The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Tick the youth box with climate change > Comments

Tick the youth box with climate change : Comments

By Sophie Trevitt, published 26/7/2010

Young people have most to lose when it comes to climate change; and most to gain from strong, immediate action.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Sophie - if Gillard does not give you want you want, what you insist is your entitlement - what are you going to do?

There seems to be a succession of these little pieces coming out of the Canberra Climate Club, all pleading for Julia to give them what they want.

Will you really decide how to vote, at this election, on a single issue?

How incredibly immature. How incredibly fortunate for the ALP!

If The ALP don't come to the party, you have only the green faction of the ALP to go to don't you? The Greens?

Have you spoken to or considered the other arm of Australian politics? I doubt it.

The ALP don't need to do a thing do they, either they get your vote directly, or indirectly through the Greens, since you have all decided you give up your democratic rights to focus on one minor aspect of our countries future. It's a minor aspect since the rest of the world is not bringing in carbon taxes.
Posted by Amicus, Monday, 26 July 2010 10:00:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author seems surprised that on this issue Labor is all talk and no action. Looking at their track record, why should climate change be any different?

Action on climate change requires courage, in which Labor has a huge deficit.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 26 July 2010 10:17:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here we have little Sophie, & nice, & sincere young lady, I'm sure. She's studding one of those meaningless courses, designed to be good on a resume, when applying for a public service job, but of little use to anyone.

Has she been conned by the academics, or is she trying so set herself up for a leading roll in some government climate change sheltered workshop? it's hard to tell.

Interestingly she is doing the same course that our Julia must have done. A bit of a worry, all these people studding non subjects, then being considered "educated".
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 26 July 2010 10:35:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let us assume for a moment that the many climate forecasts bear some relation to actual reality. That is, there is a warming of the earth. Further let us assume that warming cause some demonstrable damage.
Question: would the younger generation for which the writer claims to speak be materially better off if we spend money to cut emissions now, or perhaps put a fraction of the money to be spent on cutting emissions into a fund to help with later adaption to climate?
Answer: the fund wins by several kilometres.
The one and only report to say otherwise was compiled by economist Nicholas Stern for the UK government some years back, and only managed to reach its conclusions by making extreme assumptions, including assuming an unreasonably low discount rate.
What is a discount rate? Well, Sophie, perhaps in a later article you can tell us why the Stern rerport set it at around 1 per cent, and not 4 per cent like everyone else, and why the differnce is so important. Then you can lecture us.
In any case, from a strictly economic point of view the climate change case was lost long ago.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Monday, 26 July 2010 11:33:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Sophie, because you want immediate action on climate change I assume you believe action is actually needed. It follows that you have either been convinced or wish to convince your self that AGW is real. This is very sad because you are young and you are studying.

You have clearly never been anywhere near the research from the hundreds of scientists that make the case that the AGW orthodoxy is wrong. This does not do you much credit because your studies will require you to do your own research if you are to be successful.

So why on the one hand do you fail to do your research and on the other hand support an unsubstantiated solution?

I think if you were to visit some of the contrary scientific cases available you would be very angry with those who have deceived you, and rightly so.

If you don’t wish to look at the other side of the scientific debate that’s fine, that’s your decision. May I suggest then, that you look at AGW as a phenomenon?

Green/Armstrong audited the IPCC’s forecasting procedures (December 7, 2009) against the evidence based forecasting principles. They also compared the AGW alarmism to 26 other analogous alarms since 1798 none of which eventuated. Of the 89 applicable principles, the IPCC violated 72. They concluded that:

“Our analysis of the 26 analogies leads us to the following forecasts about the global warming movement:

1. The predicted disasters will not occur.
2. Costly government policies will continue to be implemented in response to the alarm.
3. The manmade global warming political movement will dissipate over the years.
4. Many government programs will remain in place.”

If they are right, and they remain unchallenged at this point, then your claim that “young people have the most to lose” will also be correct. Because you will pay dearly for the current and future costs imposed on your society.

As a student you cannot afford to be this lazy, do your own research. It will make you feel better, angry but better
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 26 July 2010 12:20:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is appalling.

Every time a younger person posts an article on this website, they are greeted with the most horrendous condescension. Sophie's views need to be given as much respect as anyone's, which is not saying a lot given the general tenor of what passes for informed debate on OLO - something that could be better described as sniping from entrenched positions.

For those whose ire is building at Sophie's article and my comments, just remember that age and wisdom do not necessarily go together and for every wizened sage, there is at least one "stupid old bugger" to quote Bob Hawke.
Posted by Loxton, Monday, 26 July 2010 1:31:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't think all the posts are condescending, but I agree that there is an 'older but wiser' tone about some of them.

The trouble is that the author begins with a series of strong assertions, each of which is full of holes. What is the evidence that, eg, Julia Gillard has estranged all voters under 35, or that Rudd won the 2007 election because of his 'climate change' position, or that he lost his position as PM because of his shift in that position? What about work choices, or tiredness with the previous incumbent, or Rudd's ease in speaking Chinese to a Chinese leader?

I would only repeat, to the author, what I wrote to another in her age group recently, that the issue of the extent to which human activity is warming the planet is vastly more complicated than she supposes, and that governments everywhere, not just here, are backing off from 'action' as they realise how little real knowledge we possess, and how much of what is said to be 'settled science' is nothing of the kind. I detect in Julia Gillard's remarks some acceptance that the government needs to know much more. I hope she perseveres down that path if she is re-elected.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Monday, 26 July 2010 2:09:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unfortunately it appears that the older and more cynical of us, on both sides of the political debate, sometimes find it hard to believe that government will deliver much, if anything, of substance. I think the phrase 'You Can't Polish A Turd' sums up the political and bureaucratic process.

But then again...I am a professional cycnic and avid satirist...so please forgive me!
Posted by Phil Matimein, Monday, 26 July 2010 2:18:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"since when does the government need to wait for a “consensus” to act on scientifically proven facts?"

Sophie,

As one studying law, it is disappointing to see that you accept assetions, even 'scientific' ones, with such an uncritical mind. If you ever practice law you may be shocked to learn that experts in virtually every field, disagree on all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons, and their views are very often aligned whith those who engage them. The more complex the issues, the more scope there is for disagreement, and without a doubt climate is a very complex issue.

Sadly for science and the truth, and as Climategate so clearly showed, the money and political pressure that has been applied to this issue, has corrupted the scientific commentary to the point that whatever it says should be regarded with great caution and skepticim.
Posted by Kalin1, Monday, 26 July 2010 5:01:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Any young or not so young person thinking of putting their trust in the Greens in the Senate should have a listen to this short, revealing interview with Bob Brown.

http://www.4bc.com.au/blogs/michael-smith-blog/bob-brown/20100720-10jan.html

There seems to be confusion with two Greens parties going separate ways, there is the 'leader' Bob Brown, then there is what Bob calls the 'administrative wing' - which seems to do what it likes and contrary to what Bob says and believes.
Posted by Cornflower, Monday, 26 July 2010 6:58:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The work of many research units across the world was directed at finding the expected signature of increased green house warming. This was projected by all the models (AOGCM) and defined with confidence by climatologists protesting against increases in CO2. After 20 years of searching, no such signature has been found. No sceptic denies the presence of warming but there have been revelations which indicate that much of the claimed warming has been grossly overstated. None of the modelling research groups is able to describe the role of carbon dioxide in "Climate Change". They simply tell us that it is "very likely" the cause of global warming. This is not a scientific finding. Many scientists have shown that carbon dioxide cannot cause global warming but no one listens!
Posted by John Nicol, Monday, 26 July 2010 8:31:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't blame poor Sophie. She is simply the product of our left leaning education system and chronic exposure to a decade or two of media driven environmental nuttiness. Now she and her generation cannot be deprogrammed. We have a whole army of under 35 Envirobots out there looking for something to get their teeth into. Logic can't touch where Ideology reaches first.

We really should look at the problems we are creating for ourselves by allowing fertile young and often intelligent minds to be brainwashed.
Posted by Atman, Monday, 26 July 2010 9:23:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We'll be all dead and gone when the world will under go catastropic conditions that will make life in over 60% of the globe unliveable.
The games we are playing with climate will make the world a gigantic waste land. Do we really care. Today we make of it an instrument of one-up-manship and power politics knowing we wont be around to face the hell that we are making of the future world. The young will inherit it all and curse us for our legacy of hell they have to live in It is why they should be asked to make their contribution in a serious way and their solutions acted upon.
Personally, I think it is too much to ask of our pollies. It isnt a measure of my cynicism.It is what I honestly see as an honest prediction. Do my readers agree.
Anyone know the Anthem of Doomed Youth? Start singing.

socratease
Posted by socratease, Monday, 26 July 2010 10:37:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sophie has every right to dream, it's what young people do.

The cold, hard facts of reality however, catch up with all
of us in the end. Some learn faster then others.

Firstly Sophie and her friends have to accept, that their
plans will cost them bigtime, for they are end consumers
of energy. Be it electricty, be it food, be it shops
downtown with their lights on, they will pass costs on
to shoppers etc. So is Sophie ready to reduce her standard
of living for the sake of her dream?

Everyone else is not going to pay, she will pay.

Next is the reality that if every single young Australian
put on a grass skirt, gave up on all modern living and
never consumed another KW of electricity, in the big picture
of global climate, it would not make a scrap of difference.

For the global population keeps multiplying at 250'000 a
day. China, India and others are building coal powered
electricty stations at the rate of one a week or so.

So however strongly Sophie feels about this issue, the
prevailing reality is that she and other young Australians
won't really matter in the global scheme of things.

I concede that this is all very hard to digest, but it
hits us all eventually, like it or not.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 26 July 2010 11:27:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Sophie, there have been some cutting responses to your article, hopefully some food for thought.

There are however, two supportive comments for you so far on this thread, from Loxton and socratease. May I ask you to tell us which set of comments you feel has added the most value to you and why?
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 9:30:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see some comments relating to Sophie being picked on because she is young.

Not the case.

I'll give anyone who has this overblown sense of entitlement short shrift, the arrogance that they are most important, have the most to lose and the most to gain if only someone else will do something. Regardless of the cost.

that's the problem with every missive I see with the AYCClub, it's all about activism being translated into whining.

I guess when you have been given everything in life by whining, you get the impression that's the way it works - you see Kevin 07 handing out money to everyone, and all the lobby groups getting on the bandwagon, you want your bit.

Posters naturally treat people like Sophie as a child, because as with all the AYCClub articles, they radiate immaturity.
Posted by Amicus, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 10:45:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To accuse the posters of talking down to Sophie is grossly unfair. Sophie's article, after all, was arrogant in its tone.
'The young people have to clear up the mess left by the older generation. We know its a mess because (insert a number of unproven assertions which are retreaded scare stories from newspapers presented as facts)'.
You mean we should treat the views of young people with respect, even when they produce stories filled with unproven assertions dressed up as facts - where those assertions are little more than a muddled repetition of media stories or conversations in pubs, filtered through her own preconceptions? I don't mind propoganda, but at least the young could learn to write clever propoganda.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 11:10:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Amicus

The only ones on this site radiating immaturity are people like yourself who conduct arguments by belittling the author rather than their arguments. Can we please drop the "Dear Sophies" and the "littles" etc. They fairly drip with condescension.

Spindoc, as to your reference about whether my support has been of value to Sophie as opposed to the "cutting" repsonses, that is for her to decide. My post was primarily a plea to show some respect.
Posted by Loxton, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 4:03:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized,” Rancourt said
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 8:37:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loxton, you called?

My question to Sophie relating to added value from posters was directed to her, correct, so leave it to her.

That your << post was primarily a plea to show some respect>> No it was not, you used that as a cover for seeking to defend her position, which is he same as yours.

If I’m wrong you can point to the last time you defended a poster on OLO with a contrary view to yours. If so you will get my public apology
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 28 July 2010 9:58:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
loxton, Sophie may be of sterner stuff than you are, she is not bleating for someone to show her some respect, why do you think she needs to be defended ?

You plea for "respect" for her, shows that you yourself are condescending, is that not so? that you think she is weak and needs a knight in shining armor to protect her from the evil ones who dare to disagree .. and are skeptical of AGW.

If she's concerned, she can complain to Graham, or indeed, enter the fray and defend herself, if she feels a defense is necessary. I expect she is watching the comments, and is seeing the response, and will learn from this experience.

Who appointed you the "protector" of the weak?
Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 29 July 2010 10:59:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given the responses to my posts here, it looks like I have hit a nerve.

Okay let's get a few things clear.

I have not appointed myself Sophie's defender or "protector of the weak". If you read what I have actually written, as opposed to what you think I wrote, I have called attention to the patronising tone that was used to respond to Sophie. I have actually made no comment about the content of either Sophie's article or the responses solely their tone.

In response to one of the other questions directed at me, yes I would make the same comment regardless of whether I agreed with the person or not. I adhere to the maxim that I may not agree with you, but I will defend your right to say it. I do however object if you couch your opinion in gratuitous, patronising or demeaning terms. I admit I have gone too far myself on this forum in the past, but I have apologised where necessary.

Maybe you all speak to your female relatives and acquaintances in that tone, but I do not. I find it cringeworthy and, as this forum is called On-line Opinion, I felt it reasonable to state my opinion. Like it or lump it.
Posted by Loxton, Friday, 30 July 2010 1:28:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy