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 > Climate change and the Fabian Society > Comments

Climate change and the Fabian Society : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 14/7/2015

The Fabians in Australia seemed to me for a long time to be sort of think-tank for the ALP, but from the incremental rather than the socialist wing. But I now see that there has been a subtle change in the way they present themselves.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
I always wonder what those people who defended the use of Asbestos think about their actions.
I'm sure many of them truly believed that Asbestos was a wonderful thing, making fire safe things for people the world over.
They may have even continued to believe that even after the first evidence came through.
May have even held a stance against the scientific consensus, after all they have been working with it for years, and isn't this stuff natural.
They may have continued to argue after it was obvious to all that it was dangerous, "didn't the down sides get balanced by the upsides". Just have to adapt our manufacturing processes.

In the end though they were wrong, and it cost lives.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Tuesday, 14 July 2015 9:21:55 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
Cobber the Hound - the difference is that the mining of asbestos without proper protection was proven to be fatal. The evidence is tangible and not subject to dispute. I take it you haven't caught up with the very recent stories on forecasting the state of the sun and possibility of mini ice age?

Anyway, most public organisations appear to have been captured by global warmers, including the Australian Skeptics. I let my sub to the skeptics journal lapse when it started reprinting conspriacy theories about climate skepticism..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 14 July 2015 10:10:23 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'm a bit lost with the reference to asbestos. It was widely used, and is not used any more, at least for house insulation. Yes, it did cost lives, but, as so often, we've gone a long way past prevention. You need to be genetically predisposed to the disease that it causes, and only a small minority are. But we're knocking down more than 1000 houses in Canberra, just to be sure...
Posted by Don Aitkin, Tuesday, 14 July 2015 10:13:50 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
"We aim to promote greater equality of power..."

How can you say you aim to promote greater equality of power, when everything you stand for is based on the State threatening to imprison people who won't obey your opinions?

"We promote debate..."

How can you say you promote debate, when you're not interested in data that disprove you, you only listen to one side of the question, and you refuse to publish, promote or listen to any alternative ideas?

What the Fabians are doing, the core of their activities, is in ordinary language called lying.

The Fabians are anti-rationalists. The perfect exemplar of their methodology is Cobber: blind unquestioning faith in authority, sneering sarcasm, circular reasoning, appeal to mere power as the arbiter of all questions.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 14 July 2015 10:17:01 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
Cobber, can you show us some evidence there was widespread defence for asbestos? I think maybe you have made that up, but I could be wrong.

Curmudgeon, I'm with you, I cant believe the Sceptics have been suckered by AGW... it's mind boggling.

Gotta run, here come's AJ with a big stick.
Posted by ConservativeHippie, Tuesday, 14 July 2015 10:17:34 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
Gough Whitlam, who was converted to Fabianism after becoming PM, Bob Hawke and other Labor leaders right through from Caldwell to Shorten have always referred to the goal of International Socialism in the same sentence as Fabian and the always vague, undefined, but 'a wink is as good as a nod', 'progressive' word.

Of course the leftist (imaginary Left) political experts who have held forth on OLO for years deny the existence of Fabianism, or that it is an interest, claimed anyhow, of Labor 'luminaries' such Gillard.

This article is also interesting, in particular the quotes at the beginning and end which I have quoted as teasers,

Whitlam and the Fabian Socialism
Posted on April 13, 2011 by Paul Jacko
WHITLAM and the FABIAN SOCIALISM

"(Ideology) is what gives the evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. (It) helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad, in his own and others eyes, so that he won’t hear reproaches and curses, but will receive praise and honours." (Solzhenitsyn)

and

Mathew 7, 15-20 :- “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit: but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”

http://www.fogofchaos.com/2011/04/13/whitlam-and-the-fabian-socialism/

I don't think that elitist groups that always presume to know what is best for everyone else, are unwilling to involve the community of which they are part and resort to 'code' and skulking behind doors pulling strings have an interest in democracy and they are not necessarily for freedom of speech where others are concerned either.
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 14 July 2015 10:31:33 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 Fabian society seems to have a wonderful recipe for equality,and equity? Always providing the stated objective or agenda isn't hijacked by pretenders in the blind pursuit of power?

On the unrelated subject of climate change we've recently had the hottest forten years on record; and the solar furnace that's allegedly responsible for the climate has been in a waning (cooling) phase since the mid seventies. (NASA)

In your opening paragraph you could have been describing me, but degenerated toward the end of the article to someone completely at home with the flat earth society, with a locked and bolted mindset that is a requirement for the evidence ignoring predilection peculiar to their particular belief system?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 14 July 2015 11:06:23 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 wasn't aware that asbestos had any thing to do with climate change or the Fabian Society.

It never ceases to amaze me how, even with a clear straightforward topic such as this - the attitudes of the Fabians viz climate change, given the Society is the intellectual machine behind Left-wing politics, the Great Alarmists - that some people go so quickly off topic to push their barrows. In this case, suggesting that AGW 'denial' is somehow linked with the now- proven dangers of asbestos which were previously denied. And in the very first post. Great thinking!
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 14 July 2015 11:17:16 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 used Asbestos as an example. It was known in the 1st century that people who worked with it died. 1930 saw the first Government report to say it was dangerous yet, we didn't stop using the substance until 2003. Why?

Curmudgeon" The evidence is tangible and not subject to dispute"it took many years for the weight of evidence to beat the industry.
but then again have a look at JunkScience.com.

Don, around 30 percent of mine workers get Asbestosis, over 100,00 people have died form Asbestosis in the US.

The mini ice age story is by one research team, and their finding have not been tested by their peers. But more importantly have you read their actual paper rather then the reports in the news papers?
Posted by Cobber the hound, Tuesday, 14 July 2015 12:02:24 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
The connection with asbestos is that companies who produce harmful effects on people and the environment typically fund misinformation about these effects.

On asbestos, see
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117119/asbestos-still-killing-people
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/sep/23/controversiesinscience.health

On the similar campaigns about climate change, see
http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=tw&utm_campaign=tw&s_src=socnet&s_subscr=twitter#.VaR2kFzJG8V

How can climate change deniers not see that they are being used?
Posted by Godo, Tuesday, 14 July 2015 12:45:16 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
Cobber, asbestos causes two different medical problems: asbestosis and mesothelioma.
Asbestosis is a more manageable condition, though it can be lethal if you inhale enough asbestos.

Mesothelioma is far more dangerous, but it only affects those with a genetic predisposition. At first it was thought to only be caused by blue or brown asbestos, but in the mid 20th century it was discovered that white asbestos could also set it off, and more recently it was found that some other similar minerals that weren't officially classified as asbestos had that effect.
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 14 July 2015 12:48:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Does the scare monger tactics of Abbott constitute anything, first Hockey then Abbott. Abbott has made an art form out of it.
Posted by doog, Tuesday, 14 July 2015 2:19:03 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
generally the gullible beat up the fantasy (gw) and downplay people being beheaded and bombed to bits.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 14 July 2015 2:26:33 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
Cobber the hound
Again you go off in tangents.. The situations of asbestos and climate are in no way analogous. It took a while for proof to be accepted in asbestos, but in climate they jumped straight from an indication to accepted orthodoxy which is now main stream, no argument allowed. In fact, the only reason you cited asbestos is because its an emotive subject and it sounded good. Right? But I suspect I'm wasting my time with reason.

Anyway, many organisations have been captured by the global warmers. In fact, if you wanted to be mischevious you could point to similarities with the Bolsheviks takeover in Russia, where comparatively small numbers of disciplined party members were able to take over much larger organisations..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 14 July 2015 3:36:16 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
Did I read this correctly?

Don Aitken writes that he joined the society in the 1960s or so and never attended a meeting?

And now he's writing missives to them because they don't agree with his contrary opinion on climate change?

The Fabians are certainly correct in that they do not determine what is essentially a scientific consensus. Also, it seems that they are correct in that they may not be the organisation he would like them to be. But then, he never attended a meeting, so why is that no so surprising?

It's not hard to determine the delusional ones in this little saga.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 14 July 2015 3:41:35 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
It seems clear that Fabian economics usually involves filling the pockets of unionist and spending a countries money to bankruptcy. Gough/Rudd/Gillard appeared devout disciples.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 14 July 2015 4:06:18 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
Seems clear from what evidence, runner?
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 14 July 2015 5:14:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What do you expect from an organisation who's logo is a wolf in sheeps clothing?
Posted by Armchair Critic, Wednesday, 15 July 2015 1:24:26 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
Bugsy
Your belief that personal abuse determines whether the globe is warming is not scientific, and you have already had your nose rubbed in that doo-doo so much that even you know it stinks. You can't defend it, and if you want, I'll rub your nose in it again just so you dishonesty is humiliated into silence *AGAIN* just like it was every other time you went out backwards failing to defend your state-worshipping superstition. Just admit it.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 15 July 2015 4:00:34 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
As I said, it isn't difficult to see who are the delusional ones around here.

If you think that me ignoring you and spending time off this site because it is a waste of time "discussing" (I use the term very loosely here) things with you as somehow "humiliating me into silence", then I could use no other term than 'delusional'.

As usual, your tactic of always having a last word allows you to believe that no reply somehow constitutes 'winning'.

As for 'personal abuse', mate buy a mirror. Noone likes discussions with you, and it's not because you have 'humiliated them into silence' by the withering power of your copypasta ideas either.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 15 July 2015 10:29:34 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
Bugsy:” because it is a waste of time "discussing’”.
What would you discuss? The reason that you support climate fraud when there is no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate? It can only be through ignorance or dishonesty. Tell us which it is, and that ends the discussion.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 15 July 2015 3:50:31 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