http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/07/24/1226434/207918-120725-nicholson-cartoon.jpg

From the time the hacking scandal struck in the UK, Labor saw this as an opportunity to strike against the perceived unfair reporting. Gillard famously said "Newscorp has serious questions to answer." and failed spectacularly to come up with any.

The Finklestein report was quickly cobbled together by a hand picked group to achieve a pre determined outcome to recommend government legislated control of news dissemination. This strait jacket to prevent offense and to ensure "balanced" reporting (presumably from the labor viewpoint) is probably one of the most dangerous attack on the freedom of the press in a century.

Freedom of speech means that various views and opinions will be expressed, individually unbalanced, but spread over the spectrum of opinion. Instead of uniform state sanctioned dross.

SM wants to protect free speech.
As long as it is free speech from his side not ours.
He has struck out against the weakileaks founder.
And here comes out against a report highlighting criminal activity's by a rich/powerful grub.
The report in part has lead to criminal charges against some very important and powerful fellow grubs.
Nice try SM using freedom of speech to insist it be only your view that is free.

Belly,

That is an outrageous lie. I have always supported free speech and expression strongly.

With regards Assange, I pointed out that publishing stolen confidential conversations / correspondence is an invasion of privacy, not an expression of opinion, or uncovering misdeeds. If your private emails, bank details etc were published, you would be justified in taking action against the individual concerned. Similarly, an American diplomat's confidential email stating that he thought Rudd was a pompous twit, is not news, only an embarrassment.

What Juliar and the greens are concocting is a body that would potentially control the content of what newspapers could say, based on a government appointed panel's view of what was "balanced".

Belly,
The government should be really careful here as any legislation passed to reduce free speech could be used against labor at a future date.

I my view the media critisism leveled at this government has been well deserved as they have shown to be utterly incompedent.

In setting up a committee to review what the media states by persons favouring the present government, the next government could, and probably would, appoint those persons favourable to them to sit on the same committee. This would make it more difficult for an opposition to get favourable press.

I think your opinion of the Murdock press is somewhat one eyed. I could point out bias in the smh and the Age and the ABC, not to mention Crikey and New matilda.

Oh please, give it up SM:

>> publishing stolen confidential conversations / correspondence is an invasion of privacy, not an expression of opinion, or uncovering misdeeds. If your private emails, bank details etc were published, you would be justified in taking action against the individual concerned <<

You conveniently seem to have forgotten your rants about the selected/stolen/leaked/published "climategate" emails, eh?

Yet despite the numerous investigations clearing the 'emailers', people of your ilk continue to spruik the drivel in salacious and wanton fervor.

You impugn Belly as a "liar" but really, you are talking to a mirror, again.

Freedom of expression is fine but as said elsewhere, it carries the responsibility to not make stuff up, as you and others continue to do.

Oh, ho, ho, ho....excellent point, bonmot.

What have you got to say about that, SM?

Freedom of speech is a safeguard against unjust rule.
People should be free to criticise the laws of their
community and the policies of their government. A
government is less likely to impose unjust laws on
people who can openly criticise its decisions. Without
freedom of speech, people can't have complete political
freedom.

In a democracy constitutions guarantee people the right to
express their opinions freely because democracy is
government of, by, and for the people. People need
information to help them determine the best political and
social policies and the governments need to know what
most people - and various minorities - believe and want.

However, having said that - people who enjoy the rights
of free speech have a duty to respect other people's
rights. A person's freedom of speech is limited by the
rights of others - for example their right to maintain
their good reputation and their right to privacy.
All societies, including democratic ones, do put various
limitations on what people may say. They prohibit certain
types of speech that they believe might harm the government
or the people. Drawing the line between dangerous and harmless
speech can of course be extremely difficult. However laws
do exist covering libel, slander, public decency, urging
violence or hate speech and so on.

I am amused that Shadow Minister is criticising the current
government (no surprises there) for "silencing dissent?"
when as we all know John Howard did precisely that during
his term in office.

BM and Poirot,

Please feel free to repost my "rants", none of my comments there contradict anything said here. So put up or shut up.

I questioned the adulation given Assange being the "champion of free speech", considering he was just republishing stolen information from others. What do you think of the "Girlfriend Revenge" site where you can view the intimate photographs of ex girlfriends without their permission? You must then support it as free speech?

Lexi,

Please show how Howard silenced dissent. You are making this up.

The attitude toward free speech in Australia is not good.

Lionel Murphy has a reputation for fairness, defense of freedom and concern for the oppressed. Perhaps his chilling words which were quoted in support of the proposed antivilification legislation were made on an off day. Nevertheless, they illustrate the state of free speech in Australia. On page 3886/3 in the Current House Hansard of 16 December 1992 he was quoted as saying, "Free speech is only what is what is left after due weight has been accorded to the laws relating to defamation, blasphemy, copyright, sedition, obscenity, use of insulting words, official secrecy, contempt of court and of parliament, incitement and censorship..." Is "due weight" not given to free speech? "Only what is left over" means free speech has no value in itself. Any other consideration can override it. Hopefully, this is not the prevailing attitude to free speech in Australia. "Only what is left over" is consistent with the value of free speech in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or Khomeini's Iran. People in all three countries had the right to say anything the government didn't ban them from saying. Free speech points out the wrongs in our society and protects cultural expressions that differ from the prevailing view. It has great value in an open society.

As we have come to expect from OLO's "Shadow Minister" - pure unadulterated spin, distortion and misrepresentation.

SM, no need for me to "put up" your rants, you do it yourself - numerous times.

In your latest retort you attempt to change goal posts to "girlfriend revenge", typical dross (your word).

Dear Shadow Minister,

Again, your accusation that I am "making things up,"
regarding Mr Howard, is wrong.

I strongly recommend that you read the book:

"Silencing Dissent: How the Australian government
is controlling public opinion and stifling debate."
It a collection of essays written by quite a few
authors.

"Silencing Dissent," uncovers the tactics used by
John Howard and his colleagues to undermine discussion
and independent opinion. Bullying, intimidation,
public denigration, threats of withdrawal of funding, personal
harrassment, increased government red tape and manipulation
of the rules were all tools of trade for a government that
wanted to keep a lid on public debate. The victims were
charities, academics, researchers, journalists, judges,
public sector organisations (CSIRO) and even Parliament itself."

And as Tor Hundloe confirms in his book, "From
Buddha to Bono: Seeking Sustainability." :

"In Australia in 2006, leading climatologists with the
country's pre-eminent public research organisation, CSIRO,
were forbidden by the organisation's management from
publicly discussing the implications of climate change.
Management was acting on behalf of the government. And
Australia is one of the standout countries in terms of human
development status. It is not corrupt. Its science is world
class. None of this mattered. In 2006, the Australian
Government's position was to cast doubt on global warming
and refuse to enter into UN agreements such as the Kyoto
protocol..."

BM,

Compared the lies and innuendo that drivels from your posts, I am a rank amateur.

I guess that you went back, realized that your earlier posts were complete drivel, and decided that a pure ad hominem attack was required due to your complete lack of facts.

Yep, typical fall-back line - accuse others of the very thing you do yourself.

Your mirror is getting a real work-out today SM.

You can 'dish-it' - you obviously can't take it.

I remember that well Lexi, got caught up in it myself ... bad as bad can get.

SM just spins it the way he wants, regardless the truth.

BM,

You are the typical troll. You have not in this thread made one comment on the substance of the thread, neither have you provided one quote, link or otherwise to support your ad hominem attacks. This is typical of all your posts on this site.

I look forward to you posting something that requires more than the IQ of a squirrel.

In the interim, I assume that you support the censorship of the presss proposed by Labor?

Lexi,

This book of yours written by a collection of lefties, echos all the tactics used by the labor government over the last 4 years. P.S. providing contrary opinion in retaliation and mocking your opponents is standard fare for Get up etc, and also constitutes free speech.

No one ever said free speech was pretty, it is just better than censorship.

Substance of the thread: Freedom of Speech perhaps?

You must have missed this:

"Freedom of expression ... carries the responsibility to not make stuff up, as you and others continue to do".

Apart from your comments here, your 'shadow-history' provides ample evidence of your distortions and misrepresentations

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=48209&show=history

The cupboard is full of it, now go clean your petulant mirror :)

Belly, you got it wrong, SM didn't specify some could have freedom of
speach and others not.

Bonmot, climate gate emails became available because someone goofed
in where they were stored and were made available.

Similarly, in the mobile phone, so called hacks (which they were not),
no one has taken the mobile phone companies to task for making voice
mail storage so easily available.
All they had to do was to insure that two phones with the same number
could not be on the network at the same time.

It is a bit like the lolly shop owner putting his wares out down low
at school out time.

I agree with SM, this proposed legislation will be a disaster for
the greens and labour if it is still there when the Libs come to power.
Of course they will use it, and they will be able to say;
"Oh, but it was your legislation, why are you complaining ?"

I think we are entitled to know the truth about those things that affect us and the basis for the decisions made on our behalf.

For example, to go to war and kill innocent people on the basis of a deliberate lie and on behalf of corporate interests would be in the public interest.

To have media commentators present ALL the facts about a matter while presenting it as a narrative rather than conveniently ignoring those facts that do not is also worthwhile.

To have news items distorted or avoided to meet the interests of whatever corporate sponsors are behind you is also not in the public interest.

Bazz,

The "climategate" emails (or portions thereof) were selectively chosen and purposely presented and misconstrued to demonise the scientists who have since been exonerated. That's down to the "free press" which not only has the wonderful benefit of liberty to print the truth - it also has the liberty to skew things to suit whichever agenda it is beholden to.

Wobbles said;
To have news items distorted or avoided to meet

I will give you an example of this;
Last week there was a Google forum that had the prime minister
answering questions.
There were I think six questions.
On the ABC that night there was an item about the forum.
They gave a snatch of each of the questions, except the one question
that she refused to answer, and yes !

It was the Bolt question.

Now there is an example of censorship by omission.

Poirot; no you are not well informed on those inquiries.
The parliamentary and the University inquiries avoided certain claims
made by Steve McIntyre and others.

You know the rule;
"Don't set up an inquiry unless you know the result !"

BM,

"Freedom of expression ... carries the responsibility to not make stuff up," No it doesn't

If you make things up as you do, then your credibility will be completely shot, as yours is. If your maxim held, no one could print what Labor says, as much of it contains distortions. Neither could one print anything on religion.

I see that once again you have failed to produce any evidence. I take your inability to provide a link to where contradicted myself as an admission of your deceit or incompetence.

Wiggle and waggle all you like 'shadow' but just because you say it doesn't make it so.

Except in your own mind, of course.

I remain amused, by Banjo and Bazz two I like.
And yes SM spin master that he is.
My minds eye flys to some future student, in about 30 years who comes here to OLO.
Sure it will be still about, by then Grey hair and beard Graham will be too.
Student is researching just what we thought about things, in the dark days of our worst Parliament.
Should that student read my words, be warned, SM will have you in fits of laughter!
Not because his words are funny, but his inability to see truth!
By then climate change will be proven, NBN upgraded to all radio.
And research will have gone much further in to why some conservatives have little ability to see truth.
LIE? mate you are a rude bloke you level that charge but know it is you not me you talk of.
I no Christian, take very wise words from that wise book, twist them but believe in them
*forgive him he knows not what he does*

Dear Shadow Minister,

Have you read the book that I cited
earlier - "Silencing Dissent?"
Because there are many contributing authors
and it is absurd to try to sweep them all under
the proverbial rug with your usual mantra of they're
"lefties," when their opinions don't agree with
yours. That's so intellectually lame.

You totally ignore the
statement by Tor Hundloe, that I quoted -
who confirmed the actions of Mr Howard and his
government. Anyway, regardless of people's political
leanings - what matters is whether what they are saying
did happen - and in this case it did - as far as Mr
Howard and his colleagues are concerned.

And as you stated in your initial post on this thread -
"...Freedom of Speech means that various views and
opinions will be expressed ... spread over the spectrum
of opinion instead of uniform state sanctioned dross."

The "uniform state santioned dross" is precisely what
occurred during the Howard years - and from your posts
it seems that it's precisely the ethos that you believe in.
After all the opinions of "lefties" don't really matter.
Right. It's crystal clear.

cont'd ...

You've chosen a most appropriate title to
this thread. "Silencing Dissent," thid is something
you're becoming well known for - but your excuse instead
of entering into discussions by brushing aside any
valid points as being made by "lefties," is wearing
a bit thin.

Hey Lexi;
The "uniform state santioned dross" is precisely what
occurred during the Howard years

Have you forgotten the daily abuse that was aimed at Howard ?
Are you suggesting that was "State sanctioned" ?

Dear oh dear !

Dear Bazz,

Take an intelligent guess at what is being suggested
here. The following website may help clarify things
for you:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/book-review/silencing-dissent/2007/02/23/1171734005116.html

If you ran a Government that lied about a carbon tax, changed policy leading to hundreds of drownings and squandered billions in waste you to would want to shut up the press. I certainly would not want that kind of deceit and incompetence reported on a Government I ran. You can hardly blame Ms Gillard from wanting to shut up the press. And of course if you delve into her dubious union dealings as a 'naive' 30 something woman you can expect the sack. No wonder they did not want to touch Thomson.

It's a pity this thread turned so nasty so quickly.

And I'm surprised that Shadow Minister should speak out against "ad hominem" attacks.

That said (and seeing that this thread has gone in all sorts of directions and has no clear path), I tend to agree with your summary of what is wrong with Wikileaks. In an ideal world, that which was intended to remain private would remain private. And should. However, what Wikileaks has done is present a challenge to the old order - it has (or should have) forced governments to rethink the ways in which they communicate and conduct business. It should be accepted that Wikileaks (or variants) will always plague governments.

Sadly, the reaction has been along the lines of "they don't play fair!"

It's like when the Boers refused to line up in brightly-coloured coats and be shot by the Brits, using guerrilla tactics to wage their war over a century ago.

Or (and, as usual, I can't find the article on line) the war games conducted by the US in the lead-up to the "War on Terror". After appointing a celebrated retired (I think?) general to coordinate the "enemy", the US forces were quickly defeated. The enemy used phones rather than radios (so the "goodies" couldn't listen in); they used scouts on hilltops to report troop movements rather than more sophisticated equipment (so the "goodies" couldn't sabotage them); they housed troops in residential areas rather than barracks (so they were harder to pin down). Rather than learning from this, the bosses sacked the retired general, set some ground rules and successfully carried out their "attack".

Where I'm going with this (in a roundabout way) is that the goalposts are constantly shifting. Wikileaks, media powerbrokers ... they're all realities in our world. Governments can accept that and learn to work with them, or they can try to shoot them down more quickly than they pop up. In my mind, one of those options is more likely to be successful than the other.

Lexi,

No I haven't read the book, and am not likely to spend $25 on a left wing polemic. That incumbent governments use government and the civil service to spread their message is not new. Keating and Hawke did it before Howard, and Rudd and Gillard did it after Howard. All the tactics in the book have been used in the last 4 years.

What we have here is where Juliar has exhausted all the legal tools at getting her message out, and the public still don't believe her. This is about Labor trying to control the public media, the press, the internet etc.

What ever was happening before, this can only make it worse.

O you are quite right but it has always been so.
The differences between right and left, even center under Current Conservative leadership is widening.
I try but it is a hard task, are we to limit free speech to avoid such issues?
Or just avoid some threads? in effect the same thing.
I am no saint, but grow weary of the hurled insult I am lieing
from a man I think is blind to other than his views.

I think what is being missed here is that everything done in the past
by both sides was manipulation and distorting statements.
What is proposed now is a law.

It will become a breach of the law to defy a ruling by the
"star chamber" that rules on something that offends a politician.

We will change the discussion of politics if the proposed law goes ahead.
That of course is the idea.

Dear Shadow Minister,

If as you claim silencing dissent is nothing new
for governments to do - why bring the topic up
at all? No, never mind - we know the answer to that.
Still, I do understand why you wouldn't buy the book -
"Silencing Dissent." That's glaringly obvious.

I've been
brought up to gather information from a wide variety
of sources (regardless of their political inclinations),
in order to get to the truth - however, I understand
the truth can be a bit enlightening - and that to
many is a "No!" "No!"

Belly,

Stop sulking. If you post lies such as "SM wants to protect free speech.
As long as it is free speech from his side not ours." Don't be surprised when you get called out on it.

While Labor claims to have progressive values, Comrade Conroy has tried to introduce internet censorship, and now press censorship. If these are Labor's progressive values, then God help us.

Freedom of speech has always been highly valued, and so it should be.

I'm wondering what happens though when political and economic imperatives dictate the agenda of various sections of the media. That these sections of the media are owned and controlled by those who serve to gain if conspiracy theories are disseminated and digested by the public.

The climate argument if pertinent here. Certain sections of the media promote a conspiracy by the IPCC because scientist's findings challenge the status quo. Why would a media baron want to publish findings by scientists that have the potential to rock the cosiness of the economic boat? Much better to plant the seeds of doubt in the minds of an untrained public by utilising junk science and trumpeting the virtue of "freedom of speech". Who amongst the generally scientifically ignorant general public is going to argue with such persuasive media opinion. It's much easier in that case to buy into the conspiracy theory and carry on with life as they know it.

Oui, mon amie!

Poirot,

Into conspiracy theories much?

"Certain sections of the media promote a conspiracy by the IPCC because scientist's findings challenge the status quo." Really, pray tell which sections these are. If you are trying to implicate Newscorp, then perhaps you can indicate why you think they are biased, and that the many, many articles they have published promoting climate science are irrelevant.

Or perhaps you would prefer that any views not complying exactly with your PC view were censored?

Freedom of speech also implies the ability to say and publish things not cleared by the politburo of political correctness.

SM,

"Seeds of doubt" is the term of reference here. Of course, publishing agreement from real scientists is part of the parcel - as is publishing opinion and junk science opposing the consensus.

We live in an age of information. You do realise that those who control the media and their mates who oversee the status quo aren't dumb. They know once the seed has been planted, that the public, armed with a modicum of intelligence and a skerrick of scientific nous, will trot off and seek confirmation of their newly fashioned bias....and the "scientists" (who know their stuff) will be viewed with suspicion instead of venerated for their dedication.

Simple really.....

And there we have it.

Doubt cannot be countenanced, there fore all dissenting opinion must be quashed.

Labor's committees / inquiries are stacked with labor supporters or with frames of references that cannot give a dissenting opinion, such as:

The BER inquiry,
The pink Batts inquiry,
The FWA IR inquiry,

The NBN was excluded from the productivity commission, All competition was bought out and made illegal. It is also illegal to claim that price rises are even partially due to the carbon tax.

The committee into climate change for admission required that one agreed with a carbon tax. The carbon tax modelling assumed that all Australian competitors will have a carbon tax similar to ours by 2015, and Labor refuses to release the model for scrutiny.

Etc, etc.

"It is also illegal to claim that price rises are even partially due to the carbon tax."

You are making stuff up again SM

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1053734

BM,

Have you read the link. Before you make any claim that the carbon tax has influenced your prices, you need an audit trail, or you can get fined up to $1m, a fine reserved only for the carbon price.

However, you provided a link, a first for you. I hope it wasn't too taxing.

wiggle waggle all you like shadow.

It is NOT (my emphasis) illegal to claim that price rises are even partially due to the carbon tax.

You lied

BM,

I should have clarified my statement. This was a law put in place to deliberately frighten people from making any claim. The requirement to provide an audit trail to all intents and purposes is not applied to other factors.

You also have lied: Living in a glass house!

"Apart from your comments here, your 'shadow-history' provides ample evidence of your distortions and misrepresentations"

Considering you didn't even look this is a blatant lie.

PS,

As you only nit picked one item, I assume that you accept Labor's manipulation of:

The BER inquiry,
The pink Batts inquiry,
The FWA IR inquiry,

Hey ! No he is right.
I have just read it.
Did not find the $1Million fine but did find $6600 fine for a corporation
and $66000 for a listed corporation.
Why the difference for a listed corporation ?

Anyway, it is there.

The up to $1m I heard on TV. I suppose it could be for repeat offenses?

Here it is quoted as up to $1.1m

http://www.infowars.com/australians-face-huge-fines-for-speaking-ill-of-new-carbon-tax/

Bazz, it is NOT illegal to claim price rises (even partially) are due to the carbon tax.

However, it is deceptive and misleading to claim the rise is due (solely or partly) to the carbon tax when they are clearly not.

See the examples given or look up Brumbies/Micheals/Donut King.

SM misrepresented and distorted (or deliberately lied) - plain and simple.

.

SM

ALL governments manipulate, as do ALL oppositions - you obviously can't come to grips with that - preferring to see Abbott and Co with halos and all others as the devil incarnate.

Btw, yes, I read all documents I link to - it would be foolish not to.

It even says this:

"seeking court-imposed penalties of up to $1.1 million for serious breaches of the ACL or injunctions to stop a business from making certain carbon price claims."

You get away with too much SM.
I need not rebut you.
In time you will be shown to be just not worth it, lie?
If you persist with that charge hope we never meet.
I leave you to your sand pit.

You might be onto something, Bonmot:

"There will be no carbon tax in any government that I lead."

"This grant to Ford will created up to three hundred new jobs."

The speaker here was not just making stuff up ?

A politician has the right, as this speaker had, to be a little bit casual with the truth, not outright lying but a certain gilding of the lily. Well, in the case of the carbon tax, yes, outright lying. And they will pay for it at the next election.

And yes, freedom of speech in our democracy means we can all do it, up to a point. We shouldn't be jailed for exaggerations, or omissions.

Of course, incitement goes beyond that acceptable point. But perhaps lying doesn't, unless it indirectly leads to violence or the incitement to violence.

So perhaps a major guideline, or boundary, for a Finkelstein Star Chamber has been set by our own Prime Minister: the right to speak freely and just distort the truth that little bit. After all, if she can do it, so can all of us, perhaps including every journalist in the country as well, on both sides.

Wait a minute, many already do ...... on both sides ......

And that's fine, within the bounds of freedom of speech.

Lexi,

Sorry, dear, who and when and where have any of us had our dissent silenced ? Under Howard ?! I hardly think so. The only experience that I have had of being silenced, or my career being destroyed, has been from the Left, and in Aboriginal politics. Do you have different experiences from similarly utter b@stards on the Right ?

Cheers,

Joe

BM,

The punitive law that Juliar has put in place to punish anyone that speaks out against the carbon tax has a loophole, for example a baker using electricity, can claim that price rises have a partial contribution from the carbon tax if he prepares a full audit trail of invoices etc to prove his point, but still risks a huge fine if his documentation is not up to scratch.

The reality is that while everyone knows that the bakers' costs have risen with the impost of the carbon tax, for him to be allowed to say so means spending a significant cost to protect himself. The result is that free speech is "free" no longer. To claim that "Bazz, it is NOT illegal to claim price rises (even partially) are due to the carbon tax." is a misrepresentation (or even a lie). It is legal only if extensive measures are taken.

With a government body that decides whether reporting is balanced and can punish the press and reporters for transgressing arbitrary rules made up by the government appointed panel, the press is "free" in name not in substance.

The epitome of spin, shadow - believing it in your own mind, LOL

.

Joe, there is much inertia (aka god particles) 'now here' :)

I don't know, Bonmot, there seems to be a great deal of 'churn' at the moment, people moving from the Labor Party, professionals towards the Greens on the comfortable Right, and tradies and working people towards the Lib-Nats on the less comfortable Right.

I've handed out election-day material for the Democrats and for the Green Party (both on the same day during one election), but I'm thinking of doing it for Labor this time, mainly because I like my local member. Perhaps when the Green Party members grow up and take more notice of the problems of the real world, I might give them the time of day once more.

Cheers,

Joe

BM,

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle as you might, you can't escape the truth. You are spinning so much you must be dizzy.

Labor is afraid of free speech.

Typical, accuse others of the very thing you do yourself - they teach this in conservative school, eh?

Anyway, I got dibs ... from now on you are Mr Wiggles :)

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

You should try to get hold of a copy of the book,
"Silencing Dissent," which gives the specifics
of what happened under the Howard government.

Shadow Minister brushes the book aside as being
"leftist," even though the authors (its a collection
of essays) are from various organisations and walks
of life.

What amuses me is that Shadow Minister says
he is for the freedom of speech - yet he won't have
a bar of anything that disagrees with his political
leanings and is very quick to assign labels to people.
I guess that speaks for itself. "Do what I say, not what
I do!" Like certain religious people who preach
God at every turn but whose actions are "Foul!, Foul!
Foul!" And stooping down to personal insults like
"Comrade Conroy," "Juliar," and so on, just shows the intellectual
base that we're dealing with here.

Nah Joe, I wouldn't touch Greens with a 10 foot pole - they've lost the plot big time.

Funny tho' Joe - the recalcitrant round here think I'm green as, even tho' I'm all for 4th Gen nuclear! Go figure :)

By the way, in that other place - I was 'gagged' towards the end of the Howard years from disseminating and expressing the science behind AGW.

Yes, SM, you continue to spruik as if you're some paragon of fair and balanced commentary....but....as Lexi has just pointed out and I've often criticised, you consistently begin your rants by labelling Julia "Juliar" - surely a man who holds his own sense of proportion up as an example as you do should probably get his own house in order before preaching to others?

Or is the puerile "Juliar" an exalted example of your idea of free speech?

i just wanted to say that i received an email yesterday from stopbigbrother.com.au asking me to sign a partition against intrusion by the fed govt into our computer histories, website usage and our passwords. All in the name of national security. Just how much can this phrase be banded around and misquoted just so the govt can clamp down on individual freedoms?. I might add, not long after i signed the partition against this i got a reply from the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security sec.... the standard reply, probably an automated response. I also got a response from our state labour politician... same sort of response. i dont trust them at all on this one. its worth checking the site out ...

BM,

YOu have dibs on the name Mr wiggles. So Mr wiggles where do you want to take this? So far you have contributed nothing except to try and pick holes in others contributions. All you do is wiggle.

Lexi, I have never tried to stop you saying anything. But with all free speech, when you say something ridiculous or fanciful on a blog site, then expect someone to challenge.

Poirot,

I have never spruiked myself as fair and balanced. I have as conservative a view point as lexi and you have far left view points from which you never deviate. I do however, like to refer to opinions and news articles from respected journalists and commentators.

Dear Lexi,

You make the observation that

"What amuses me is that Shadow Minister says
he is for the freedom of speech - yet he won't have
a bar of anything that disagrees with his political
leanings and is very quick to assign labels to people.
I guess that speaks for itself."

The point about having opinions, and the right to express them is that nobody, you or me or anybody, has to 'have a bar of anything that disagrees with [our] political leanings'. SM has a right to his, you have a right to yours, I have a right to mine - and we all should have the right to express these views, offending each other mightily in the process.

We all equally have the right to criticise and condemn views other than our own, and to offend the holders of those views by doing so. Well, currently we do have those rights, and we did even in the days when Howard was 'Silencing Dissent'.

Which we don't have to read either, by the way: we have the right to stay ignorant, and nobody has the right to force any book, the Koran, the Bible, Dale Carnegie's 'How to Win friends and Influence People', any volume of Harry Potter, or Eliot's Middlemarch, onto anybody. Maybe their loss, but that's how it goes.

I think I read a brief review of that pap you refer to, but the empty, overblown arguments of Manne and Hamilton and other children put me off going any further.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Bonmot,

I don't know anything about nuclear power, the different generations of technological improvements, etc. But I guess if AGW is such a big deal, it is certainly something we have to think seriously about, if we are to be genuinely Gaia-oriented.

That should stir up a hornet's nest. Or maybe just a lady-bird's nest.

Obviously, nuclear power stations should never have been built anywhere near fault-lines -what the hell were the Japanese thinking ? But Chernobyl was what ? First or second generation technology, already out-of-date in 1986 ? Fukushima was a third-generation reactor, built fifty foot from the bloody sea ? Really, what WERE they thinking ?

France and Sweden and Germany don't seem to have had any major accidents with their nuclear power stations; perhaps they are fourth generation systems ? Those countries are not known for seismic activity, so that factor is in their favour. Is there a fifth generation system ? Are there systems which use something other than uranium or plutonium, thorium maybe ? i.e. which are even safer than the French/Swedish/German systems ?

Is any of the evil CO2 put into the atmosphere in the construction of such nuclear power generation systems, as it is with solar and wind power components manufacture ?

And what has been the cost of nuclear power generation in those European countries, to consumers ? Is it greater than power generation by other means ?

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Shadow Minister,

You really need to read what you post.

You posted this reply to Poirot:

"I have never spruiked myself as fair and balanced..."

Really?

The following sentence should give you a hint:

"I do however, like to refer to opinions and news articles from
respected journalists and commentators. (Respected by whom?).

And that's
not spruiking yourself as "fair and balanced."

Lexi,

No it is not. Do you have a problem with the English language?

I use respected commentators to support my views. This means that my views are solidly supported with facts, very often far from the Labor view point. I think that Labor and Greens are incompetent, dishonest idiots. This is a long way from balanced between labor and liberal, however, I have facts to back up my view point,which is far more substantial than the dross dished up by those from the left.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

You absolutely have the right to stay ignorant.
That is your choice - no argument from me on that
score.

And I fully agree that a healthy, vital society is not
one in which we all agree. However it is one in which
those who disagree can do so with honour and respect
for other people's opinions - without stooping to
personal insults - such as "Comrade Conroy," or
"Juliar." Without personal commitment to the
atributes of fair play and integrity, this country is
in grave danger as malice and intolerance stalk our
society.

There is a tendency on some people's parts to think
that their way is the right way and that people who
disagree with them are "bad," or are given other labels
such as "Lefties," et cetera. (I used to think that a
"Leftie," was someone who was left-handed).

What would be refreshing would be productive discussions,
instead of constant finger-pointing and criticisms.
A great deal must change before that happens. It would
require a serious re-thinking on how we might organise
ourselves in more co-operative mutually respectful
ways. We would have to reject "us" versus "them,"
name-calling, labelling, et cetera. And for some sadly, that
would be a big ask.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Shadow Minister has just proved my point (again).

According to him what comes from his sources are
"facts," but what comes from the "Left,"
(there's that "L" word repeated), is of course "dross."

Dear oh dear!

Lexi,

The facts I post or link to support my case. The difference is that you very very seldom post anything other than your own opinion, and certainly almost nothing from anyone independent.

If there are facts to support your posts, then either you can't find them or they don't exist.

SM,

That's just silly.

Lexi posts many times referencing from sources that support her stance. It's one of her habits.

What you appear to be saying is that you, like all of us, post links which confirm your bias. Nothing new in that, or in the fact you don't choose to reference from downright bozos (coz that would be stupid)...but don't try and make out your style is superior to anyone else of intelligence who opposes your view.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I don't have a problem with the English language.
But you have a problem - that of comprehension.

And as far as important issues are concerned -
as you know it is a strange paradox that, while
we live in a torrent of information, there is
such a limited range of available views.

Media ownership in Australia is notoriously narrow.
Mainstream media offers precious little diversity,
and such diversity as there is runs along predictable
lines.

Those of us who are torn between the desert of
mainstream and the jungle of the internet need a place
where rational but diverse views can be found on matters
of importance. For me "New Matilda," is such a place.
It would be difficult to agree with every view expressed-
in the columns of "New Matilda," but it would be equally
difficult to disagree with them all. And it would be
impossible to criticise any of them as irrational or
foolish. But of course, to you it's not only both of
these things - it's even worse - it's a "Leftie"
publication. Whereas, Andrew Bolt's column in the
"Herald Sun," if full of "facts." Right!

cont'd ...

BTW - I always do my research prior to
posting on any topic. It's an occupational
habit and part of my training. Just because
you say something Sir, does not make it true.

Dearest Lexi,

You

".... fully agree that a healthy, vital society is not
one in which we all agree."

But your next point:

"However it is one in which
those who disagree can do so with honour and respect
for other people's opinions - without stooping to
personal insults - such as "Comrade Conroy," or
"Juliar." Without personal commitment to the
atributes of fair play and integrity, this country is
in grave danger as malice and intolerance stalk our
society."

is much more debatable - we don't have to honour and respect anybody else's opinions - it would be sweet and cosy if we all did, but that's hardly likely, or required, or even desirable, in a democratic society.

And who defines what is "fair play" and "integrity" ? The umpires of Finkelstein's Star Chamber ? Les Francs Juges ?

And finally, malice and intolerance are not nice, to be sure, but they are allowable aspects of a free and diverse society, one in which people can abuse each other and do so with some viciousness. None of that should be illegal in an open, free, diverse, disputaceous society. After all, for thousands of years, it's been differences of opinion, often passionately stated, which has moved us on from the Stone Age.

If you want to call me a miserable old f@rt, a dried-up dog's tyrd, I won't like it but I'll defend your right to say so to the death. As Voltaire is supposed to have actually said.

Love,

Joe

Voltaire also said:

"Prejudices are what fools use for reason."

Care for the needy. Protect the environment. Defend the country but don't let the military-industrial complex run it. Engage with other nations in a system of international law. Have a good public school system promoting critical thinking in the sciences, literature politics and belief. Have separation of religion and state. Treat citizens equally before the law regardless of race, religious belief or non-belief, ethnicity, sex and sexual orientation. promote freedom of expression by getting rid of such impediments to it such as defamation laws and media monolpolies. Provide for adequate fire protection, police protection and public health. Have freedom of speech and expression. Have representatives answer to their constituents, their conscience and the good of Australia and the world rather than bow to the dictates of the party room.

Don't worry about left or right but support and be active in the political entity that comes closest to the above. Maintain a good level of skepticism.

Hi Poirot,

I guess so. But if we wish to hurl quotes at each other, try this, from one of my heroes, Kenan Malik, in Murdoch's rag today:

"Freedom of speech for everyone but bigots is no freedom of speech at all."

No, we don't have to like that, but don't forget, to some other people, we, you and I, may come across as bigots. And if you and I have the right to express ourselves, so should they, whoever they may be. We don't have to listen, we don't have to take any notice, and certainly we don't have to be persuaded - those are OUR rights.

Just don't think of 'other people' as some sort of puppets, inferior people, people who need to be guided. And if they can't be 'guided' ......

That way lies fascism, Poirot :)

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

"Just don't think of 'other people' as some sort of puppets, inferior people, people who need to be guided...."

Patronising much!

Voltaire had it right both times..."but I'll defend your right..." Yet - I'll also be "aware" that you are a bigot and that you employ prejudice for reason.

It's when the prejudice becomes the reason that we're in trouble.

"That way" lies fascism (Joe).

Gawd....

Just reread and should have put all of Voltaire's rhetorical ideas in quotation marks. The second part " that you are a bigot and that you employ prejudice for reason" wasn't directed personally, Joe (I presume you realised that but thought I'd post this anyway.)

Lexi,

Your comparison of New Matilda with Bolt's column is fair. Both are well thought out and use the facts to promote their argument, and both are extreme. Which is precisely why I never quote either of them. If you think you are centrist, why then is the mainstream media a dessert? If you always do you research before posting, why then do you almost exclusively post from the New Matilda? (which I consider with Bolt as Dross)

As far as epithets I use such as Juliar and Comrade Conroy, I notice that such epithets are used freely against Abbott, Pyne, etc by the left, and I don't hear a squeak in protest from you.

Press freedom is one of the key cornerstones of democracy, the moment there is a government appointed body that can punish people for expressing themselves that is state censorship.

I ask you how you would feel if some time in the future a very conservative government re stacked this board with those such as Alan Jones and Bolt?

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I think Poirot has said things much better than I did.
And her Voltaire quote is quite apt. It's all a question of
judgement and perception. And as we all know people tend
to see things from a viewpoint of subjectivity. However,
it's for that reason that reading as much as possible from
a wide variety of diverse sources helps us to get to the
bigger picture of any issue - this self-conscious effort
encourages objectivity and minimises distortions caused by
personal bias. The pursuit of objectivity does not
necessarily mean that we should not express personal opinions
or value judgements. It means that these judgements
should be clearly labeled as such and should not intrude into
the actual process of our research and interpretation of issues.
You can only form a broader picture if you do look at things
from various sides - not only the same narrow, blinkered
point of view that agrees with one's own values.
For example, it would be perfectly legitimate for a
sociologist to give as objective an account as possible
of a social problem, and then to add a subjective judgement
provided that the judgement was presented as a matter of
personal opinion.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You ask me what my reaction would be if a
conservative government stacked a board with
the likes of Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones.

I've been thinking about how to answer that
question of yours and quite frankly - I can't
really comment on that. I'm too frightened
of appearing like an idiot - no matter what I say.

Lexi, I think you avoided a trap by not answering.
A bit like the PM avoided answering the Bolt question.

Leave SM out of it.
The real question is; Are you in favour of censorship ?

Dear Bazz,

Am I in favour of censorship?

I am a librarian by profession. Librarians are not
in the business of censoring books and other material.
Their responsibility
is not to deny, but to add, enrich, stimulate and amplify
the reading of their patrons - especially of the young.

However, when teachers and librarians sift through all
the potential books and material they might order they
do employ certain criteria, a certain process of selection.
Based on literary quality, the needs of their clientele
and professional judgement, to obtain the best, most
appropriate material.

BTW - censorship doesn't work as the material can be obtained
from other sources. Frequently, the controversy increases the
interest, with a wider audience for a censored book. There
is no evidence that controversial books lead to deviant,
disruptive behaviour, or affect morality. On the contrary,
evidence suggests that such readings do not adversely
affect behaviour. Experts argue that children should have
a whole culture, not just the "plums" and "learn the art of
comparison and subconsciously acquire critical standards."
Anyway, enough said. I hope this answers your
question.

Dear Lexi,

I'm in broad agreement with your last three posts, especially your Last Post, although I am a bit uneasy about what I perhaps mis-perceive as a drift towards an elitist criterion when you seem to infer that only people who have read, and studied, and thought about an issue can really discuss it and therefore only they should have the right to speak:

"You can only form a broader picture if you do look at things
from various sides - not only the same narrow, blinkered
point of view that agrees with one's own values.
For example, it would be perfectly legitimate for a
sociologist to give as objective an account as possible
of a social problem, and then to add a subjective judgement
provided that the judgement was presented as a matter of
personal opinion."

And therefore only experts should be allowed to speak or write on issues:

".... it would be perfectly legitimate for a
sociologist to give as objective an account as possible
of a social problem, and then to add a subjective judgement
provided that the judgement was presented as a matter of
personal opinion."

But not for some yobbo ? Some uninformed blow-hard ? To reiterate what others have written above, the right to freedom of expression extends to everybody, drunk or sober, tolerant or intolerant, Right or Left, sweet or obnoxious, not merely to some (usually self-appointed) elite.

I'm sure that's what you meant too ;)

Cheers,

Joe

Let's get real. Joe.

Yobbos aren't usually into writing social commentary. For some reason they're just not into it. And uninformed blowhards will face the sort of censorship that has "always" been in place. The censorship exercised by editors and publishers over what is likely to be read and what is likely to be bought by the public. You appear to think that anyone can get their views "out there" merely because they put pen to paper of finger to keyboard. Social commentary has always been the prerogative of those who have the means, persuasion and/or talent to disseminate their opinion. That is changing somewhat due to blogging, but most people would still strive to gain recognition in mainstream areas with all its attendant criteria.

The "elite" have always written the history, even in democracies.

And is that how it should be, Poirot ?

I'm not saying that's how it should be. I'm saying that's how it's always been.

You tell me - apart from blogging - how your average yobo or blowhard is going to get published in anything remotely mainstream. I'm just being realistic. You know how it works. It's even difficult for a savvy articulate person to get their letter published in any of the major newspapers, let alone having an article accepted or a book published!

Ooh, that's precious, Poirot :)

I'm not writing about what actually is the case in a capitalist society, with such uneven class dominance over the news media, I'm suggesting that all and sundry, including my brothers and sisters out in the Western Suburbs, have the RIGHT to speak their minds, as much as anybody else, even, dare I say it, ther exalted intellects of the inner-city. No matter how trivial, inappropriate or half-@rsed it may sound.

I'm also suggesting that even in a perfect, presumably democratic and socialist society, every person has the right to express their opinions, and therefore in the media as well - that, pace Finkelstein, nobody should have to pass some intellectual test before they can express their opinion.

Probably what I'm edging towards is a view that a fully free and open democracy, one that might even be compatible with versions of socialism, is a society wherein all [non-inciteful] views are expressable: dumb-@rse and intelligent, tolerant and intolerant, provided they don't incite violence.

The upshot of such an open expression of views would be that media which promoted idiocy, lies and intolerance would, one would hope, be dumped and ignored by a reasonably intelligent populace, although it should be as free as any other entity to express itself any way it likes within those parameters.

Media which allowed morons like Allen Jones to spew opinions which incited violence would, in those cases, lose their markets pretty quickly, one would hope. In that sense, Allen Jones represents the case of someone who has crossed that boundary between free expression and incitement, with his idiotic repetition about stuffing people into chaff bags. For spelling out that boundary between fair expression and sheer stupidity, he should be thanked.

But only through gritted teeth. What a pillock.

Cheers,

Joe

What's precious, Joe?

You seem to have taken on the role here as a self-appointed spokesman for the man in the street. You also seem to implicitly suggest that I'm elitist because I can string a few words together.

What makes you think that I believe that ordinary battlers should be denied a voice? I've said nothing of the sort, merely noting that even in a liberated democracy, the people with money and influence still call the shots on who does and who does not get to share their views in the mainstream media.

I'm fascinated at your apparent clause, whereby you judge that the likes of Alan Jones is guilty of "...crossing that boundary between expression and incitement..." Who judges what is idiocy, lies and intolerance? Who judges where that boundary begins? Should there be controls over such breaches? If not, why do you think the populace would ignore rhetoric designed to ignite passions? They're more likely, IMO, to feel the outrage and adrenalin and go with it.

Bon soir Poirot,

Permit me, but description is not destiny:

"Yobbos aren't usually into writing social commentary. For some reason they're just not into it."

"You tell me - apart from blogging - how your average yobo or blowhard is going to get published in anything remotely mainstream. I'm just being realistic."

Sometimes I forget that the role of powerless progressives is to describe and complain about the world, not to change it :)

But you may well be - forgive me if I'm wrong - deliberately obfuscating here, confusing intolerance and stupidity (which we are entitled to engage in) with incitement:

".... the likes of Alan Jones is guilty of "...crossing that boundary between expression and incitement..." Who judges what is idiocy, lies and intolerance? Who judges where that boundary begins? Should there be controls over such breaches?"

"Idiocy, lies and intolerance" are all [just] permissible under freedom of expression, so why should there be Finkelstein's controls over them - the boundary is between these and incitement.

Incitement to commit violent acts, as Jones encouraged with his stupid talk about chaff bags, over and over, is another matter.

But you shade into elitism - forgive me for suggesting it - when you continue:

"If not, why do you think the populace would ignore rhetoric designed to ignite passions? They're more likely, IMO, to feel the outrage and adrenalin and go with it."

"Ignite passions" ? Enough to get passionately involved ? Or do you mean to "feel the outrage' and go beyond that ? To be incited to violence ?

But what ? Shouldn't be exposed to a difference of opinion: after all, they're such puppets, they're bound to be swept away by "passions" ?

Or are you agreeing with me, that Jones' comments went beyond any right to freedom of expression and represented incitement to violence ? That incitement to violence goes beyond the limits of freedom of expression ?

And that pretty much all is permitted up to that point ? Even by the media ? Even by the yobbos ?

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,



So it seems that freedom of expression is a nebulous and subjective entity. It is subject to limitation as in "incitement to violence" So you are saying that any media personality can fuel intolerance with idiocy and lies and that is perfectly fine. However, although s/he is permitted to prime his audience in this way it's acceptable under freedom of expression. So all the precursors are excused even though they may lead to violence if the spark is lit?

As if you're the only bloke who ever passed the time of day with a yobbo. You really like to treat your opponents as elite are$holes, don't you. But it's a tactic you employ so you can dollop your usual patronising rhetoric in their lap.

"Sometimes I forget that the role of powerless progressives is to complain about the world, not to change it:)"

(I love the way you tack the insulting smiley face on the end, but I s'pose that's your style

Lexi,

I take your last couple of posts to indicate that you have gained some insight into the potential abuse of this "government board"

I have only the quote the example of FWA which is supposed to mediate disputes between the unions and employers, and monitor the workings of the trade unions. Gillard stacked the FWA almost exclusively with ex union bosses. This has resulted in the unions getting almost everything they want in negotiations, and Crooks like Thomson and Williamson being shielded for years whilst they pillaged the union funds.

The the ACMA & Alan Jones topic, with associated comments, can be found at http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/06/15/jones-failed-reasonable-efforts-test-but-chaff-bags-ok/

SM,

"...and Crooks like Thomson and Williamson being shielded for years whilst they pillaged the union funds."

Here you provide a perfect example of freedom of expression that relies on bias and unproven allegations. You conveniently ignore the wiffiness of Kathy Jackson's association with the HSU, she being behind allegations against Thomson.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-26/jacksons-at-centre-of-hsu-allegations/4093190

only half way through reading the thread
but wikileaks didnt leake pin numbers or credit details..[nor in fact has been attributede to any 'deaths'..of informant or confidant..

never the less its an important topic to air
i was struck..by how a kid can facebook a photo..onto face book..and refused a position as teacher because of it...[im as against murdoc as i am the rest of the media[each selling the pap..that sustains their beliefs.]

silencing of discent..began affectivly during protests in qld..[bejellykie peterson]...that was refined by howard..who 'perfected..the 'yes minester' art forms of suppression corraling of public dicent.

[most affective was trippling of the cost of public liability..that stopped so much of the city artscapes..parrades and public interacting events..except for a few who went commercial..[exclusive]

but im over finding things to discent about[it only gives the mongals ideas..us voicing our own worst fears..now we got juliar [howhard mark 2]..selling us all them things...they promised for free.

sending kids to die
for old men[or young sheila's] fears..just watch..
as the motherless liar sends ofvf others mothers kids to die[every time i see her with kids i feel sad..its like she is deliberatly trying to avoid adults questions..

while plotting how to send them to afganastan...to defend the drug crop[defend the 'drugs'..their mates will be taking in the streets][ok most love speed and big pharmas adictions too[but hey govt gives them out for a great subsidy..

its time to increase defense spending
and decrease offence spending..for killing others in their own lands[next stop iran]

end the colenisation
serve the people NOT corperations[
stop giving our money away ya big spender.]..i dicent*..

and jail some lawyers while your at it
[now you know better...lol]

Hi Poirot,

No, I don't like what morons like Hadley and Jones say, but - short of incitement to violence - I would support their right to say it. Of course, I don't have to listen to them.

The point is that there is a telling difference between liking what someone says, a belief that it is 'perfectly fine', and being disgusted by it but letting it through to the keeper, so to speak.

But there shouldn't be anything nebulous about the boundaries of free speech: anything that someone says that incites violence goes beyond those boundaries, whether it is Jones and his inane chaff-bag comments, or Australia Day 'protestors' urging supporters to 'get Abbott'.

There. Now obfuscate that.

Cheers,

Joe :)

Why do you think that continually patronsing and sniggering at your opponents with smiley faces is conducive to productive discussion?

"There. Now obfuscate that."

Excellent, Joe....but I really can't be bothered (as in better things to do)

Okay :)

How have we come to this?
Have we lost our senses?
Ignorance remains ignorance and no amount
of sophistry can hide that reality.
Every group deserves smart people. Especially in
government when we are now globally linked and want
our country to be able to measure up. That's
not suggesting that the others are not entitled
to an opinion. Nobody is suggesting that. It's
a popular exercise to criticise "knowledge,"
and expertise, and even economic nous,
and refer to people as the "elites." However it
wouldn't be an improvement to supplant them by
persons of thoroughgoing ignorance and incompetence.

Joe, you raise so many questions:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5280#143316

There have been articles on OLO before, you may not have had a chance to follow them?

Try this one:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13746

The comments are also worth a peek.

.

Joe: In that other place – what makes you think “it is all attributable to AGW?”

Of course there are other attributes. Of course ‘climate scientists’ know about solar, urban heat island effect, cosmic rays, volcanoes, Milankovich cycles, etc.

It's difficult to discern if you are being sarcastic (or not). So I will ask (sarcastically):

Do you really think 'climate scientists' have not taken those things you raise (and more) into account?
Do you really think they don’t know the difference between sea-ice and land-based ice?
Do you really think oceanographers, glaciologists, atmospheric physicists, etc, etc. are so stupid?

Maybe you should just google “climate change attribution”, it will help.

If you haven't the inclination, this:

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/29/4672565/prominent-climate-change-denier.html

Stemming from this:

http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/

Cheers : )

For all that and all that, Bonmot, has the temperature rise been as little as 0.8 degrees over a century ? Is that true or not ?

How much of that 0.8 degrees has been attributable to human activity ?

I'm simply trying to get straight answers, yes/no.

Of course the scientists would be aware etc., etc. And I'm not suggesting any attempt to con us simpletons, I just want to have some idea of the real story.

So, 0.8 degrees rise in temperature and what, 2 inches rise in sea-level ? Is that it ?

Thanks, Bonmot.

Joe

Joe, people often ask simple questions that require very complex answers.
Simplifying the answer then leads to many misunderstandings.
I will try.

The total radiative forcing from 1750 to 2000 is about 1.7 W/m2

The biggest warming factors in W/m2) are:
CO2 1.5
CH4 0.6
CFCs 0.3
N2O 0.15
O3 0.3
black carbon 0.8
solar 0.3

Main cooling factors are:
sulphate and nitrate aerosols -2.1
land use -0.15

Clouds can have both a cooling and warming effect.
Water vapour has a relatively short residence time, CO2 very very much longer.

Each has uncertainty associated with it (a lot for aerosol effects, less for the GHGs).

CO2's role compared to the net forcing is about 85% of the effect, but 37% compared to all warming effects.

All anthropogenic forcings are about 80% of the total.

If solar trends were doubled, it would still only be less than half of the effect of CO2, and barely a fifth of the total greenhouse gas forcing.

If we take account of the uncertainties (we do) then the CO2 attribution (compared to all other warming effects) could vary from 30 to 40%.

The aim really is to adapt to a changing climate AND to lessen the attribution caused by human activity.

Humanity should wean itself off a relatively finite energy resource, sooner or later.

As to sea levels, the world clock doesn't end in 2050 - do you really care?

Cheers

In summary, Joe.

Humanity should try and limit temperature rise to 2 degrees C

It will reach that (sooner or later) barring catastrophic meteor strike, for e.g.

Humanity cannot really reduce the temperature increase but we can lessen the rate of increase.

Do you understand the difference?

Thank you, Bonmot.

"Humanity should try and limit temperature rise to 2 degrees C" - do you mean, ever ? Never more than 2 degrees ? Or 2 degrees over a period, such as a century ?

And what is the estimated rate of increase, the exponential growth, given that temperature rise over the past century has been about one degree ? At present rates, will temperatures rise an average of another degree in another century, or in only fifty years ? And double again in another fifty years ?

Okay: "Humanity cannot really reduce the temperature increase but we can lessen the rate of increase."

Is that with our current technology ? Or ever ? From an idiot's viewpoint, if we can "lessen the rate of increase", why can't we aim for reversing it ? Or am I really showing my ignorance here ?

Thanks for that little sting in the tail :) And yes, I do care, I don't get involved in this sort of thing, and put myself in danger of showing that I know almost nothing, for no reason.

Joe

Well it's nice to see someone asking a question on climate in good faith, and receiving an answer in the same spirit.

Joe,

Obviously you are far from an idiot or a simpleton. We can't all be experts in the fields that draw our interest, but we can learn from those who have some expertise in these areas.

Hi Poirot,

Yes we can, if they deign to share their knowledge with us. Nobody has expertise in every major field, so those who have it, should share it. But to be honest, trying to get information about more or less precisely how much, say temperature or sea-level rise, is like trying to get your constipated kid to produce the goods. And I think you might know what that is like ;)

Aren't you glad that dissent isn't being silenced ?

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Great ideas and great societies are the products
of free inquiry. They must continue to remain free.

Galileo was put under house arrest by the Vatican
for saying that the earth moved around the sun.
In fact, in 1633 the church made him recant his theory
of the universe.

In case we dismiss this religious intervention in
science a thing of the past, be aware that on issues which
require radical solutions that are likely to harm vested
economic interests and political interests, censorship
exists today.

As I pointed out in an earlier post - "In Australia in
2006, leading climatologists with that country's
pre-eminent public research organisation, CSIRO, were
forbidden by the organisation's management from publicly
discussing the implications of climate change. Management
was acting on behalf of the government. And Australia is
one of the standout countries in terms of human development
status. It is not corrupt. Its science is world class.
None of this mattered. In 2006, the Australian Government's
position was to cast doubt on global warming and refuse to
enter into UN agreements such as the Kyoto protocol..."
(Tor Hundloe).

New ideas instead of being welcomed for the opportunities
they open up for the improvement of the human lot, are
threats to those who have become comfortable in their
ideologies, (religious or otherwise).

I'll end this post with the following thought:

"Somebody in France wanted to put Voltaire in jail.
Somebody in Franco's Spain sent Lorca, their
greatest poet, to death before a firing squad.
Somebody in Germany under Hitler burned the books,
drove Thomas Mann into exile, and led their Jewish scholars
to the gas chamber. Somebody in Greece long ago gave
Socrates the hemlock to drink. Somebody in the USSR
banned Solzhenitsyn and Pasternak. Somebody at Golgothe
erected a cross and somebody drove the nails into the
hands of Christ. Somebody spat on his garments.
No one remembers their names."
(Milton Meltzer, "Four Who Locked Horns With the Censor.").

Hello Joe

There is a very well-known study (since verified/validated) that explains why reducing the temperature increase (say from 2 degrees C) will take hundreds of years. Google Susan Solomon if you want to know more.

The paper was misrepresented and distorted by Bolt/Jones & Co here in Oz last year when it was released. What Bolt/Jones & Co failed to understand is that not only will temperature keep going up, but it will take a much longer time to stabilise then fall. All this notwithstanding we are supposed to be heading for another ice age (in many 1,000’s of years, give or take).

Limiting the increase will be extremely difficult to do. The world’s population is expected to peak at about 10 billion in 40 years’ time, with all that entails - even more energy and national/international stressors, for example. There are plenty of graphs on the web that shows this exponential growth, the implications are not pretty.

There is also plenty on the web to show the expected rise in temperature, out to 2100. But again, the world does not end in 2100.

Joe, the BEST study found that the mean global surface temperature has risen by 0.9 degrees C over the past 50 years (although they have been able to go back 250) and mainly attributable to increased GHG’s – which is consistent with previous analyses. It addressed concerns about the urban heat island effect, poor station siting, and solar effects, volcanoes and data selection bias. If anything (and it hasn’t been peer reviewed yet) it adds even more weight to what we already know – the planet is warming and humanity is playing a significant part.

My opinions:
Do I think we can do anything about it? Yes, but we have to start soon, very seriously.
Do I think we will do anything about it? Nothing really substantive – at least not before it’s too late anyway.

Apologies to Mr Wiggles, we do digress : )

A new paper is going for peer review and publication.
It is the result of the heat island effect on US wx stations.
It seems that the surface temperature rise in the US up to one third
of the previous believed rate.

The paper is available for discussion here;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

and the paper is available at;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/#more-68286

At that location there are a number of documents showing methodology etc.

Bazz,

Where's it going for peer review?
At the moment it's a draft pre-print and is undergoing pal-review.

Publication?....respected journal?

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/07/29/watts-disappoints/

http://variable-variability.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/blog-review-of-watts-et-al-2012.html

I don't know, I don't remember seeing the publication named.
It may be there somewhere.
They may not want to name it yet, to avoid any pressure like what was
displayed in the "Climategate" emails.

Thanks Bazz, a few here are aware of 'that paper' doing the rounds. Big news in the 'anti-global warming blogosphere' as you have noticed.

Poirot points out that Watts went AWOL to scramble a piece in retaliation to the BEST release ... an even bigger hit in MSM.

Seems the so called 'sceptics' are really peed-off ... nothing like a 'sceptic' scorned.

Mr wiggles (BM),

Every post eventually, wanders off into obscure territory, where I see you are comfortable, but I generally lose interest. I also see that you are a self appointed expert on AGW, happily bandying around the nice round 2C target for global warming.

While I am comfortable with concept of CO2 raising the atmospheric temperature since reading the first paper on it in 1979, I also know that the contributions of the accelerators, (such as losing the Greenland ice sheet) and the decelerators (such as CO2 absorption by the oceans) are far from fully understood, making accurate predictions difficult, and the consequences even more so.

So Mr Wiggles, perhaps you could use your vast knowledge to estimate the contribution to reducing AGW of Australia's carbon tax?

Mr Wiggles

Pure obfuscation SM.

The carbon tax is to transition the economy away from fossil fuels - this will take time.

It won't happen over night and the coal industry won't be shut down like Abbott the Liar says.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5280#143163

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5280#143235

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5280#143235

Bonmot, I have seen reference to BEST but do not know what it is.
Can you enlighten me ?

I think you are being a bit precious about Watts et al as the
positioning of wx stations has been under discussion for some time.

As far as I can discern they are arguing that warming may be less than
others insist. I know that the earth has been warming for more than
300 years so there is no surprise there.

Having some years back been in the instrument & measuring business I
know how dodgey things can get for all unexpected reasons.
I can see that the factors they claim are affecting the accuracy of
the wx stations are quite reasonable and indeed very likely to cause
significant errors.
What does surprise me is that errors they claim are not larger.

Dear Mr wiggles,

If the carbon tax is supposed to transition the economy, it is failing miserably. Below $40/t tax on CO2, brown coal generation is still the cheapest, followed by black coal then gas, and a long way behind are the renewable power sources.

The result of the carbon tax is that very little investment is occurring in generation, with capacity increasing at about 1% p.a. and demand increasing at about 4%. Basic economics / supply / demand dictates that the sellers will soon be in the position to ramp up prices. So the direct increase on electricity price increases is likely to be only a portion of the total price increases caused by the carbon tax.

This and other flawed assumptions in the modelling (such as our competitors having a carbon tax by 2015) presented by Gillard the liar, Combet the liar, and Swan the liar, only partially represent the cost to consumers and small business that we are likely to see.

Enlighten Bazz?

Sure:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/29/climate-change-sceptics-change-mind

As to WUWT, not precious at all Bazz – if anything, Watts himself is the precious one.

Why? Because issues with weather station siting has been known for a long time – well before Watts' raison d'être.

Data collected at problem sites is adjusted or homogenised to take into account various issues, including calibrations (as you are aware of and have have rightly alluded to) and the urban heat island effect.

The way Watts bangs on, one would be forgiven to think he has discovered something worthy of the Nobel in Physics – he hasn’t.

His idea of peer review is really as Poirot says … Pal review by his blog followers.

Muller et al (BEST) at least have submitted their study for genuine peer review.

Don’t get me wrong, the BEST study does not appear to have revealed anything substantially knew that we haven’t known for at least 10 years – it will just add further weight to what is already known.

Back to Watts & Co. If he does submit his opus for genuine peer review, who knows – something may come of it. But Bazz, the implications of his analysis (and they are somewhat tentative at best, pun intended) means that the contiguous USA will have a mean surface temperature adjustment down by a tenth of a degree or so.

The USA only covers 2% of the total area of the globe. His findings (if correct) will have a negligible impact on the globe’s mean surface temperature. Ergo: Watts' stuff is really not ground-breaking - but it does give him kudos from his blog followers.

Mr ‘Wiggle-Waggle’

Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. But dear SM, that is about policy (something worthy of debate). Even the recalcitrant want action on climate change, albeit they think it's crap. Go figure!

My point is that ‘Abbott the Liar’ does not countenance expert opinion, whether it be from; scientists, engineers, economists, military, treasury, etc, etc.

He just makes stuff up, on the run ... quite willing to back-flip on the whim of a spurious opinion poll.

How? By telling lies, distorting and misrepresenting the truth at every stop on his traveling road-show.

Just spiffin!

Btw, I just love it that you hijack my phrases and adopt them as your own – gives me assurance that I’m on a winner.

Mr wiggles,

Just as Juliar, Combet the liar, Conroy the liar, Bowen the liar, etc lie through their teeth every time.

No small business is going to get compensation, no hospital, no recycler, no small manufacturer etc, Abbott is busy pointing this out. If the businesses can't pass on the costs, generally people lose their jobs.

Labor wouldn't know the truth if it hit them between the eyes.

Dear Shadow Minister,

If you'd stop telling lies about Labor,
perhaps Bonmot might stop telling you the truth
about the Libs.

Lexi,

Give it a rest, just because what I say deviates from Labor's party line does not make it a lie.

Perhaps you could tell me what support there is for small business for the increased costs from the carbon tax?

Dear Shadow Minister,

You tell me to "give it a rest?"
This from a man who states, "Labor wouldn't
know the truth if it hit them between the eyes?"
Tsk. Tsk. You first Sir!

As for what assistance is there for small businesses with
carbon pricing? I'm surprised you have to ask.
The web is full of sites with this information. Here's
just two:

http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/helping-business/business-and-a-clean-energy-future/

http://www.rdatanwq.org.au/files/Carbon%20Tax%20Guide.pdf

You might want to Google the Small Business Instant Asset-Write
off thresh-hold which has been increased from $1,000 to $6,500.
Increasing the amount small business can write-off immediately
to $6,500 will increase cash flow and assist small business to grow
and invest in new equipment.

cont'd ...

And here you are posing as a man who's for the protection
of free speech. I guess we can take that to mean -
for you only and those who agree with your unique point of
view. "Wriggle" "Wriggle."

Dyslexia,

Thanks for the links which showed no compensation for small business.

All I saw was compensation for some large manufacturing concerns, and some very small assistance and tiny tax write offs for purchasing new equipment. This is a drop in the ocean.

The only solution is to pass the costs on. If you are competing against imports, too bad.

Dear Shadow Minister,

No surprises here.

You see what you want to see.

Sad really.

Really lexi,

I took the effort to read your links, looking for where there was compensation for small business. I couldn't find any. If I am wrong show me where, but please spare me the pitiful hand wringing. I can only assume that this pitiful "it's sad" comment is to compensate for your inability to find any compensation for small business either.

Perhaps you didn't even bother to read them yourself?

Dear Shadow Minister,

Keep trying to tread your way through
a base-level political path. Condemnation is the
key to your strategy - and if you believe that
it works for you well there's not much that I can
do about it.

Cheers.

Re: the Watts paper....It seems "co-author" Steve McIntyre is attempting to distance himself from the "rushed" presentation.

http://climateaudit.org/2012/07/31/surface-stations/

Quote:
"To make sure everyone clearly recognises my involvement with both papers. I provided Anthony suggested text and references for this article [I am not a co-author of the Watts et al paper]..."

Lexi, I just read your exchange with SM.
I then went and read your references.

The $6500 write off is a joke. No machine or equipment, except a
computer, that a business would buy would cost less that $6500.
The other money promised is to provide advise on energy saving methods
or in other words to set up the organisation that will be giving the advise.
In other words to pay for more bureaucrats !

I have to agree with SM, there is virtually nothing there.

Really Lexi, you are rather naive and inexperienced as that is the
most generous reason I can find when examining your reference links.
I think Lexi, this episode explains much in the past. Sorry.

On the subject of "silencing dissent", it seems Joanne Nova is celebrating articles: "...disappearing down the memory hole. Presumably neither newspaper is proud of having been fooled by Muller - the articles were so quickly blown away when skeptics pointed out that Muller was a fake skeptic, and that his results were highly dubious (Special achievement award to Anthony Watts)...."

"it appears skeptics are getting to the Fairfax press (finally!)"

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/major-australian-dailies-disappear-the-muller-conversion-article-opps-404-error/

Manipulation of information and its dissemination is, and has always been, in the hands of vested interests. Ownership of outlets and political control may change, but even in a democracy the press is never entirely "free".

It would really help if people understood how the carbon tax is to be implemented, rather than blowing in the wind the way they think it will work based on their political bent.

Obviously, some people haven't really read or understood the information package sent out some months ago now.

They really can't comprehend the ACCC's website on carbon pricing either.

It seems the anti-mob here think everybody and their dog should get some kind of compensation! What would be the point?

If you are a business, you can increase your prices due to the carbon price (but don't lie).

However, the impact is not, and has not, been that significant on the cost of items aggregated over all costs to a business.

http://www.skynews.com.au/businessnews/article.aspx?id=777215

I received my energy bill recently:
Supply charges up 45%
Usage charges up 41%

Of that 41%, only 8% is due to the carbon tax.

'Abbott the Liar' and his traveling road show claim the carbon price is going to wreck the economy. It isn't, it won't.

To my mind he is just dumbing down the electorate by his fear campaigns - flip-flopping on a whim and re-inventing 'flim-flam' like Mr 'Wiggle-Waggle', our precious OLO 'shadow minister'.

Poirot, are you suggesting their has been a "silencing of dissent"?

OMG!

Bazz, you asked me to "enlighten" you about BEST. Your silence is deafening and speaks volumes, sorry.

bonmot,

OMG! is right.

I think the dust is settling in the wake of Gina's foray into Fairfax.

Put well here:

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/fairfax-starts-trumpeting-rineharts-agenda-todays-op-ed-by-climate-crank-david-evans/

Dear Bazz,

Naive? Inexperienced?

And you make this assumption about me - based on the links
that I cited because you've failed to understand the
entire concept of what carbon pricing is all about.
Don't you think that you just may have a perception problem?
As for Shadow Minister - Well, he has his agenda. And he
should be left to it.

Graham Readfearn - on "Victory of the Denialists".

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4169648.html

Mr Wiggles, (Bonmot)

For domestic users, whose charges are already 90% distribution related, the percentage power increase is smaller. I have not yet received my power bill for this quarter, but am privy to our large manufacturing business which buys bulk power with much smaller distribution component, and the increase at one site due to the CT is closer to 35%. (or $300 000 p.m. increase, for which we receive $0 compensation.) As we also compete with imports, at least one of our production sites is threatened.

Most manufacturers, businesses, hospitals etc, are somewhere in between, and none receive compensation. Juliar, Combet the liar, Emmerson the liar, etc, all very distinctly steer away from this.

We are now seeing major mining projects being put on hold. Is this also a fabrication, or Labor's Troika of Carbon Tax, Mining tax, and FWA poor productivity?

So our flim-flam man, Mr Wiggle-Waggles, is privy to his large manufacturing business which buys bulk power, and is trade exposed.

Sounds then it is a 'polluter' and should pay the tax - and should look at ways of reducing it's pollution or find more efficient and effective ways of using energy.

Seems Wiggle-Waggles is out of his depth (no surprise there) and can only come up with chants of "compensate, compensate, compensate".

Thanks for the link, Poirot.

Expanding on it:

http://www.themonthly.com.au/how-vested-interests-defeated-climate-science-dark-victory-robert-manne-5853

.

As the blurb says:

The 'Monthly' is one of Australia’s boldest voices, providing enlightening commentary and vigorous, sometimes controversial, debate on the issues that impact the nation. Home to our finest thinkers, journalists and critics, the magazine features investigative reportage, critical essays, thoughtful reviews and whimsical reflections on the state of affairs.

I will probably subscribe, thanks.

Let us not be silenced!

dont forget it goes on fuel next
but for now this is eestracting from the fac my tarrif 11..now has a service fee..per meter..of 59,000 cents per day..[thats 59 dollars extra]..

[last bill my use was one dollar 53 cents
next bill will not be as big as the bill after it..cause this bill wont be the full 100 days..

next bill wil be 60 dollars plus
[when i only used ..*one dollar fifty ..in actual eleticity cost]

but no you lot rave on about yesterday
what about the service fee scam..[put it on the intel meters..not our old meter]..complain..but no lets talk about yesterday;;

and
ignore the tax on FUEL toomora..
or tomorows service charge fee extra income..not extra service

I have just received my electricity bill.
It has gone from two different rates to three different rates.
The old one; 20.6 cents first 1151 kwh
29.1 cents reaminder kwh

The new one 24.4 cents first 274 Kwh
25.5 cents 2nd 274 Kwh
34.3 cents remainder kwh.

My bill has doubled over the last few years, but don't worry as the
world peak coal comes into play you will pay a lot more.

No indication of how much is CO2 tax.

I think many miss the point on the tax, the real problem is not the
compensation, that does not matter it is the extra cost imposed on the
community at large that is the problem.

My pleasure, bonmot : )

beyond the pay-wall mon amie

http://www.themonthly.com.au/how-vested-interests-defeated-climate-science-dark-victory-robert-manne-5853

:)

Mr Wiggles (BM), thinks that electricity consumers are polluters. Using small words. Polluters emit CO2 (such as generators). Electricity consumers do not. My young kids have grasped this concept for which you appear not to have the Intellectual horsepower. Unfortunately the deeper your ignorance, the more you flap your gums.

Similarly, you also appear to be insufficiently literate to understand that pointing out the lack of compensation does not constitute a call for compensation. I am actually calling for the need for the compensation to go, and to scrap the world's greatest carbon tax, that Juliar, Swan the liar and the deceit of Labor inflicted on this country.

Your cry of "Let us not be silenced!" is actually the point of the thread against the censorship Labor is trying to introduce.

flip-flop flim-flam wiggle-waggle

Indeed, big energy users are (e.g. smelters and blast furnaces).

I guess you are not one of the big 500/1000 eh?

So wiggle-waggle, you are ok for 'Abbott the Liar' to compensate big-money polluters and take it away from the the most vulnerable in society. Yep, typical big-end-of-town hoop-lah.

Oh, I have it on good authority that embarking on gratuitous ad hom about my intellectual capacity is an indication you are desperate, a very desperate shadow of a minister. Again, no surprises there.

So Mr Wiggles, still illiterate? again I am not calling for compensation.

" you are ok for Abbott to compensate big-money polluters and take it away from the the most vulnerable in society. Yep, typical big-end-of-town hoop-lah"

No, That is what Juliar, Swan the liar, and Labor are doing, busy bailing out companies (based on union membership?) at tax payer's expense. With no carbon tax there is no injury inflicted and no need to compensate.

Good to see you disagree with 'Abbott the Liar' - didn't think it was in'ya, but there you go.

Despite the Coalition's claims, it is not an economy-wide tax - if it were, it would be far bigger - and it would be a tax on everybody - and unlike the GST, it isn't.

The tax is on emissions from electricity, gas and emissions-intensive industries. Treasury say it will cost households $10 a week, $5 in electricity and gas bills - if we do nothing.

The policy will work because it gives business and individuals an incentive to adopt more efficient and effective energy use practices. Moreover, it is aimed at a reduction in the rate of increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

Ok, we all know what Abbott & Co think about Treasury experts, any experts for that matter, but hey - Abbott is an expert on every thing, right?

'Abbott the Liar' says he will implement 'direct action', abandon the tax and subsidise big-polluters by having the taxpayers fund them.

Seems wiggle-waggles is calling Abbott a 'Liar' too now. Either that or SM has forgot what Abbott has said. Oh wait, maybe Abbott has forgot what Abbott has said. Oh wait, perhaps he 'lied'.

Thing is wiggle-waggles, if you indeed did have some significant input into a 'high-end' energy user (at least in an engineering or management role) you would look at ways to implement more efficient and effective energy use, in going forward of course.

Problem is, the intransigence of the 'business-as-usual-crowd' can't even look forward, let alone go forward (some call it progress) using both creative and technological innovative ideas. Hence the conservatism in going forward, eh?

Funny that,

The productivity commission described it as an economy wide tax first. Probably because it is a tax on electricity which is used economy wide.

The policy cannot succeed in its present form. For starters, unless the price exceeds $40/t Brown coal is still the cheapest form of generation, Black coal the next, gas the next, and way out are the renewables. What incentive is there to change? The projection is that even with the carbon tax, Emissions will increase by 8%.

As far as cost savings go, every industry I know has had an energy expert trying to improve efficiency. There is more incentive, but not enough to rebuild plant. To close them maybe, and with carbon tax free manufacturing overseas, none will re open.

In case you don't know my background, I am a power systems electrical engineer, with many years experience in building and running generation and associated manufacturing processes. I also have a BCom Majoring in Economics and an MBA. Please feel free to debate the technical details.

Here we go; ‘wiggle-waggles’ appealing to HIS authority.

Hang-a-mo, why is it that so called ‘sceptics’ say you can’t “appeal to authority” but they “appeal to their authority” ad nausea … LOL

Tell you what ‘flim-flam-man’, I’ll see your creds and raise you mine – open misère :)

“What incentive is there to change?”

As has been said;

Expert economists agree that price-based mechanisms (a carbon tax, subsidies or an emissions trading scheme) are a better way to address climate change than using Abbott’s ‘direct action’.

‘Abbott & the Co-a-liars’ believe in climate change now, or are they flip-flopping, or telling another porky, SM?

To bring you up to speed ‘shadow’, Australia’s introduction to a carbon price is a victory for the economists, for Treasury experts, for scientists and engineers, for most reasonable and forward thinking people and businesses, and sends a big message to the rest of the world … it is a huge reform by the Oz government.

SM, it culminates a process that began over a decade ago when Peter Costello, Alexander Downer and David Kemp took a joint submission to cabinet proposing a price on carbon emissions. John Howard rejected it at the time, but finally took it to the 2007 election as policy. Too late!

Your memory relapse is particularly disturbing, but so too is ‘Abbott-the-flip-flop-man’s.

Wiggle-waggles, it should NOT be a left/right issue (in most of the world, it isn't ... look at the UK, Germany, NZ, Sweden, the Netherlands, South Korea, etc.) and you will find Abbott's counterpart conservatives are just as committed to carbon pricing as the Oz government is.

Abbott & Co will destroy it, but future Australian governments (of both persuasions) will bring it back, because it is the cheapest and most most effective way to tackle global warming, which, if left unchecked, could do immense damage to our world.

You may ‘deny’ it all you like, and make stuff up, all you like – but that doesn’t make your prognostications right, SM.

Nuff said, see you on another thread.

Sorry Mr Wiggles,

All it shows is that you know squat about the carbon tax, or economics, you don't have the nous to do any analysis yourself, and can only parrot the labor line.

It doesn't matter how you squirm or wriggle, A tax on inputs is a bad tax especially if not balanced with competitors. A recent report said that the only emissions reductions will be from the direct action 20% renewable target, and bugger all from the carbon tax.

Another from a major bank says the carbon trading in Europe has achieved nothing in nearly a decade, so maybe you could tell me why it is economically more efficient to have the world's largest carbon tax.

Here's an article pertinent to this thread.

http://theconversation.edu.au/democracy-is-failing-the-planet-3832

Hi Poirot,

Sometimes I think what silences dissent is sheer exhaustion, going around in circles, talking an issue to death. And in your citation, Clive Hamilton doesn't help with his little backhanded swipe at democracy: 'democracy has defeated science'. Ever the crypto-totalitarian, our Clive: anybody who disagrees with him is a 'denier', and perhaps one of the masses who are too ignorant for our own good. If only the Good Society could be brought about somehow, even if it may mean that the square pegs, the 'deniers', might have to be 'extracted'....

As Marx might have said somewhere, all political stances reflect class positions and I am a bit uneasy about the growing influence (probably long after the event) of the professional class, those people who have never worked in anything where they got their hands dirty, but have gone from school to uni to bureaucratic ladder, and congregate (how's this for stereotyping ?) in Carlton and Leichhardt coffee shops, telling each other how the world should be, sans production of anything. i.e. no idea how the real world works. Denizens of Clive's World.

But they also have the right to express themselves, however disparagingly of the bogans and yobs out their in the unclean world, and of course those 'deniers'. They have as much right to do so as, say, the bogans and yobs. And of course, those 'deniers'.

:)

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

You really do seem to be on a roll. First
references to the "elites," and now assumptions
about "professionals" et cetera.

If the world consisted simply of some self-evident
reality that everyone perceived in exactly the same
way, there might be no disagreement among observers.
But the truth of the matter is that what we see in the
world is not determined by what exists "out there."
It is shaped by what our past experience has prepared
us to see and by what we consciously or unconsciously want
to see.

Knowledge and belief about the world do not exist in a
vacuum; they are social products whose content depends
on the context in which they are produced. A fundamentalist
preacher will tend to view pornography in one way; the
owner of a strip-tease establishment, in another way.
Each is inclined to perceive facts selectively and to
interpret them accordingly.

The same is inevitably
true of various professionals whose outlook is also
influenced by their background, training, and prior
experiences. I guess what I am trying to say is that
like anyone else we are all guilty of some measure of
bias - the tendency, often unconscious, to interpret
things according to our own values.

Joe,

Imagine if vaccination and public health suffered the same fate as climate science. What if the deniers and conspiracy theorists against vaccination suddenly got the upper hand and began to lobby politicians to suspend programs. All those "professional" medical scientists telling us all what to do - how dare they!

The "public" have as much idea of the pros and cons involved in the science behind inoculation as they do about climate science. They rely on on the scientists and professionals to tell them the truth. The big difference, however, is that protecting society from communicable disease doesn't threaten the economic and political status quo. Hence, in the case of climate science, a movement has been formed and backed by media and big oil interests to challenge the findings of the majority of scientists.

You can bring in your yobs, hoons, and their freedom of speech ad nauseam. They are not the ones sabotaging the planet's future. They are the ones who rely on "knowledge" to guide them on issues they don't comprehend - like immunisation, for instance. It's the professional class who have an economic stake in trumpeting denial who are attempting to fracture the connection between reason and practice.

Thanks Lexi, I agree fully. No dissent there :)

Poirot, I'm intrigued about the construction of an entity, 'Deniers', i.e. people like you and me who disagree with you and me. This is not much more than a way to demonise opponents by assuming they are another species, another category, and assuming 100 % that their doubts and scepticism are fake, that they are all working for the Vatica, or Murdoch, or the Rockefellers. And once they can be segregated as another species, not 'us', it's not that hard to think that somehow they ought to be ...... extracted.

I'd cue Arjay, except that he is working secretly for us deniers.

Can we please move on from slagging each other as 'alarmists' (or 'warmists') and 'deniers' ? Is it possible that we can stick to the arguments, and move away from such disguised ad hominems ?

And since when has the capability of 'deniers' been so dreadful that you can compare it with the power to stop vaccination and ruin public health ? You don't think that's not going overboard a little ?

As it happens, I'm all in favour of vaccination, but I would defend the right of anti-vaccination people, misguided as they may be, to put their case.

:)

Joe,

"You don't think that's going overboard a little."

That about sums up the seriousness with which most people rate climate change.

Anyhooo...bonmot posted these links earlier. They are a Q&A paper and a synopsis of a paper by James Hansen titled "Perception of Climate Change" - due to be published next week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120803_DiceQNA.pdf

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120803_DicePopSci.pdf

It's nice that you're in favour of vaccination. I presume, therefore, that you believe the science behind it and connect the truth of the science to outcomes in society.
Perhaps we'll have to wait until we experience AGW extremes equivalent in menace to polio, diphtheria or smallpox for "skeptics" to enjoy the same reassurance regarding climate science.

Hi Poirot,

"It's nice that you're in favour of vaccination. I presume, therefore, that you believe the science behind it and connect the truth of the science to outcomes in society."

Of cfourse. I have the greatest respect for science - I don't see any contradiction between science and democracy, unlike your Clive. To me, they reinforce each other, and mainly in positive ways.

Si, if you'll pardon my suspicion that you are trying to put me into some anti-science, pro-evil box, can we get back to the arguments ?

And it isn't just AGLW (Anthropogenic Luke-Warming) now, it's extremes of weather ? Weather events that have never been experienced before ? Do you mean, like all those hurricanes that have hit the Gulf of Mexico since Katrina ? All those 46 degree days that have hit South Australia since the last one in 1981 ? Those floods of last year that were NEARLY as severe as the 1956 and 1974 floods ? Droughts that were almost as severe and as long as the Federation droughts of 1892-1900/1902-1904 ? As the 1930s drought ?

So which particular extreme weather events are we talking about, Poirot ?

I wonder if we would go on about 'extremes' if we still didn't have air-conditioning, like in the olden days, before we got so comfortable ?

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

".....I have the greatest respect for science."

"So which particular extreme events are we talking about, Poirot?"

It's not so much "particular" events - it's the increased occurrence of unusual and extreme events....but you know that already.
(I wonder if you'll bother to read those links?)

Sounds to me as if you've made your mind up on this one -

I'll leave you to ponder all the "events" from the past, which apparently preclude any requirement to question the increased frequency of extreme events.

Hi Poirot,

It's fascinating how you play poker - show me your cards, but I won't show you mine. What particular suite of extreme events then ?
Perhaps you could talk about more severe wild-fires in the US over the past few years (don't mention depletion of ground-water), or Al Gore's talk of sea-level ris,e as exemplified by the flooding of the coastlines of Bangla Desh (don't mention teconic movements) and Egypt's delta (don't mention the Aswan Dam.

So when was it the hottest ever, or the longest drought, in your particular state ? Not in living memory ?

Oops.

It was a relief to read in today's Murdoch presss from Professor Hansen that there has been a 0.9 degree rise in world temperature in the past century. 0.9 degrees. At last ! And almost all of that is attributable to AGLW ?

Yes, of course, Poirot, there is warming going on, but as a sceptic (which according to Karl Popper, democrat and scientist, is the proper course for a scientist to take) I'm not so sure that we can't do much about it. I don't know enough science to follow people like Tim Flannery in asserting that it will all take a thousand years to repair, all that poisonous CO2 gas in the air already.

Mass tree- across the North? An end to the clearing of Indonesian forests would be a start.

I'm not going to go where I don't think (or know) that I have to: as an old Lefty I've been bitten too many times for that. Show me the money, the evidence, just don't expect people to be led by the nose, on the strength of 'authority'.

Like the 'authority' that told us the Himalayas would all melt by 2035.

Cheers,

Joe

The point about a free press is not the political correctness or even the scientific validity of everything that is being said, it is whether anyone can express their point of view.

The credibility of the authors and the newspapers / blogs, is dependent on the quality of the articles / opinions, how strongly argued the points are, and whether a variety of points of view are aired. The readers are assumed smart enough to weigh the arguments and make a decision.

The decision to appoint a government board to punish editors and Journalists for printing / writing stuff that is "unbalanced" or not meeting "standards" then we have the first steps in an authoritarian state.

"THIS is not a government that argues its case. Mostly, it howls down its critics using the megaphone of incumbency. There's the jihad against mining magnates for daring to question the government's investment-sapping mining tax. There's the claim that Gina Rinehart is a "danger to democracy" because she dared to buy an interest in a newspaper group and refused to endorse the Fairfax group's existing editorial culture. Late last year, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy accused the Sydney Daily Telegraph of a deliberate campaign to "bring the government down". Julia Gillard had a screaming match with former News Limited boss John Hartigan over an article about her dealings prior to entering parliament with a union official. The Greens have been consistently critical of those former senator Bob Brown tagged the "hate media". The Prime Minister personally insisted that News Limited in Australia had "questions to answer" in the wake of the British phone hacking scandal. It seems obvious that her real concern was not Fleet Street-style illegality but News Limited's coverage of her government."

Loudmouth,

"It's fascinating how you play poker."

That's rich coming from you. If you're not showering your opponent with sarcasm, you're flicking cards randomly from the deep recesses of your sleeves. Let's see...."Al gore, Tim Flannery, Bangla Desh, Egypt, tectonic shifts Himalayan melts, etc. etc.....

"What particular suite of extreme events then?"....Show me the money...."

Well I've attempted to provide you with material in those links, although all you can offer in response is to dance on your chair while you deal the next hand.

Most entertaining!

SM,

Yes, one wonders why a mining magnate like Gina Rinehart would wish to buy shares and a stake in influencing Fairfax's output?

Funnily enough, this occurred pretty much on cue:

"It appears skeptics are getting to the Fairfax press(finally!)"

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/major-australian-dailies-disappear-the-muller-conversion-article-opps-404-error/

Poirot:

"Yes, one wonders why a mining magnate like Gina Rinehart would wish to buy shares and a stake in influencing Fairfax's output?" A big brave assumption being pushed by those wanting government control of the media is that GR is trying to buy political influence over the editorial content, which you simply echo.

Will the 15% give GR editorial control? Unlikely.

Will her board seats give her a say in running the business efficiently? Certainly, and considering the shambolic management so far, good business sense seems to be deficient on this board, making it ripe for a take over by competent management.

Given the plummeting of the share price over the last few years, competent management would double GR's investment and yield her a few $100m in easy profit. However, as any mediocre lefty considers her the big Satan, it is easier to jump to conclusions than use one's grey matter.

I was thinking the other week, Poirot, that conspiracy theories are the last resort of fools.

Sceptic = Denier = Gina Rinehard taking over Fairfax.

Ergo, sceptic = corruption of media = supporter of neo-liberal capitalism = evil.

So obvious !

To try once again to get back to the issues, global luke-warming and the silencing of dissent about it, I should clarify my double negative above:

"Yes, of course, Poirot, there is warming going on, but ..... I'm not so sure that we can't do much about it."

i.e. I am confident that there we CAN do a LOT about it. My computer played up a bit when I was trying to type "tree-planting across the North".

To repeat, yes, there is warming going on, not a hell of a lot of it, less than a degree a century, and there is so much that governments can do about it, and I don't mean some idiotic Take-from-Peter-to-pay-Paul-a-bit-and-Peter-back-a-bit carbon tax, unless the revenue raised (and I don't have any problem with such a tax if it sensibly used) is used to back up R & D, AND tree-planting AND any other projects with direct beneficial effects on the environment and to minimise carbon release. Perhaps even fifth generation nuclear.

So yes, there is AGLW but I'm not all that worried. Am I allowed to say that or will some apparatchik put me up against a wall ? In her heart, at least ;)

Cheers,

Joe