Refugees don’t self-harm because of me, Peter Dutton, they self-harm because of you
We simply do not need to convince an already decided public about anything MGEvans
Yes, its an LNP issue. Anyway, the LNP is the only group that wants them all dead. It may be true that many in the population don’t want them here. But they would be happy to see them go elsewhere. The LNP will not send them anywhere. They must die as examples to others.
Utter rubbish!
Its more of a perverse dream held by open borders advocates because they want to use any deaths as a stick to beat supporters of the current policy with.
The facility on Nauru is now “open” and residents can come and go as they please already
Not true MG Evans He is my local member and I expect he will retain his seat with ease
Jim its a simple equation, either we finance the camps for a small number who are there now or we will be washed away by the flood of uninvited migrants the way Europe is suffering now , It is very sadly the lesser evil and unless you can come up with a better idea then your rancor is pointless
Mikes005
And while we’re at it, seeing as you’re so hot for Dutton and Morrison’s ‘management’, the billions spent on Nauru each year worked out to be $just under $3,500 per refugee *per day*. Yet they’re denied basic medical care and are given food riddled with maggots.
They are getting first world healthcare mike and better than we can supply to some of our own people and that cost per detainee is has a reducing total as more of them accept the resettlement options we offer or they go home. Under labor and the Greens there would be more arriving into the system than depart currently, THAT would be an economic burden that would impoverish us all
WHere’s that money going? That’s *your* money, byt the way. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would be fucking livid.
No one wants to save the money more than those who support the government on this policy and what we are livid about is people like you giving theses people false hope that if they just hold out long enough our government will give in, the voters won’t let the government give in.
Do you believe this emotional claptrap?
Sadly I think that you do
LoudonCleary
The issue is not how to manage the refugees, but how to manage Anglo-Aussies,
Utter rubbish the problem is people arriving uninvited is the only problem here, not the natural instinct to defend our territory and resources from interlopers.
whose widespread racism has been fanned from a fading smoulder back to full flame, first by John Howard with Pauline Hanson’s assistance, and then by Tony Abbott, purely for political purposes.
Your definition of “racism” is obviously far to partisan and too broad. Those who object to open borders do so for lots of reasons that have nothing at all to do with race.
The shame Australia is rapidly re-earning is not its treatment of refugees but its increasingly obvious desire to treat non-whites this way.
Racism is simply not the issue its the decision by claimants to try to come here uninvited
Change that and all else follows. Fail to change that and we deserve all the shame we are getting.
Most of us feel no shame at all , many of us feel a certain pride that our governments have taken the hard decisions to do something that is effective in stemming the flow of unwanted mendicants.
JayJay13
“Its the children that I am concerned with”
Your concern for children is bogus. It’s just another one of your smokescreen. The effect on children when a gay couple marry is no different from the effect on children when a straight couple in their 70s marries. It’s non-existent.
My concerns about children are entirely genuine, its just that you know that its the area where your own argument is weak so you dismiss it
“Won’t someone think of the children” is the oldest trick in the bigot book.
Yawn!!!!!!!!
JohnTiler
There has never been such a prerequisite because it was always an unquestioned assumption that marriage = children
Well, except for the approx. 170,000 years Homo sapiens have been procreating *prior* to the invention of marriage.
And your proof for this claim is what precisely? Human beings have always had a way of recognizing their enduring pair-bonds
How did the human race ever survive?!
We are a resilient species and unsurprisingly Homosexuals had very little to do with the continuation of the species.
JayJay13
Ahh the slippery slope fallacy. Get real Iain. Just because we consider gay people equal to straight people does not mean that me must consider a man with seven wives equal to a man with one wife. For reasons that are blindingly obvious to anyone who isn’t scratching around for something to hide their homophobia.
Once again, when asked to provide a reason to oppose marriage equality on its own merits, you fail miserably. There’s a pattern emerging Iain and it points only to one thing.
I am a social conservative and I think that any one who wants to change a foundational institution in our society needs to prove that there will be no untoward consequences of that change and its very clear that all sorts of activists are just waiting in the wings to use your cause to justify their own. Its clear that any chnage to the marriage act will be only the beginning of the push to remake society in a bad way. You are the one who wants change so the onus is on you to prove that there will not be negative consequences from doing so.
JohnTiler
The Netherlands (2001), Belgium (2003), Spain and Canada (2005), South Africa (2006).
In the past 15 years across five countries and three continents, you cannot cite one single example in order to substantiate your point?
Duly noted Iain, duly noted.
As I said the time frame is too short to provide meaningful data 15 years is nothing
Check these out then John its the next big campaign just waiting in the wings…
JayJay13
Iain, it is quite simple. You can keep honking away, repeating the same old nonsense, but it won’t stop being nonsense. Marriage does not and never has included biological reproduction as a condition or prerequisite. That is reality. You can bang on all you like about biological reproduction, but that isn’t reality. It is a fantasy of what you think marriage should be, not the reality of what it is.
There has never been such a prerequisite because it was always an unquestioned assumption that marriage = children and the idea that making children is a thing we choose to do rather than something that happens as a consequence of being married is a rather recent idea. Your notion that a marriage is primarily about two people being utterly co-dependent on each other is a recent affectation.
And gay people marrying takes nothing from you. All that crap about “to the detriment of us all” is unadorned homophobic bigotry. The legal status of other people’s relationships is at the top of the list of things that have no conceivable effect on you.
Its the children that I am concerned with as you should have noticed from the arguments I make in these threads
And I would never break bread with you Iain. Your views are abhorrent to me. Despite all your protestations to the contrary, as a gay person I think I have the right to call out homophobia when I see it and your views are homophobic. Own it for fucks sake.
That would be because you are such a black and white thinker who does not appreciate that supporting your right to live and love as you please, and to do so openly as I do, does not require me to agree with your desire to change the marriage, heck even a number of Gays have reservations about Gay marriage would you claim that they are “homophobic” too?
JohnTiler
…it seeks to change a foundation stone of our society to suit a tiny minority to the detriment of us all.
What “detriment” would that be, Iain?
Ah what a slippery slop such changes put us on There have already been noises from people who want to “marriages between more than two people recognized, and they have cited the gay marriage push as justification.
Perhaps you could cite some actual references from countries where gay marriage is legal to make your point, as your opinion is obviously biased and without foundation.
That would be a rather thin data set given the fact that such jurisdictions have not been playing that game for very long.
John
A lesbian couple, who are married, make use of sperm donation to fertilize one of their eggs. They both parent their child as a married couple, which is of benefit to all concerned (child, parents, and society) according to your own criteria.
What do you have against sperm donation?
My objection is all about the probability that any child thus created would be alienated form their biological father, something that has long been understood to be deeply upsetting for donor conceived children.
JayJay13
Basic homophobia is what it is. Marriage is a social construct not a biological one. The ability to procreate has never been a prerequisite for marriage and marriage law makes no reference to procreation or children.
Marriage is a social construct, that is based on the biological realities of reproduction and our laws do make reference to “children of a marriage ”
Do you still manage to convince yourself that no one can see through this lousy smokescreen that you try to put up to avoid admitting that you are really motivated by homophobia? There is no difference between anti-gay and anti-gay marriage.
I have no doubt that in this place there are very few who agree with my position on this topic however there are quite a few of us out there who totally disagree with your silly claim that “There is no difference between anti-gay and anti-gay marriage.” I have absolutely no issue with you being gay I’d happily break bread with you or any other Gay person but changing the definition of marriage is about so much more than just accepting a minority sexual orientation, it seeks to change a foundation stone of our society to suit a tiny minority to the detriment of us all.
JohnTiler
if your offspring need nurture then there is an advantage in both parents rearing that offspring.
Yes, as happens with the adoption of newborn babies. The new parents, whether gay or straight, would benefit from being married, according to your own criteria.
My words that you quote do into include the word marriage and they refer to the biological parents. That is not to say that I disagree with you that adoptive parents need to have an enduring bond if they are to share parenting. I simply does not have to be called a marriage under our law if that couple are homosexual,
With human beings it takes many seasons to raise our offspring so an enduring pair-bond simply makes sense, especially as we produce our children sequentially.
worth repeating;My words that you quote do into include the word marriage and they refer to the biological parents. That is not to say that I disagree with you that adoptive parents need to have an enduring bond if they are to share parenting. I simply does not have to be called a marriage under our law if that couple are homosexual.
Yes, as happens with babies born from IVF. The new parents, whether gay or straight, would benefit from being married, according to your own criteria.
My words that you quote do into include the word marriage and they refer to the biological parents. That is not to say that I disagree with you that adoptive parents need to have an enduring bond if they are to share parenting. I simply does not have to be called a marriage under our law if that couple are homosexual, plus if a same sex couple use IVF or any other reproductive technology they must thanks to biological reality enlist the aid of a third party to provide the necessary gametes that they can’t and there as a very good chance that any offspring will therefore be alienated form one of their biological parents
Why are you so vehemently opposed to gay marriage?
because I don’t believe that a same sex pairing qualifies for the institution and I favor a separate legal instrument to meet the needs of homosexual couples who wish to have an enduring relationship recognized in law
BlueThird
Your first statement is in response to an obvious suggestion of bias towards far-right conservative Christian websites in your research, and that statement is clearly intended to imply that your search was one of disinterested neutrality: the far-right websites that JohnTiler identified ‘just happened’ to turn up first.
No that is simply wrong I never sought to imply ” disinterested neutrality:” and if you think that you are mistaken I was searching for particular research that i had seen before and the pages questions were the first I found consistent with that criteria
Your second statement owns up to the bias that you had previously tried to deny.
The question was about why I chose christian research with the implication that I did so because of my own covert Christianity. My position on this topic is not at all denied
Once again, in attempting to deny your intellectual dishonesty, you’ve merely provided further evidence of it.
No once again you are making mountains out of mole hills
Am I indignant about someone with your lack of intellectual honesty clogging up the threads here with thousands or even tens of thousands of words of this bilge just about every day? Yes.
My count yesterday would be only a few hundred words in total, probably less than you yourself posted
Am I entitled to continue using your own behaviour here to demonstrate that you have no intellectual credibility? Of course.
No you are not, under the community guidelines that would be “personal abuse”
If you don’t want people to hold you to account on that score, you have two choices. Eschew deception; or stop posting.
Who appointed you moderator here?
JayJay13
Man, you are so dreary. If marriage is so critical to raising the next generation, how come every other species on the planet manages without it? Oh but you’re not anti-gay are you Iain. Oh no…
its basic biology, if you produce young who are independent from birth/hatching then you don’t even need a pair bond, if your offspring need nurture then there is an advantage in both parents rearing that offspring. With human beings it takes many seasons to raise our offspring so an enduring pair-bond simply makes sense, especially as we produce our children sequentially.
And finally I’m not anti Gay at all I’m just anti Gay marriage.
Protovek
Err…no it isn’t, it’s creating egg or sperm cells from other cells which can be combined with egg or sperm cells, that’s not even remotely close to cloning
Both cloning and this bright idea require the harvesting DNA from a cell and implanting it in a gamete. That is close enough for me.
BlueThird
What you fail to realize is that when I said “They just happen to be the first results that I find when seeking a citation via google” I was talking about searching through the results to a generic search but that those citations were the first ones that I found that suited what I wanted to argue because I had heard of these surveys before.
Cue the usual indignation from you.
mcon
we are an animal who takes many years to raise its young and that there is an advantage in both biological parents sharing the task.
for virtually the entire period of human evolution, humans did not have antibiotics or efficient medicine and it was very common for women to die in childbirth and for men and women to die in accidents or of routine infections and common diseases at a young age.therefore children have evolved to attach to anyone who gives them care and attention, whether or not they are genetically related to them. This explains the prevalence of adoption, wet nurses, children being raised by wider families and communities throughout history
While the attachment behavior you cite does have value as a contingency it does not negate may argument that there is an advantage for the biological parents to raise the next generation
you hilariously invoke SCIENCE, but then ignore the vast reams of facts that contradict you, because you have to pretend that the only purpose of marriage is for parents to have/raise their genetic children because that is the only thing that straight couples can do that gay couples can’t
I am neither ignoring any counter arguments nor am I pretending anything.But you are right to make the concession that Gay parents simply can not raise children that they are both biologically invested in
so you present this hilariously obviously cherry-picked view of science to support your ideological views, even though they don’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
my views stand up quite well as it happens , its just that you don’t agree with them
and that’s not even getting into the fact that many people already marry who don’t have children at all, or who raise stepchildren or adopted children that aren’t biologically related to both parents.
None of these exceptions undermine my central argument
why do you think that endlessly repeating this failed argument will suddenly make it work on the 100th attempt?
Persistence is not a sin , even here
JohnTilern
And yet, your sources on this particular topic tend to rely on the LifeSiteNews or WinteryKnight blogs, both far-right conservative Christian websites. I wonder why.
They just happen to be the first results that I find when seeking a citation via google
RalphFilthy
The problem for us is that IN NO WAY is the uneducated, stupid masses capable of making a decision on anything important.
Its amazing to me how time and time again those of the regressive left have absolutely no faith in the basic decency of their fellow human-beings.
DO you think that the US would have gotten rid of Jim Crow laws in inbred Mississippi if they’d done it via a plebiscite?
I do actually because there was a groundswell of support for the civil-rights movement in the late sixties that would have made it so
The public are not fit to decide matters of “adult rights”.
Then who precisely is fit to decide our big social questions? Just you or some other self-appointed guardian of political virtue? We live in a democracy not a dictatorship.
celsius233
we are an animal who takes many years to raise its young and that there is an advantage in both biological parents sharing the task.
There’s also an advantage to treating asylum seekers with dignity and respect, but we don’t do that, do we?
We do treat them with dignity and respect, its just that you think that doing so requires giving them the residency they so desire I don’t
Your playing the ‘advantage’ card on this issue is fatuous and transparently partisan.
No I’m not because I reject your false equivalence on this issue.
RalphFilthy
“Science” has a place for procreation roles for homosexuality.
How so?
Don’t tell me you didn’t bother learning anything about this before commenting? (Apart from reading up on trash on ACL’s site it seems).
The ACL are not my primary sources on this subject , not by any stretch of the imagination
Pray tell how you’d righteously tell a seahorse they’re being “all wrong against science” or the distinct patterns of homosexuality in ape (chimps and bonobos) that are similar to humans?
How are either even relevant? The former has nothing to do with homosexuality in the way that certain species have the male nurture their young, (emus do it as well) as for homosexual behavior in primates its clearly about dominance in social hierarchies rather than “love”. I’ve seen dairy cows attempt to mount each other as well but that does not make them lesbians
You sound like you’re infected with “ACL” and therefore your motivations are less than honorable.
I’m an atheist and I always have been
In response to Gregory Shearman
Gregory Shearman
There’s actually an advantage in the whole FAMILY and COMMUNITY in raising children, nothing to do with the gender of the primary care givers.
As socialist ideas go that is one of the few that have some merit however it does not alter the fact that we are biologically programed by our DNA to be more invested in the welfare our own biological offspring.
Janeee
Then explain the prevalence of same sex relationships of long standing among many animal species.
Such pairings are simply an aberration and serve no biological purpose whatsoever.
Protovek
Except the fact that science has advanced to the point where two people of the same sex can theoretically do just that….
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/24/science-skin-cells-create-artificial-sperm-eggs
name me one jurisdiction where that would be permitted even if it is technically possible what you are talking about is a variation on cloning banned for human beings in every civilized country on the planet.
Doncharles
References to your science please? This is the christian lobby attack plan for AME to talk about science and children. Where were they when their children were being molested by their priests and pastors?
Why do you think this false equivalence is even relevant?
As for my science references just google human child rearing duration to discover that we are an animal who takes many years to raise its young and that there is an advantage in both biological parents sharing the task.
ManoSand
“Science tells us that purpose of the enduring pair-bonds that we call marriage is so that two people who are biologically invested in the next generation can share the task of raising their mutual offspring.”
Looking forward to seeing your peer-reviewed paper in Nature, Iain.
A predictable response
In response to Aussiealltheway
I don’t agree, a plebiscite will provide a true and accurate measure of just how much of our population truly thinks that we should change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. Activists are very keen to spruik the “85%+ support ” as shown in various surveys which if correct means that they will easily win the vote but personally I think that the result will be a closer run thing than that and a closer result is what really scares the Gay marriage activists because they have built so much of their sense of moral rightness for their cause on the idea that their position overwhelmingly endorsed by the public.
So bring it on I say and if the vote is overwhelmingly in favor we can have a change that will be clearly socially endorsed and if its against then we can take the wind out of the sails of a very noisy cohort of activists and retain the status quo for the foreseeable future. It will end the issue as a point of conflict with in our polity either way.
Amazingly so many of the left deify science in all things except the Gay marriage debate. Science tells us that purpose of the enduring pair-bonds that we call marriage is so that two people who are biologically invested in the next generation can share the task of raising their mutual offspring. A same sex couple can not be the mutual providers of a child’s gametes so they have no conceivable reason to imagine that their pairings can serve the same biological and social purpose.
On the other had a separate legal instrument to create civil partnerships in our law can provide a same sex couple with every practical utility that changing the marriage act might give them without the rancor that forcing such a change onto our society is likely to produce.
There is no reason to believe that , and plenty of good operation reasons to argue the contrary that no agency is gong to publicize their weakness
Littlemissv
But that is simply not adequate for treason
Chelsea Manning had a moral and legal (see Nuremberg) obligation to reveal U.S. war crimes, and is a Hero of the Highest Order for having done so.
Manning is no hero
Too bad that real criminals like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, etc. are not serving Life Without Parole for their War Crimes.
War crimes? not according to any court
History will not be kind to the U.S. empire.
All empires are flawed but most others are far more flawed that that of the USA
The blood of the agents and informants revealed in the documents he stole is on his hands
When a person has committed a crime a serious as treason the having a great deal of time to contemplate the error of your ways seems most apt to me
koba67
Removal of freedom is the punishment.
But that is simply not adequate for treason
don’t you realize that carrots don”t want to be eaten either?
Alpo88
“thus I see the truth untainted by political bias… “….. Ha, ha, ha…. your concept of “truth” is totally hilarious… It’s time that you increase the optical power of your glasses, mate, and get clear lenses, not blue-tinted ones!
Glad you enjoyed my self deprecating sense of humor
Ever thought of joining a circus, btw?
I have the top hat but my allergy to cats means that my lion taming career is on hold…
ManoSand
So, you agree that the vast majority of Australians — those who don’t hold healthcare cards — will be out of pocket for services that were previously bulk-billed?
Only for a small amount after the rebate, but more importantly this measure should discourage doctors from over ordering unnecessary tests. Which is the point of the exercise
Helicalgroove
Now, now, you know what they say about imitation, Iain.
I am more than happy to thus flatter a worthy adversary Helicalgroove
smogdownunder
My question was rhetorical. I’m expecting the answer to be no, as Malcontent continues to channel his inner Abbott. Could there have been a more sorry disappointment and dashing of expectations since Mal took over? (Note: that’s another rhetorical question – no need to answer).
I am a political realist who understands that as much as I liked Abbott a government led by Malcolm Turnbull is still orders of magnitude better in prospect that one led by Shorten.
Stereophonic
Key word ‘expect’
It should be ‘will’, but even you subconsciously concede there is doubt.
Give me a break no one can be certain what will happen in an election that is the joy of living in a democracy.
celsius233
Are you referring, by any chance, to Labor’s carbon price mechanism, as brought in by Gillard? The one which led to a measurable reduction in emissions from power generation, since reversed by its dreck Direct Action successor?
As you may recall I am no fan of either direct action or the Labor schemes, both are silly and wasteful in my humble opinion we need neither. That said no matter what YOU may think of the Labor scheme and no matter how much you think it the best invention since sliced bread Shorten reviving its Ghost is a total gift to the governments coming campaign.
But Labor, as I understand it, aren’t looking to price carbon this time around. Shorten will bring in a market mechanism very similar to the one initially favoured by Turndull, ca 2009.
You do realize that its 2016 don’t you? Which means that it simply does not matter what Turnbull favored seven years ago.
ManoSand
Yep! From 1 July: pathology fees for unwell Australians; tax cuts for well-off Australians.
Pathology services will still attract a rebate and still be bulk-billed for healthcare card holders and as for tax cuts of any sort, if there are any tax cuts in Tuesdays budgets they will be very much smaller than you imagine.
That should play well in the polling booths on 2 July.
Alpo88
“I expect that once it is actually on the government will put up a better show than they have been doing recently”…. Always wearing those blue-coloured glasses, eh Iain?…. But careful, stop, that’s a red light!
I do as it happens wear glasses but they are actually clear and thus I see the truth untainted by political bias… I can recommend my optometrists for you if you wish.
celsius233
In other words, turd-polishing is about to go ballistic.
Shorten has already started trying to polish up the fecal Carbon tax….
Helicalgroove
They’ll need a better lot of astroturfers.
How much will the labor party be throwing your way then?
Reschs_Monkey
Nothing has changed since September last year, new captain, same ship of fools.
Better this crew for all of their faults than a return to Labor who are orders of magnitude worse. And thankfully for the country Shorten is trying to revive the Carbon tax Zombie which will be a electoral godsend for the government.
smogdownunder
Woudn’t be difficult. But will it be true?
Yes
Ozponerised
Dream on. The problems in the regime are insurmountable . There is no clarity just one confusing policy after another.
I am well aware of how deeply involved you are in commentary here, most likely to the exclusion of all other engagement with the polity. Which means that your view of politics is unduly colored by the company you keep here.
The election has not been officially called yet and I expect that once it is actually on the government will put up a better show than they have been doing recently. I think that what we are seeing is the Labor party using a great deal of their electoral ammunition far too early in what is bound to be a long campaign. In any event the budget is due in a few days and its obvious that the government is going to make selling its budget the biggest part of their campaign for re-election.
Love it, a good use of technology
So tell me Rattis just how YOU are changing the world with your words here?
beigewash
Iain_Hall – You post on Guardian enough not to be considered an election “troll” & you appear to believe in what you say enough to repeat similar conservative thinking regularly.
Yes I’ve been here a while
Your comments demonstrate exactly the inhumanity & indifference that Whatdoisay is despairing of.
Not “inhumanity’ at all but I will admit to a certain amount of indifference
The fact that the PEOPLE, (because they are human beings), are in these “prison centres” because the Australian Govt has intercepted, detained, transported to & locked them up there; puts the onus on the Australian Government to look after their welfare – not just lock them up & throw away the key.
.
All in this kind of detention are choosing to stay there and its obvious that they are doing so because they hope to outlast the government’s sadly necessary resolve that none shall be allowed to come here
It’s pretty hard to argue against. It appears that just locking them up is illegal, without even considering the other traumatic incidents.
I don’t see it that way Its legal and has survived all challenges in Australian courts. The PNG ruling has not changed anything in real terms and I expect that what PNG is really trying to do is get more, money frrm our government.
Just being locked up indefinitely would be traumatic enough – without the other specific incidents – which would have an impact on the whole population of each centre, not just the victim or their family.
As I said before these detainees are choosing to stay and when they are offered anything other than resettlement here they refuse it, if they were genuine they would take any opportunity, even an imperfect one.
Add to that these people have come from wretched war torn countries, so their initial state of mind & wellbeing is pretty damaged. And they have been formally assessed as genuine refugees under international law. ie FORMALLY ASSESSED – ie like they joined the non-existent formal queue & were formally assessed
Of the men on Manus more than half have been accessed to have no valid claim for asylum can we at least agree that those men should just be deported? The rest will probably have to go to Nauru eventually, unless they can be encouraged to go home.
For people who live their comfortable first world lives to be deliberately cruel, dismissive of the suffering & making excuses for the Governments actions & asylum seekers treatment is pretty abhorrent.
I am not an internationalist and I simply don’t think that we should be obliged to make a place in our country for everyone who has come from a third word dysfunctional society and lobbed on our doorstep. Those who come here thinking otherwise are sadly going to have to be disappointed and fix their own social and economic problems.
In response to Whatdoisaytothekids
Whatdoisaytothekids
‘Allegations of rape are easy to make and hard to prove , and frankly I and most sensible people have no sympathy for the guy who burnt himself trying to blackmail us into letting him come here’.
A young woman lay unconscious after a seizure waking to find semen on her body. Pregnant from that rape she sought an abortion.
As I said such allegations are easy to make but hard to prove and your counter just reinforces my point
A young man protested his treatment by setting fire to his body. He was reported to have been pacing the hospital screaming in agony. It took 22 hours to get to a hospital where he could be properly treated. He died.
Most people who self immolate die, its an extremely stupid thing to do and anyone with very extensive burns on Nauru is likely to die, heck people with such extensive burns in this country are just as likely to die and be in as much agony.
This is inhuman treatment. Crimes against humanity. There are clearly many people in Australia that think like you. I honestly do not know how you live with yourselves. Truely pitiful.
No its entirely realistic treatment, the woman should have reported her allegations to the local police (which I bet she did not do). and as for the burned Iranian well his fate was entirely self inflicted and most of us not see suicide as in any way heroic no matter how horrible the method may be.
In response to Whatdoisaytothekids
Whatdoisaytothekids
Or force the people of Australia to do something.
Whay should we be forced to act against our own interests?
There is a national sickness around both these issues.
Only in those who advocate higher energy prices and open borders
The two stories I have read today around asylum seekers shame us all. A woman raped and not given access to needed medical attention and a man burn, protesting the inhumanity of his treatment by the people of Australia, left screaming in pain in a hospital ill equiped to treat him.
Allegations of rape are easy to make and hard to prove , and frankly I and most sensible people have no sympathy for the guy who burnt himself trying to blackmail us into letting him come here.These would be seen a crimes in a war for goodness sake.
Truely dark stories that reflect a nation that has lost an essential part of its humanity. The politicians in Australia are pathetic and have been for such a long time. But the people, so many of our people are so indifferent to the horror we allow in our name. We have become a nation of casual torturers.
Rubbish we have just become immune to the attempts to emotional blackmail encouraged by left wing advocates in pursuit of the sort of open borders policies that they believe in. It the Activists giving these people false hope that has prolonged their time in detention because without that false hope they would have either returned home or taken up resettlement offers in places like Cambodia.
BlueThird
When someone who is intellectually honest (essentially: open and unbiased, with the disposition to eschew deception) is challenged on an matter of logic, they revisit their statement, re-examine their use of logic, and own up to their mistake, if they made one.
The problem for your argument is that we are not discussing empirical evidence or mathematical propositions we are discussing politics and as such what you are calling “logic” is actually differences in opinion which come from different underlying assumptions. You clearly have some quite different underlying assumptions and the arrogance to think that yours are the only correct way of seeing things.
When you’re challenged on an issue of logic, rather than re-examining your statement, you simply contradict the challenge, and typically switch to obfuscation. In other words: rather than eschewing deception, you compound your original deception (the failure in logic) with a further deception.So you’re intellectually dishonest.
Once again (and its worth repeating) Deception is thus defined :
deception
dɪˈsɛpʃ(ə)n/
noun
noun: deception; plural noun: deceptionsthe action of deceiving someone.
“obtaining property by deception”
a thing that deceives.
“a range of elaborate deceptions”
synonyms: deceit, deceitfulness, duplicity, double-dealing, fraud, fraudulence, cheating, trickery, duping, hoodwinking, chicanery, underhandedness, deviousness, slyness, cunning, craft, craftiness, wiliness, artfulness, guile, dissimulation, dissembling, bluff, bluffing, lying, pretence, artifice, treachery; More
Now I could very well be wrong about anything but that is not a deception and you simply can not prove any willful intention to deceive . In fact by your own standards YOU are being intellectually dishonest by refusing to withdraw your claims now that I have pointed out that you lack any proof of an intention to deceive in this forum.
I’m not the only person here to make that observation – not by a very long way – and to point it out is hardly a personal attack; it’s more a matter of holding the debate to reasonable standards.
It is now you have been shown the error of your logic (namely you need to prove intent to substantiate your claims of “deception”) you need to withdraw that claim
As I’m sure you’re very well aware, I’m not attempting to suggest that you write everything that you post here: I’m simply observing that in a typical day you post thousands or even tens of thousands of words, which is perfectly correct. To suggest that I don’t understand the difference between writing and posting is, in itself, an act of intellectual dishonesty, even if it’s a very minor one (by your standards).
You complaint is facile there is no posting limit here and I’m rather sure that there are other people who post as often or as much I do but as it happens I was making no suggestions at all about what you do or do not understand I was simply stating an empirical fact. Speaking of empirical facts I just cut and pasted all of my comments posted today and the word count excluding this comment comes to 1972 and that includes things like thread titles so shall we discount that total by 100 words for them and that makes it about 1872 words for today which is hardly excessive by any measure and its not by any stretch of the imagination your “tens of thousands” a day is it?
Those last three words, of course, could be construed as a personal attack. It’s probably within the guidelines, though.
No its a statement of fact, and as it happens a fact that you do not deny.
MGEvans
There’s a concept of intergenerational justice that you don’t understand. Even though the damage we do to the environment won’t effect us, it will effect future generations, and in a real sense that’s exactly as if what you do effects your immediate neighbours, the people who live right next door to you, but in such a way that they can’t stop you doing it. If you threw your rubbish over your fence, and they couldn’t stop you from doing it, that would be an unreasonable and reprehensible thing to take advantage of and keep doing, wouldn’t it? The only moral choice would be to stop doing it, right?
I do understand where you are coming from and believe it or not I do care about the future for my children its just that besides my doubts about the AGW proposition I simply do not believe that the proposed “cure” is at all viable.
Yes, I have forsworn air travel, I haven’t flown since 2000 though I am a professional with a large extended international family. Yes i do repair and recycle rather than replace. I drive as little as possible and am careful with my energy budget. Do you? Or do you imagine everyone is as wasteful and hypocritical as you are? You are so wrong.
Absolutely I do in fact I have NEVER been on an airplane, I personally repair everything I can around here in fact I am a paragon of energy virtue even though I am an AGW skeptic
BlueThird
Apart from an occasional snide remark, born out of frustration with your rhetorical style, which I’ll happily admit to, my attacks are essentially on your ideas, not you.
That is simply not true
It’s not that I think it’s wrong to argue in favour of your beliefs; it’s that your arguments become dishonest when you consistently make logical errors while insisting that you don’t. If something is logically wrong, it’s wrong (since we’re not talking about subjective logic here). Pointing that out isn’t arrogant.
What is arrogant is the judgement that you make above claiming thta I am being “dishonest” dishonesty requires a deliberate intention to deceive and I have no intention to deceive. So I may be right or I may even be wrong but I am wrong it will be through an HONEST error. Your repeated claims that I an being “intellectually dishonest” is just a personal attack
If posting as many as 10,000 words in a day, or thereabouts, isn’t clogging up threads, what would be? Nothing personal – I objected to it just as much when it was Clarke68, and told him so.
There is no daily word limit here and as I have told you before at least half of anything I post here are the words of others that I am resounding to. In any event it is not your place to count the words of other people and unlike Clarke68 I don’t just post stuff I have copied from elsewhere
As I said before, confirmation bias is the wrong charge. Arrogance is a better one. But it’s also just an opinion, and one of your opinions, at that. Sorry, that was snide.
Your arrogance is self evident.
In response to TheIPAResistance
According to google I am 51 k from the nearest of the Glasshouse mountains, which is more than double your original estimate and two and one half times you”10 ks at most” claim above. Just concede the point man, you have lost it
BlueThird
It’s hardly as if you’re the only person I respond to. But you post endlessly – often thousands or even tens of thousands of words in a day. Unless I change my interests I’m going to come across you from time to time. When I do, your arguments are invariably flawed – both logically and scientifically.
Your arrogance is breathtaking
And there is, unfortunately, a well-known glitch in human psychology that your posting style attempts to exploit (whether that’s consciously or unconsciously). People tend to assume – quite wrongly – that if someone is talking at great length, and in great detail, they probably know what they’re talking about.
I never think like that, I just enjoy having a good argument about topics I’m interested in
Your only significant rhetorical advantage – the terrible ubiquity you achieve, particularly by dissecting arguments and getting nearly every slice wrong, but refusing to accept that – only increases the importance of challenging what you attempt to pass off as reasonable argument, but is essentially dishonest.
How is it dishonest to argue for the positions I believe in? Because that is what I am doing here
You have a terrible case of confirmation bias there!
There are errors in your thinking here: in effect, you’re assuming that what I post amounts to the totality of my thoughts about you and those who respond to you, and that I think everyone who responds to you is intelligent and reasonable. But I don’t think anything of the sort.
I am making no such assumption here about your thoughts or the intelligence of my interlocutors. In fact I seldom even consider what sort of person has written the words I respond to. I read the comments and if what I read ticles my fancy I respond.
Quite obviously, there are large numbers of people responding to you in other threads who might reasonably be described as idiots. Equally, there are plenty of posters elsewhere (I’d include almost anyone repeatedly talking about the COALition or LIEberals, for example) who post drivel that has nothing to do with you. Invariably I simply ignore those people, largely because they’re not worth the time or effort*: collectively, they’re an irritation, but as individuals, they don’t have your terrible ubiquity; they aren’t clogging up the threads, and nor are they dressing their bias up as pseudo-science in the way that you do.
Clogging up threads? My oh my ,your arrogance knows no bounds does it?
To reiterate, I’m not saying that everyone who responds to you is automatically intelligent and reasonable; I’m only saying that at least a small handful are. The reality is that I was offering incomplete observations on behaviour (now expanded), rather than offering an argument towards any sort of conclusion, never mind a pre-formed conclusion. You might not like my observations, but confirmation bias is the wrong charge.
No confirmation bias is precisely the right charge because you have the arrogance to try to defend, at all costs, those who you find political affinity with against little old me. Its simply not your place to moderate any thread here and that is clearly what you are trying to do with your attacks on me.
John
Science is the new secular religion because of the way that it revered as an authority on all things , just as the the church used to be revered as an authority in all things. You may not like that but it is no less true
BlueThird
Like everyone else here, yourself included, I argue for the fun of it.
Obviously I enjoy the conversations that I have here with other people, but I’ve never enjoyed the exchanges I have with you. They’re purely about duty, and I think it’s pretty much the same for everyone else in this thread.
Why on earth do you feel duty bound to respond to me? there are literally thousands of other people you can choose to talk to other than me.
What I see is a group of intelligent, reasonable people holding their noses, gritting their teeth, and trying to unblock the overflowing sewer of misinformation that you’ve created.
You have a terrible case of confirmation bias there! You really do need to get out more!
In response to TheIPAResistance
TheIPAResistance
The fact we even give him the time of day is much more than he deserves from his little home in the Glasshouse Mountains.
You must be further away than you claim because I don’t live near the Glasshouse mountains even though I do have a good view of them from the top of my road.
58656e
As an atheist I long ago worked that religions exist for two main purposes, to provide comfort about a life after death because we are mortal creatures and to try to make a social template for a workable society and as I’m sure that you will agree that on the latter some do far better than others. The rise of science has provided much by way of understanding the workings of the world and to a lot of contemporary secular people do revere it in a very religious way. In days cone by it was a case of the laity being told to trust the priests because they had the ear of the almighty and now we are told to trust the white coated ones insteadno where is this more the case than in any discussion of “climate science” where original sin has been replaced by GHG sins real and imagined and like the gospel preachers of old we are told that if we don’t repent then we are going to see the destruction of the world. All the while some of the preachers like Al Gore get fat on fleecing the true believers or promoting ponzi schemes to to “trade emissions” or other “market mechanisms” to mitigate climate change.
Blue third
Do you feel better after that rant?
I’m not going to refute your rant line by line as I usually would Instead I will just point out a couple of salient facts, Firstly the AGW orthodoxy is a global level belief system and you and the other true believers are always shouting about just how strong its intellectual hegemony (did I hear a “97% consensus claim before??? Oh yes I did) is an it is that hegemony that I am arguing against. That vested interest It does not matter a jot to me what amounts of money you claim go here there or any where.
I think the only reasonable explanation for your position here (and on most other arguments) is that you’re the victim of internal psychodramas that completely undermine your ability to think rationally.
No its just that I am not a card carrying left-winger and I like a good argument . Maybe you need to get out of comfortable forums like this one where most of the people share your politics and learn to mix it with those who disagree with you.
58656e
Time poor so quick response
Its not there at present
It really is mate. And surely the time must … forget it.
I don’t buy your line of argument here because no matter what the physical theory you still need more than correlation.
[W]hy does it matter to you if I don’t have your faith in the AGW proposition? is your faith that shaky that one dissenting voice here is going to do you spiritual harm?
Oh my faith is strong Iain! 🙂 But it is not in climate science per se, but in science generally. It so strong that should the evidence speak otherwise I will gladly abandon any concern that our re-engineering of the atmosphere has the least impact on climate. (And while it is faith, it is not religious, there being no faith in supernatural agency, quite the opposite.)
Science is simply the new secular religion even though it does not contain reference to the supernatural or a specific deity n(its a bit like budism in that respect)
Why do I care? Two reasons. I hate to see another human suffering from such delusion, when there is no organic reason (psychosis) that they do so. And I care for the same reason I care about the public pronouncements of anti-vaxxers (or radiophobes) … the harm they do.
What harm do you think I do?
Now that does not mean I do not appreciate dissent. I’m not that straightforward. I would hardly concede that McIntyre’s skepticism has made a contribution to the science. Actually Richard Lindzen has probably contributed much more and my favourite skeptic must be Chris Landsea … he proved that he was right! But with all due respect Iain, you and I are not expanding the boundaries of human knowledge here. And specifically this is not informed skepticism that you are practising.
I see the glimmer of agreement here, namely this is a place where the essence is the enjoyment of argument and debate even though I disagree with you that my skepticism is not informed.
Have a good weekend m8.
Sure will, finishing of making a couple of kickbikes and doing an engine swap in my car as much fun as you can have in the shed with yer clothes on.
cont;
Have you actually read the paper read the paper(s) regarding consensus? I guess not so here are a few references.
James Lawrence Powell
http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html
Utter rubbish
Doran and Zimmerman (2009)
http://tigger.uic.edu/%7Epdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Shows error 404
Expert credibility in climate change
PNAS vol 107 no. 27 (William R. L. Anderegg), 12107–12109, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107The consensus project John Cook et al.
http://theconsensusproject.com/#sharePage
Love these numbers note the filtering process in play
The Consensus Project measured the level of consensus in published, peer-reviewed climate research that humans are causing global warming. In the most comprehensive analysis to date, we analysed 21 years worth of peer-reviewed papers on “global warming” or “global climate change”. Among the 12,465 papers, we identified over 4,014 abstracts authored by 10,188 scientists that stated a position on human-caused global warming. Among those 4,014 abstracts, 97.1% endorse the consensus. Among the 10,188 scientists, 98.4% endorse the consensus
They unreasonably subdivide the whole to acquire the 97% figure of the subset that are more in agreement with the AGW proposition. Its nonsense like this that make me so cynical of any resort to statistics to support a scientific proposition
….many of the climate activists are totalitarian Marxists who are using as a stalking horse to oppose capitalism…
This comment just about sums up your whole argument and I can see that your paranoia makes any appeal to reason a futile exercise.
It is only paranoia when what you believe is not true
4) Explain how the scientific process works.
You still have no idea. I don’t need to google it I know it pretty well.
See my citation of how the scientific method works above
PossumBilly
My response:
What an outlandish and absurd comment. You know as well as I do that science covers multitude of disciplines. Not every scientist studies climate, however such is the overwhelming cross discipline support for the AGW theory that, I repeat, not one scientific institute / university faculty that disputes that fact. All we have is your fallacious inference that, for example, there are proportionally fewer climate scientist to say astronomers the AGW theory is incorrect.
My point that seems to elude you is “institutions” paying lip service to AGW orthodoxy proves nothing and it is no guarantee that those in scientific disciplines other than climate science even have a considered opinion on the subject.
I have a science degree. I am not a climate scientist yet I do not make assumptions that those highly qualified in their field are incompetent to research, measure, analyse and report with scientific rigor.
I’m not a scientist or even a science graduate but I do very well understand that a whole tribe can believe something and they can all be in error. The AGW proposition makes a number assumptions that they simply can not prove (like the sensitivity of the climate to increases in CO2) Furious agreement simply does not falsify a hypothesis as you should understand
At what stage do you give a dentist the opportunity to do a quadruple bypass? Your logic is as twisted as it is transparent.
I am not as willing as you are to just defer to authority or assume that only thiose in the club should have an opinion on the subject.
You have the opportunity via the internet to read the peer reviewed papers, journals and other learned papers but you chose not to.
Sure and on occasion I have done so
3) Prove specific example of spruiking [sic] the AGW position where the data are inconsistent with statistical modeling and so distort the conclusion.
That is the problem,” statistical modeling” can be twisted to prove anything, I want to see the AGW proposition substantiated not by statistics but by the scientific method:
The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments. The steps of the scientific method are to: Ask a Question. Do Background Research. Construct a Hypothesis.
The point I am making here is that the study of climate is only a small fraction of all of the scientific study done on the planet, and as such even if all of those studying climate are in energetic agreement about the AGW proposition there are many more people in other scientific disciplines who are far from being committed to the idea of AGW. Yet proponents like you will insist repeatedly that “97%” of scientists (not just climate scientists) support the AGW proposition It is obviously an exaggeration to suggests that only 3% of every scientist on the planet questions the proposition but that is the usual MO. So do you get the point I am making here yet?
Yes of course it is, but you add nothing to the argument. Your argument is vacuous considering the multiple consensus projects that each add to the 97% conclusion.
THAT IS MY POINT ABOUT CLAIMS OF CONSENSUS!
Viridis
How much hotter and colder, wetter or dryer? Obviously you have recorded the data as you make such confident statements. How about sharing it here right now with us? That way you could easily prove your point instead of looking like a bit of an idiot.
I’ll tell you a couple of anecdotes to explain how I know the climate has been cyclic up here, about thirty years ago we were living in a place where we had to ford three creek crossings to get to our house at the time we had a Japanese fwd car and we spent about five years being regularly unable to leave or return to our house because we could not cross those fords, We then bought a Landrover which heralded an almost decade long drought That takes care of wet and dry variation. Like most people who live in one place for a while I can remember what the weather was like in each year that we have lived here. The last winter was rather mild and we did not use a heater at all the one before it less so.
MGEvans
That’s not the first time you’ve glibly confessed you don’t care because it doesn’t effect you.
For heavens sake lighten up man! neither you no I are really going to effected by any changes in the climate, unless we are going to be able to live for a very long time
This is the main feature of your style of argument, to put yourself completely outside of civilised norms and pretend you have a valid point.
“outside civilized norms”? Eyeroll!!!!
But your extreme selfishness automatically disqualifies you, you lose every time. But please, keep wasting your own time.
Tell me what you do in your life that really makes a difference to the climate. Have you for instance forsworn using jet air travel? Do you renew your technology whenever the new thing comes out even though your existing machines are still serviceable. do you repair or replace when thing in your house break or fail?
My comment about the beach being closer was a lighthearted joke
MGEvans
Iain_Hall vs the rising sea, the wide world and the stars above, he will never surrender, just keeps droning on until the sky falls down
Well i live on a mountain that is 400m above sea level which means that even if the sea were to rise 100m above its current level my place would be fine , heck it would just make the beach closer!
AllStBob
Woah! I am pretty sure I am not a “totalitarian Marxist”. I’ve worked in banking most of my life and have a deep belief that capitalism, despite its faults, is the best way forward for humanity.
I did not say that you in particular are a marxist Bob, that said glad to hear that you endorse capitalism though!
BlueThird
Over in Hall-World™, the first unstated rule is that whenever there’s a choice between two vested interests, the more powerful one is automatically right. The second rule is that you never admit to the first rule.
On this topic the more powerful vested interest is actually the one I am arguing against, namely on this occasion, the AGW orthodoxy
So he’ll always shift the argument onto the behaviour of the less powerful, just to waste your time and energy, and no matter how much intellectual dishonesty it involves on his part. The next stage is to dissect. On the face of it, this allows him to claim that there’s some sort of intellectual process in what he does, but again, it’s really about wasting your time and energy.
In this place the AGW orthodoxy is manifestly more powerful as it has been for many years
When he forwards an argument, the same mistakes in reasoning will be repeated time and again. Reasonably soon, we’ll get to the point where someone will note that his posts conclusively prove that he doesn’t understand science, or even logic, and he flatly states that he understands it well enough. By that time, there’s likely to be another argument going.
The same can be said of everyone who participates here because most are unwilling to shift their position. Maybe you need to understand that commenting in places like this one it is the journey rather than the destination that matters
Deflect, dissect, deny, repeat. You can see the process in any number of threads.
really and your back catalogue is so different?
In this case, while you’re arguing about the merits of science, and he tries to get you to engage with him in more and more detail, the larger, more powerful vested interest gets a free pass.
Once again I remind you that the more powerful vested interest here is the AGW orthodoxy which I am questioning.
Almost everyone else here can see that by far the larger potential for corruption comes from the fossil fuel industries rather than climate scientists, but that’s not how things go in Hall-World.
How so? “fossil fuel industries” do not rely on the public purse for their very existence the way that purveyors of the AGW orthodoxy clearly do.
Think of the school bully’s weediest friend, strutting alongside, chest puffed out, imagining all of that power is his, and you’ve got the basic psychology of it. Along with the freedom to feel genuinely sorry for him.
You imbue me with far more power than I, in all of my humility, even aspire to like everyone else here, yourself included, I argue for the fun of it.
58656e
Steve McIntyre does a fine job on debunking [Tamino]
You think?!
yes I do
and you offer no serious counter argument
Oh no, discussing the meaning of words involves … semantics!!!!!! Say it isn’t so Iain.
The claim I was referring to is this one:
An ‘alarmist’ is someone who exaggerates the dangers, not someone (like Tamino) who quantifies it.
If someone quantifies the ‘dangers is such a way as to magnify or over emphasizes them then that is by definition being an alarmist, the gentleman in question is heavily invested in the notion that we are in a climate crisis and his every word , graph and formulae is pressed into service to create a sense of urgent concern in his readers
Anyone who argues that the world is going to fry, as he does, is by definition an alarmist.
No Iain. The definition of alarmist is someone who exaggerates dangers e.g. so as to cause panic. When Tamino, for example, writes: “Our own sun, 5 billion years or so from now, will expand to red giant size and possibly turn into a Mira-type variable. It will get so large that it will engulf the earth and fry it,” he’s not being alarmist, he’s stating the facts to the best of our contemporary knowledge. Ergo it is possible to argue that “the world is going to fry” and not be an alarmist.
Now you are being silly he is seeking to cause urgent concern about climate change NOT the inevitable decay of our star. Correlation does not prove causation
Nor does it even imply it. OTOH, Causation implies correlation.
Check the links to see why you are wrong and why I said your claim made no sense
Thank you for providing us all with this insight into your level understanding of what correlation tests Iain.
Two seconds on google vindicated me
The “evidence” as you put it is simply not there
Surely the time must come when the evidence forces even you to face up to reality? Obviously that time is not yet.
Its not there at present , but why does it matter to you if I don’t have your faith in the AGW proposition? is your faith that shaky that one dissenting voice here is going to do you spiritual harm?
AllStBob
What makes me lack faith is largely who has been pushing this issue because so many of the climate activists are totalitarian Marxists who are using as a stalking horse to oppose capitalism, Furtehr to that we have had so much hyperbole form the likes of Flannery Mann and Gore et al that its hard to take any of the AGW proponents seriously. but as you suggest time will tell and all we can hope for is that none of the futile climate measures like Shorten’s new carbon tax get up and hopefully the government will drop their ‘direct action policy too.
AllStBob
I am sorry ( I am a statistician) but that statement is just nonsense, the predictive value of trends is entirely within the context of the system for which they are measured.
Well as statistician you must appreciate that if your data set is small (as ours is on climate because it only covers a little more than a century) then that limits its value as a predictive tool
In this case there is a well understood physical cause for the trend upwards in average temperatures, the theory predicts an increase and that is what we see. All you are really saying is: “I don’t believe it”.
Sadly you are right I don’t have your faith in the Climate religion.
Actually MGEvans Its just little old me and I am answering in between other chores at home
yashers
The argument for it being natural variation is well supported by the times in our history when it has been warmer than it is now , like in the time of the Romans and in the middle ages at neither time was there the mass burning of fossil fuels that is cited as the “cause” of the current warming.
But hang on – in all your other posts you dismiss comments based on the fact we don’t have accurate records for temperature that go back much beyond a 100 years. Yet you’re now talking about how warm the world was 2000 years ago. Make up your mind.
You are right that I have questioned the idea that the last few weeks have been unprecedented or truly exceptional on the basis that or record does not go back far enough. But suggesting that the anecdotal evidence form history is that the climate was warmer in the past is not a contradiction because I am talking about the general rather than the specifics of any particular month.
That the climate is changing is uncontested by me, its the endless desire to blame humanity that I disagree with.
OK, so even if it’s not humans, say it is just natural variation, what exactly is the issue with researching and investing in cleaner technologies, reducing waste, recycling more, stopping deforestation and all the other myriad ideas?
(I have removed “halving CO2 emissions, ” from your list here)
Absolutely nothing and I try to do all of those things in my low impact lifestyle, further you won’t find me arguing against better and more efficient energy use anywhere.
If you reply saying you don’t have an issue with any of this and that it’s purely the fact you don’t like the opinion that humanity is having an impact on climate change, well that seems petty.
Its not petty its at the very heart of the issue because the misanthropy at the heart of the AGW proposition is the problem.
Whilst on the subject of petty, please learn the difference between its and it’s.
No one likes the spelling police, especially on things as trivial as that.
In response to TheIPAResistance
TheIPAResistance
More bullshit from IH. I live within 25km of him and the weather is not running anywhere near average. And this:
Really that close, then we should do coffee sometime I’m sure it would be an interesting chat. That said I have lived here for nearly thirty years and and I have noticed the local cycles which seem pretty average to me
This man is deluded and should be ignored as a troll. The climate echoed can be traced for at least 600,000 years using ice bubbles. Game over, pal.
You do know that you can’t accurately measure temperature from ice bubbles don’t you? Proxies of all kinds at best give you a very rough idea of the prevailing climate and all that you can tell from ice burbles is atmospheric composition, not temperature.
Stereophonic
That would be when humanity dies off from extreme droughts?
Careful your bum doesn’t get burnt with you head buried that far in the sand.
No it would be when we have a cold year again as will happen eventually just as it has happened before . Its the same with our occasional flood events like in 74 and more recently here in Queensland these things come around when they are due.
PossumBilly
I refer to your comment…
“No you may have the self serving global climate science community spruiking the AGW proposition but they do not speak for all on the planet who do science”
What this article is about is not the short term variations in climatic conditions but longer climatic changes. This is not difficult to grasp.
I have not argued otherwise
However what is typical of anything that does not fit a preconceived idea. the misguided, misleading and ‘politically driven’ are disingenuous. The conflation of two issues is a convenient tactic of obfuscation.
Which is relevant how precisely?
Science knows and understands long term variations and it also know and understand the overlying influences of AGW. This is taken into account. Just take the time to look it up
There is no monolith called science that does anything of the sort.
The specific invocation of science within your argument is not political. You invert the scientific argument which by own admission you are ‘unqualified to make’ and as far as I can see you do not understand.
No I go to first principles, if the period for which you have data is too short (as is our instrumental temperature observations at only a little more than 100 years) then its rather a stretch to say that any data point (like our recent April temperatures) are truly significant
You are yet to answer my question which I will now rephrase so that you might understand it. I have decomposed it into bite size questions so not to confuse you. (Examples and references are needed, do not use not political rhetoric or meaningless slogans. In other words base your answers on fact.)
yawn!
1) Who are the people on the planet that ‘do science’ ( I assume you mean ‘real’ science’ Please define them, their field and competence.
For the sake of this argument shall we say anyone who has science degree? And of that cohort only a very small percentage study the climate
2) Who are the scientists you refer to that at not ‘real scientists’ and explain why they are not part of the mainstream science community. In other words explain the difference between 1) and 2).
That makes no sense I do not classify “scientists” as “real” or “non real”
3) Prove specific example of spruiking [sic] the AGW position where the data are inconsistent with statistical modeling and so distort the conclusion.
The point I am making here is that the study of climate is only a small fraction of all of the scientific study done on the planet, and as such even if all of those studying climate are in energetic agreement about the AGW proposition there are many more people in other scientific disciplines who are far from being committed to the idea of AGW. Yet proponents like you will insist repeatedly that “97%” of scientists (not just climate scientists) support the AGW proposition It is obviously an exaggeration to suggests that only 3% of every scientist on the planet questions the proposition but that is the usual MO. So do you get the point I am making here yet?
4) Explain how the scientific process works.
Google the scientific methodI believe that you have little concern for the facts neither do you care about science.
Remember there is no Scientific institution on this planet that disputes the existence of AGW. None, zilch, nein …. Interesting isn’t it?
Really Even those from disciplines other than climate science? Prove this claim please. because no theory has that amount of support from diverse disciplines
What you have is a ‘dead parrot’, good luck with your search for ignorance.
look in the mirror mate
58656e
Citing that nutty alarmist Tanimo does you no favours BTW!!
Desperately labeling Tamino “nutty alarmist,” simply because he can actually show us the maths, does you no favours Iain.
Steve McIntyre does a fine job on debunking this hero of yours
An ‘alarmist’ is someone who exaggerates the dangers, not someone (like Tamino) who quantifies it.
That is semantic hair splitting at best
Unlike describing you as a ‘denier,’ because you actually fit the strict denotation of that word –someone who denies established historical or scientific “facts”*
Its not appropriate because I don’t deny “historical or scientific “facts”” I just question an hypothesis about the nature of our climate that is unable to be tested by the scientific method
–calling Tamino an ‘alarmist’ is mere name calling. It’s not symmetrical.
Anyone who argues that the world is going to fry, as he does, is by definition an alarmist.
[*inasmuch as the word ‘fact’ is capable of denoting the best available science]
The ‘best available science” on “climate change” does not meet the definition of a “fact”
You do yourself no favours either Iain, by having invested so very much of your ego in defending the counter-factual position. Look how much jazz you are posting on this one thread alone! For your own sake you need to slow down. The only thing you are convincing people of is that you are, as you put it, “nutty.”
I am by no means the most prolific poster at COF and in any event I enjoy the journey of the argument
Surely the time must come when the evidence forces even you to face up to reality? Obviously that time is not yet.
The “evidence” as you put it is simply not there and even if it were the proposed cure is not possible because of global politics.
Oh, I couldn’t resist one last thing …
Correlation does not prove causation
Nor does it even imply it. OTOH, Causation implies correlation.
That makes no sense
yashers
Okay, there is a chance it could be natural variation, however it is highly unlikely. All of the scientific research that has been conducted points to the fact that climate change is happening, and at a worryingly fast rate.
On the contrary I think that its more likely than the tiny (in the overall scheme of things ) increase in the concentration of a trace gas is going to chnage the whole climate.
The rapid warming we’ve seen over the past 50 years is inline with how the climate should respond to a steep rise in greenhouse gases (which humans are largely responsible for).
The argument for it being natural variation is well supported by the times in our history when it has been warmer than it is now , like in the time of the Romans and in the middle ages at neither time was there the mass burning of fossil fuels that is cited as the “cause” of the current warming.
The rise in temperature is also inconsistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should respond to natural variation.
Sorry but that makes no logical sense
I don’t believe natural variation to be a sound argument for what’s happening.
Well I think the evidence suggests that it is (as per what I said above about other periods in pre-industrial history that were as warm or warmer than now
I also don’t understand why you are so against the idea that climate change is happening and the detrimental affect it will have? Do you just like being a contrarian?
That the climate is changing is uncontested by me, its the endless desire to blame humanity that I disagree with.
PeaBea
We don’t need to assume how CO2 works, we already know. This is established physics.
Really then why is there no finite number for climate sensitivity to Co2 increases?
And as for the idea of a big conspiracy to keep climate jobs, you should talk to scientists one day. Most are in their field because of passion and interest, money rates very low in terms of motivation.
Take away the funding and see how many continue to do the same work.
And studying how our climate and global systems work is an end in itself for the majority of scientists, so they’d be interested with or without climate change.
Scholars in the middle ages used to say the same thing about their speculations about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin
Finally, scientists tend to have big egos. Any scientist would love to make a discovery that turns scientific understanding on its head. As such there’s more personal and financial motivation and gain possible in disproving climate change than supporting it.
They also have a very strong herd instinct and a desire to find a place in the existing academic pecking order which mitigates against then being at all heterodox in their thinking.
PeaBea
Satellites and the surface temperature record are measuring related but different things. If you claim to read a lot and be educated about this topic you should know that.
I know that my point is however unaffected because what I am trying to point out that each of them is more accurate than a Proxy when it comes to measuring temperature and climate
AllStBob
I am guessing you don’t have any actual data but you can go to this website and find the temperature record for the nearest weather station.
I have no doubt that this has been a warm April but I really don’t think that is extraordinary enough to panic about the end of life as we know it
And then plot, for example, the average maximum temperature for April. See if the numbers are generally rising and if previous peaks correspond to your recollection.
The temperature record only goes back for 100 yeas in this country if the record went back further I expect that we would find other instances when it is as hot in April as it has been this year.
I don’t think this proves anything about global warming as space averaging smooths out the variability but not the trend, so just using a single local temperature record it might indeed be hard to spot the trend.
“Trends” really have very weak predictive value and its really only in retrospect that we can see what has truly been happening with the climate.
In response to NickThiwerspoon
NickThiwerspoon
Citing that nutty alarmist Tanimo does you no favours BTW!!!
As opposed to listening to your facts-free diatribes?
A diatribe is by definition a lengthy epistle, where as my comments are more succinct, That said Steve McIntyre does a good job of pointing out why Tanimo is as I describe him.
Niall Connolly
‘More likely’ it is natural variation? How so? (what is the evidence for your assertion of ‘likelihood’? How many coins tossed heads or tails in a row is that?
We have a reasonably accurate instrumental record that is about a century long and it shows quite a large variation in our weather over that time. so its reasonable to assume that the variations will be natural given the current data set
And as for my other point, prior to the Industrial Revolution atmospheric CO2 was stable at about 270/280 ppm for at least 800,000 years according to well established and scientifically accepted data.
Correlation does not prove causation
Are you a ‘religious’ denier or a ‘just because’ denier?
I am neither because I do not deny the changeability of our climate. I just accept things as they come and don’t share your hubris in thinking that humanity can act together at a global level for long enough to control the climate (assuming the assumptions about the effect of an increased Co2 concentration are correct). As a species we are simply not co-operative enough for that.
In response to markmywords1963
markmywords1963
is that really your logic? Every little bit makes a difference and cumulatively it all adds up. How old are you?
Only if there is an inevitable global take up of emission reductions which simply is not going to happen. so our efforts will make no difference even if we ceased to emit any co2 at all
Helicalgroove
Why do you think that I endorse direct action?
I don’t care whether you do or not. The fact is that almost everybody on this sit is questioning authority in the form of government policy.
But you avoid my point that almost everyone here does not question the authority of the climate gurus.
If consensus is not valid for those like me who question the AGW proposition then why should it be valid to claim that the consensus from a different cohort proves the validity of that same proposition?
In response to Erik Frederiksen
Has it occurred to you the problem in India is that the population far exceeds the carrying capacity of the land much more than its the climate?
PossumBilly
In defence of AGW denial runs a fatuous line that it’s the ‘self serving scientists’, it’s ‘grab for more funding’ or it’s a commie plot for world domination. A level of paranoia , with an associated objectivity disconnect and typically insubstantial evidence beyond ‘hearsay’ and ‘political dogma’.
So what would the individuals in the AGW industry do without a dire future to warn against?
It is impossible to discuss any scientific principles or research with people who are only able to recite the’ Pavlovan’ mantra.
This is not a scientific discussion forum, its a forum about politics so if you can explain how the prescriptions of the AGW proposition can be adequately manifested at a global level then the theories of the proposition may be relevant but if you can’t explain how that cure can be made to happen politically then how right or wrong the underlying theory is simply becomes a moot point.
Now , if you have any proof that the science is incorrect then address it in a mature, logical and clearly rationed argument such that might be taken seriously.
I was unaware that arguments on this subject had to be rationed
Produced a paper of such conviction that the scientific community sits up and takes notice. The problem is that you cannot , never have been, or will able to do so in the future.
Your sentence construction needs work Billy, that said I have never claimed to be a scientist, but then again the boy who pointed out the Emperor’s nakedness was not a qualified fashion expert either
One question that always exposes the insincerity around the science;, is ‘define explicitly and in scientific terms the level evidence that you would personally satisfy the AGW theory?
When the AGW proposition can be demonstrated by the scientific method I will accept it. Suppositions based on faulty or unsubstantiated assumptions is all that we have at present
B
eyond a scientifically defined baseline everything else is irrelevant.
What is that supposed to mean?
.
You statement effectively says ‘but everything changes’ a dishonest basis to your argument, it means absolutely nothing.
Change is actually the only certainty
If that is all you have to offer you might find it more fruitful doing some serious research. Education is a wonderful thing. But knowledge evidence and history are not on your side.
Really? well only time will tell
Helicalgroove
Oh for the ethos of the sixties( when I was growing up) that argued that we should question authority , now the left go to the barricades mindlessly defending the current orthodoxy. What happened to your independent minds?
I question whether you actually have gown up.
After a recent birthday my bank tells me I am now a “senior customer” so that is as grown up as it gets I suppose ;o)
As for questioning authority, what do you call the people who make the laws, who visited this unworkable “Direct Action” on us, who hold the reins of government and therefore set climate policy?
Whay do you think that I endorse direct action? While I do think it is a lesser evil that the Labor schemes past and present I still think that its a waste of money
Go back to the 60s and do some more maturing.
Sorry, my Tardis is in for a service at present so time travel is off the agenda.
TheotherClaw
Ian is the type of chap who forms an opinion and then goes looking for disaffected crackpots to support his “hunch”.
No that is not how I work at all
The conspiracy theory about the great majority of scientists who are actually qualified to comment on this issue, being involved in some sort of group think or worse, fraud, is a disgrace.
Really? The fact that those in the climate change industry would be unemployed should the AGW proposition collapse has nothing to do with their dire predictions I suppose?
No matter how true the AGW proposition may be there will be almost no chance that they can get up the claimed cure of a massive reduction in CO2 emissions in the sort of time frame they say is necessary so we are far better served by planning to adapat if and when we have to than wasting effort and energy trying to get up futile “mitigation” schemes.
witness67
‘Natural variation’ which has seen hot weather records consistently broken as opposed to cold weather records – its been a while since I have seen any of those broken. That would signify a warming trend, would it not?
Then the period of your observations is simply not long enough
If it was just ‘natural variation’, one would expect roughly equal numbers of hot and cold weather records broken.
Given time they will be the instrumental observations only go back about a century in this country and given the evidence that the climate varitations run in longer cycles than 100 years we need a far more extensive record to call upon
I think you need to educate yourself a bit more on climate science – read some more articles and improve yourself.
I have read plenty on the subject.
TheotherClaw
Natural variation can be used to explain you.
Sure
Climate change however shows persistence outside anticipated variation.
That is nonsense, variation can not be predicted it can only be observed.
Statistically were heading for ruin unless we make some changes.
None of the proposed panaceas have any chance of making the slightest bit of difference to the global climate.
Happily the changes we need to make, align with a technological improvement and may enliven a fast stagnating economy. So get on board and quit your whining.
None of them are politically possible so it does not matter what the theories claim could happen on way way or another.
Alpo88
Hey, Iain, how have you calibrated your personal “climatevariometer”?… Do you get your “climatevariometer” annually serviced?…
Yes and yes
Surely the records from your “climatevariometer” are more recent than the instrumental records going back to the 19th century,
In this country the instrumental records do not really go back much before the beginning of the 20th century
and the use of proxys that extend our window to thousands of years!….
Proxies are actually orders of magnitude less accurate than the instrumental record which is itself orders of magnitude less accurate than global satellite observations that only began in the last quarter of the last century. The further back in time that you look the less accurate the picture we have of the global climate. Or don’t you understand that?
Remember: learn first and blog later, never do the opposite!
That is what I have been doing for years
AllStBob
Apparently the length of time you have been living here is long enough to make a definitive claim that it is due to natural variation but not long enough to determine if a record has been broken or not.
I have lived in SE Queensland since 1963 and since coming here I have seen both hotter and colder wetter and dryer weather.
Interesting that you talk about how long we need to make observations for something to be a record because it brings to mind the fact that we have only had a detailed instrumental observations for about the last century which means that any “record” is not covering any of the experience before we began making those observations. In geological/ climate terms a century is simply not a long enough time frame to claim that our current experience is at all unprecedented or unusual.
Stereophonic
We used to get frosts for a couple of months north of Brisbane in 1994. Now we don’t see them at all.
If you wait long enough you will see them again, that is how natural variation works
Niall Connolly
So is no month below the 20th century average since February 1985 ‘natural variation’?
Most likely it isAnd atmospheric CO2 at 400ppm higher than it has been in 800,000 years??
Where do you get that claim from?
In response to NickThiwerspoon
NickThiwerspoon
I live here. You don’t. I see the effects of a warmer climate every year. You don’t. And meanwhile global temps continue to rise.
I’ve lived in Queensland since 1963 Nick and in that time I’ve experienced hotter and colder years this one is not that far out of the normal range. And as I said our instrumental record does not go back that far (little more than a century) and anecdotal evidence of the climate only goes back to 1788 in this country.
Citing that nutty alarmist Tanimo does you no favours BTW!!!
Michael_GPF
I’d rather accept the evidence of the world’s scientists, as have the world’s governments have, than the broken down reactionary hacks who merely peddle anti-left political spite on this topic.
Oh for the ethos of the sixties( when I was growing up) that argued that we should question authority , now the left go to the barricades mindlessly defending the current orthodoxy. What happened to your independent minds?
Mikes005
OK, I’ll reply to the troll this once: Look, son – you have the entire – *entire* – global scientific community with cumulative expertise running into the centuries saying the world is warming and point to exactly why after a collective millions of hours of research.
No you may have the self serving global climate science community spruiking the AGW proposition but they do not speak for all on the planet who do science.
And then we have you, who just makes shit up.
No I don’t
Please, shut your pie hole. No one cares about your opinions when facts are drowning you out.
You care enough to denounce me though don’t you?
In response to NickThiwerspoon
Its called “natural variation Nick and its clear after living here for most of my life that the range of variation in this country has always been quite high and thsi recent moth is actually no exception. Further more the record that is claimed to have been broken here does not go back far enough to be that definitive anyway
Iain Hall's SANDPIT 