Squeers

There is no way I would lump Joe into the same category as Anthony Cox/cohenite.

However, I am also sick of cohenite twisting what I say - hardly conducive to reasoned and rational discourse. Indeed, more the method of deliberate distortion and misrepresentation to sow the seeds of doubt. In another thread, I alluded to the "smart idiot" - much the same syndrome as cohenite's.

Should we ignore cohenite? Probably = he is supposed to be a lawyer in Newcastle and should seemingly have more important things to do than spruicking his not so well esteemed blog-site, or perpetually commenting on Jo Nova's or Jennifer Marahassy's, or arranging tour and speaking engagements for the pre-dispositions of the 'Lord' Christopher Monckton and his fellow travellers.

Ah well, more likely that cohenite has a very minor role as a "lawyer" given his 'unknown-ness', in Law that is. Perhaps the reason for a mid-life crisis career change :)

Hi Squeers,

My point is that if democracy is, in your view, failing, or defective, or not living up to its mandate, then it should be strengthened, enlivened, 'improved', developed, expanded - not replaced by some more stable, predictable, rule by authorities, such as a public intellectual elite.

Yes, democracy should be as participatory as possible, which, given Australia's 22 million people, may not be as total as you or I would like, and people after all do have other preoccupations in their daily lives, so we have to be realistic about the potentials of their participation.

I have to confess that I don't 'participate' much more than by casting a vote at local, state and federal elections, and chatting with my local members over the years at booths.

So what is the right balance between a Rousseauan participatory democracy, and the bare bones of the compulsory casting of ballots ? Given the freedom to participate or not in a democracy (another one of its potential flaws ?), that's up to each of us to decide.

But the exercise of a vibrant - even scurrilous - media and moderately inflammatory speechifying, even of morons like the shock-jocks, probably adds to the interest in public affairs that might be generated amongst busy Australians rather than the reverse.

As for Finkelstein, News Limited and bias, I notice that Tony Jones got stuck into Campbell Newman last night, using articles and information published in The Australian to put him on the spot. I don't think Mr Jones resorted to using anything from the Green Left Weekly, or New Matilda, or Larvatus Prodeo in the spirit of providing equal time. Perhaps the best explanation is

(i) that News Limited, in their usual biased way, has information that Newman is secretly a Leftie and/or

(ii) that Rupert Murdoch, in a devilishly cunning plot, is actually a Leftie himself; and/or

(iii) that Tony Jones covertly is an extreme Right-winger, seeking to undermine Newman and bring in a One Nation government in Queensland.

Arjay, where are you when we need your wise advice ?

Joe

How can I twist what you say bonny; you don't say anything. Most times I have to guess what you mean as with this:

"Bonny is saying the absence of a consistent r2 relationship between CO2/and temperature means CO2 is both an independent and dependent variable.

The only thing absent from this statement is reality"

So, stop whinging and make your point if you think I have misrepresented you; and if you have a point.

>> Bonny (sic) is saying the absence of a consistent r2 relationship between CO2/and temperature means CO2 is both an independent and dependent variable. <<

No I am not - you have distorted and misrepresented what I have said - to suit your own belief.

Your statement also infers (wrongly) that CO2 is both an independent and dependent variable at the same time. Duh ... it isn't.

Have you read Principles of Planetary Climate? If so, what part don't you understand?

You continually display a tendency to hear and see only what you want to hear and see, Cox. As I understand, exemplified in most of your blog posts, on most of your favourite blog sites, and on most of the days you visit.

I believe they call this cognitive disonance (a.k.a. 'denialism') coupled with motivational reasoning (to support only what you want to support, regardless of the truth).

Look cohenitey (sic) ... if you want to pretend your some 'kinda climatologist' or 'some kinda trolling idiot' (like 579) well, that is your choice. Just don't expect me to rebutt your guff every time you want to impress people, especially on 'some kinda opinion' site, like OLO.

Why? Because I have a life outside of blogs, I also have more important things to do.

Besides, your guff has been rebutted by real 'climate scientists' (not fake ones like yourself) many times before, following the scientific process and in the scientific fora.

Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

Hi 579, (Can I say Hi 5, for short ?)

You write:

" .... carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect."

So the other greenhouse gases are responsible for 20 % 'of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth's greenhouse effect' ? I dropped Chemistry in Year 11, a long time ago, but I understood that carbon dioxide was a sort of inert gas, while the ' .... non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons ....' are pretty active, with a lot of free electrons or whatever. Is that right ? So, while carbon dioxide is like the water in a hydroponics system, is it possible that the greenhouse effect is 'forced' mainly by the other more volatile gases, using CO2 as a sort of inert aeroponic substrate ?

Anyway, this is probably getting a little way away from the gist of this thread, which deals with the dangers of putting too much power in the hands of unelected elites, on the pretext that democracy has 'unravelled', has been corrupted, is effete, a fraud, etc. While I'm confident that Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler would be gratified that their denigrations of democracy were experiencing a revival, can I respectfully put forward an hypothesis:

- that the search for a system which can promise political closure, for an end to development and uncertainty, perfection and Utopia, the final arrival at a telos, is futile ? It may have been the goal of almost every philosopher, including Marx, until perhaps Schopenhauer and Popper, but it was a fool's goal.

[TBC]