topic comments on this thread. Therefore I make the following comment on your post. Nev, you really do continue to post as though you are a mere troll. Sure Australia is a small contributor to world emissions, but at least you imply that is significant. But on a per capita basis (do you understand that term?) we are quite significant. And regarding your oft repeated nonsense of the SH carbon sink please recognise that there is one planet and without our contribution the SH would be a more significant sink. You do continue to write like a silly little man stuck in the past. The rapidly changing USA position threatens to leave Morrison policy, and you, a bit irrelevant. Perhaps you should do a bit more reading.
snip
None of that responds to my main point. Clearly you see the significance of the SH as a CO2 sink, why else go on about it. Because it offsets the emissions of the NH, which is not a sink, our emissions reduce the effectiveness of that sink. We are a negative influence. And of course while our total emissions are 1+% of the world total, on a per capita basis we are much more significant. I know you love going off on tangents with weird justifications but just for once drop your other crap and just address the simple issue.
Stu, when are you ever going to supply any empirical evidence to support your alarmism?
What we are experiencing in slight global warming has happened in recent history to a much greater extent.
How else would you explain this:
https://www.livescience.com/4702-melting-glacier-reveals-ancient-tree-stumps.html
Making passionate demands and cancelling culture because of your climate religion will not be to anyone’s advantage.
Stu
“But on a per capita basis (do you understand that term?) we are quite significant.”
A passionate point made frequently by alarmists. It seems that they believe that gross CO2 emissions don’t count, per capita emissions are far deadlier to Gaia.
What are you doing to at least negate, and preferably offset at least twice over your personal and family CO2 emissions? Or is it others who have to bear the burden?
snip
Snip
Don I don’t understand why I’m snipped. I’ve always tried to prove why I’m correct using proper data and evidence from the REAL world and yet this doesn’t seem to count?
Others aren’t snipped but use no measurable data or evidence that can make a difference. And I even supply a variety of PR studies that support my claims.
Anyway this is your blog and I don’t want to add to your problems anymore, so I’ll leave it there.
Neville,
The comments you have made and I snipped are not related to the topic of the essay. I have been ill for a little while, or I would have snipped more. Yes, I should have snipped comments from others commenting on your off-the-topic comments, but I haven’t had the time.
[…] close to this position in some of our contemporary debate. A couple of months ago I published an essay about passionate demands, and the critics in this humorous piece today are set up as cartoon characters, not as passionate […]