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