Canem Malum,

That’s a very long-winded way to say “anything left-of-centre is Marxist.” I’m afraid you still don’t understand what Marxism is, though.

In all your meandering there, you mentioned a few concepts related to Marxism with varying levels of overlap. Hegel, Kant, and Nietzsche aren’t Marxists. Hegel influenced Marx, but Marx rejected Hegel’s idealism in favour of materialism. Kant had no direct connection to Marxism.

Your claim that environmentalism is a Marxist plot is absurd and would encompass Richard Nixon, too, given that he established the EPA. Environmental movements address real issues. Labelling them "Marxist" is just a lazy way to avoid engaging with them.

The idea that modern Marxism involves control of production by academics is mere conspiracy and reeks of paranoia. Marxism focuses on class struggle and the control of production by the working class, not by academics. Labelling academics a "new priesthood" is just a modern right-wing talking point with no basis at all in Marxist theory.

Let's face it, "Marxism" is just a blanket term for everything you disagree with. If you want to debate political issues, then you need to first understand the various political ideologies instead of just throwing around labels to dismiss anything you disagree with.

John,

"All the data points in one direction, too, so it’s not surprising that you’re resorting to false analogies to sustain a pseudoscientific belief. All the predictions from climate modelling thus far have been shown to be either accurate or too conservative. So, the data “validates predictions of many decades”."

That's extrapolation, and I would also suggest that the predictions of what the warming entails is very much aligned with doomsday cults. Take the BOM's "fire and brimstone" summer predictions last year, gleefully reported by the ABC. Well, that turned into a rainy El Nino, something I've never heard of before, costing primary producers who acted on the predictions.

"There are no measures being taken to mitigate climate change that are uncosted or untested. Nor are they more environmentally destructive than nuclear power and fossil fuels. I think we’ve covered this sufficiently in the past."

Utter garbage John. You offered no explanations, just doubled down on your false claims. Suggesting that leveling several times the land area of Tasmania to power Australia with wind and solar would be no more harmful than nuclear beggars belief in its dishonesty. And all independent costings (the government provides none) show wind and solar to be several times the cost of nuclear. Further, the system CO2 emissions from going wind and solar are higher than nuclear.

"As for the French response to peak oil, the project wasn’t abandoned because it failed, it was abandoned because it met its goals."

It delivered 150% of France's power needs in fifteen years, proving that nuclear generation can replace fossil fuel generation quickly if the idea is committed to. Yet nearly half a century later you think it impossible to provide Australia's electricity with nuclear in twenty-five years despite being convinced we are headed for calamity. The French intended to replace all power needs with nuclear, so it did not meet its objective as you falsely claim.

Hi CM,

I'm more supportive of the social democrat model as it seems to give more egalitarian outcomes. I ascribe to the belief that centralised power and free market models both tend to lead to a feudal system with poor social outcomes. Healthcare is a good example, with the USA and North Korea providing good care for the elite only, and Americans paying far more for their health care for worse outcomes than the social democratic models of Western Europe.

Fester,

Extrapolation is a fundamental part of science when based on empirical data, not speculation. Comparing it to doomsday cults ignores the rigorous methodology behind climate models, which have consistently provided accurate or conservative predictions.

The BOM’s summer forecast was based on available data, and El Nino events, though rare with heavy rainfall, are documented phenomena. Predictive science isn’t infallible, but it’s far from cultish. Your emotive language does you a disservice.

I have never once doubled-down on anything. I have consistently provided you with figures and links to my sources. I discredited your false claim about the required land for Tasmania (starting here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23028#395861) .If there is anything you would like me to expand on now, just say the word.

Ironically, you are the only one here doubling-down.

The impact of land required for renewables is far less destructive than the cumulative effects of fossil fuel extraction or nuclear waste. The notion that wind and solar are more costly or emit more CO2 than nuclear is contradicted by numerous independent analyses, which factor in long-term operational costs and externalities. (Would you like some figures?)

The French nuclear program also highlighted the complexity and risks associated with nuclear power. The objective was to secure energy independence, which it largely achieved. It wasn't about an absolute replacement of all energy sources but creating a resilient energy mix, which is something we should aim for now.

Fester said "centralised power and free market models both tend to lead to a feudal system with poor social outcome".
Yes that was essentially liberal Isaiah Berlin's argument when he advocated for "Stewart Mill negative style do as you like liberty" (see Adam Curtis- Century Of The Self) but Curtis comes to the conclusion that there are different types of "Aristotle virtue based positive freedom".

Libertarian's believe that certain principles lead to relative wealth and other principles lead to relative poverty and so the rulers of a wealthy society need to lead society in positive virtues. Not everyone is suited to all roles in society or all wealth levels because they don't want to participate. Sometimes this is because they don't understand and sometimes for some other asthetic reason. Libertarian's see the role of the ruler is to provide "equality of opportunity". Also they see "equality of outcome" as a form of tyranny. This is a basic summary of what Libertarian's seem to believe. Ayn Rand is a significant influence in Libertarian thought.

Traditionalists see the Libertarian view as narrowly focusing on money as the defining characteristic of a wealthy society. Traditionalists see the holistic security of human relationships as a more important measure of wealth.

Fester said "Healthcare is a good example, with the USA and North Korea providing good care for the elite only, and Americans paying far more for their health care for worse outcomes than the social democratic models of Western Europe"

Benjamin Franklin was a Republican and advocated building hospitals for the poor because it was good for the rich.
The US is still fighting the civil war and faces a different situation to the Northern Europe models that the ALP point to- but Nortern Europe is progressively importing similar problems to the US.
Africa is one of the largest land masses on the Earth.
Woke Marxists are authoritarian too. They see Liberal's as useful idiots.
But I've pointed the way. You can take direction or not

I agree with you that nuclear is an important part of Australia's short to medium term energy security. I would use the nuclear capability to try to boost Australia's defensive capabilities against China, but if you favour "social democratic" systems you may disagree.

Take care Fester.