You don’t appreciate the difference between a liar and a bullshitter written about in the article.
The distinction drawn in the article is actually the bovine excrement
A liar wants his audience to believe what he says; a bullshitter doesn’t care, as long as he gets what he wants.
But it’s a two way relationship the naive the gullible willfully play the willing dupes.
That is a nonsense distinction because a liar also has things that he wants to achieve through his dishonesty, even if its only that he will be approved of.
He also confesses when caught – and as such is of a less dangerous stripe than Donald Trump,
The serial bullshitter Trump will mock the disabled and then deny it. He has enough cunning to see that the willing dupes will back him. He doesn’t know why all he knows is it works.
I am endlessly bemused by the politically correct who will put up with anything form someone because they are lower down in the “oppression hierarchy” than they are. Trump simply is much more honest than those from the lily-livered left. And he certainly does know why that resonates with his supporters they too are sick of the bullshit of “political correctness” and the cultural nonsense of the left’s oppression Olympics.
What threat does Trump pose? I’m honestly asking – what has he “threatened”?
Disingenuous those are two entirely different questions. Let’s start with the first the leader of any movement facilitates the conditions for what kind of country he or she wants so when Trump offers to pay the legal bills of people who assault protestors he is providing the conditions which increases violence that’s a posed threat which will only increase if he becomes president. Imagine the full state apparatus of the most powerful country in the world under his control.
Almost without exception it has been the Anti trump “protestors” who have caused the violence by exceeding what we would consider to be “peaceful protest” The internet is full of examples of them assaulting Trump supporters or attempting to disrupt Trump events
Or the destabilising rhetoric on NATO in a part of the world that has rising tensions his answer is to jack up that tension by threatening to pull out of NATO another posed threat.
NATO exists because of the Soviet Union had control of eastern Europe and now its reason for being is LONG past.
If you want actual threats there are plenty from stating he would like to punch a protestor in the face. To threatening private sponsors who use their money against him: see here. To threats about sending Hilary Clinton to prison to threatening to expose Ted Cruz’s wife secrets for political gain.
Saying you want to punch a pest in the face is a long way from the fact the fact that so many of those protestors are violent and disruptive. And being candid about how you feel about financial supporters of your opponents is just being honest because its always been the way of the world anyway.
Trump has shown a remarkable thin skin to anyone who opposes him. Such a man if given access to the levers of power would it seems be more than happy to use them against real and imagined enemies.
No the man just calls a spade a spade and his supporters love him for his candor. In fact they find his refusal to use euphemisms band the usual bullshit of political correctness to be a great virtue.I’m an Aussie so I don;t get a vote in the US so I watch the election process there with some wry amusement and my conclusion is that Trump is likely to win the presidency, mostly because he is motivating a whole lot of folk to vote who would otherwise stay home. Hillery on the other hand has only the contents of her underpants as he major selling point and I don’t think it will be enough when that November day comes around.
Yes I agree, My book selection, given the huge choice is more often based upon the style of the author which can be concerned by reading the opening and secondly I look at the plot synopsis on back cover/flyleaf. The very last thing that I even care about is the content of the author’s underpants.
Why should it be surprising when the majority of books published have been authored by men? It therefore follows that the majority of works that are considered great are also going to have been authored by men there fore it is entirely reasonable that the school curriculum which should be choosing works that are considered most culturally important is going to choose a majority of work by male authors.
I overall agree with your comment but just want to add one more point the article says:
Although we haven’t done a corresponding study in Australia since 2006, when reading was found as a favourite activity of 73% of women compared with 50% of men, “women are the biggest book buyers” is a refrain I hear often from writers, booksellers and publishers.
Which would suggest that women are actually choosing to by male authored books more than ones written by women.
Personally I am what would be described as an “avid reader” and the female authors that resonate with me are the ones who avoid too much of the interior dialog that seems to be the focus of female authors, the over emphasis on their protagonists feelings etc. I’m reading a Kathy Reichs novel at present and its a jolly good yarn. In fact I would happily choose her above other authors in that genre because I know she delivers a good and engaging story.
Which brings me to the point you touched on about there being no breakdown by genre is this article, I too would be very interested to see the wash up of that sort of analysis.
For a “sugar tax” to be effective it would have to be at a level high enough to change behavior, if it is lower than the behavior changing threshold all that it would do is extract more revenue from the public.
Secondly it is only a minority who have issues with obesity and other related diseases so it is simply not moral to financially punish the entire population for the sins of a few individuals.
Finally I use the term social engineering not create alarm but to describe the reality of the situation.
“Knows nothing the wide range of health effects and assumes it’s just diabetes and fat people…
… Decides to poo-poo it anyway”.
On the contrary I watched my late mother struggle with type 2 diabetes for years, also saw first hand the horrible ulcer that eventually cost her a leg in the end. In the same vein as the family shopper and cook I am very aware of the value of making good eating choices about its about individual autonomy and agency over meddling and social engineering.
At least you are consistently dismissive of empirically based scientific evidence and any knock-on effects to an economic macrocosm.
Its about avoiding the disingenuous sanctimony in what is simply an unjustified tax grab.
So that’s something I guess….
You guessed wrong, again
This is just more sanctimonious social engineering clap trap, It seems obvious to me that this is just the desperate attempt to replace the declining revenue from cigarettes with yet another :”sin ” tax. What is next? pictures of diabetic ulcers on soft drink cans?
Given the fact taht we in this country produce less than 2% of global emissions how precisely do you think we could effect a meaningful change to the emissions of the rest of the world?
By all means lets critique inaction on water quality and agricultural run off because that is something that we can and should change but to pretend that we can alter something that requires (impossible to achieve) global level action is simply delusional.
How dare you ever run an air conditioner Wal!
Surely you should just be enduring the heat as an act of penance to Gaia for the climate sins of humanity!
Heck this unbeliever uses neither heating no cooling appliances in his house no matter how hot or cold it gets.
The problem with the Malaysian solution was that it was such a bad deal for us to take more from their camps than we would be sending there.
What you have to realize is that the people in destination countries will no longer accept the idea that they have to keep welcoming an endless stream of mendicants.
Ideology “is quite simply a word that describes a system of belief that anyone who has thought out the way they see the world has such a system of belief, even you.”
It is not necessary to have a system of belief to think out the way you see the world. My view of the world is based on evidence and rationalism, not belief.
What you describe is still a system of belief!
I have no problems communicating what I know.
I beg to differ…
You have problems in communicating about climatology as you don’t know enough about the subject.
LOL says the guy who won’t lay out the evidence that convinced him that the AGW theory is correct!
As C.P. Snow noted many humanity graduates simply do not know enough about science and you are a prime example of this ignorance.
I had never heard of this so I looked it up and here is the relevant quote:
A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s?
I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question — such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, Can you read? — not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their neolithic ancestors would have had.
Now I am familiar with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. and I understand Mass and acceleration as well (being a car builder) so I would actually argue that CP snow might have had an argument in the mid fifties when he made the speech but its less valid today
Having a politician in the family, I am well aware of the importance of persuasive speeches in the democratic process but also well aware of the importance that agenda being pushed is based on evidence and reality. Effective politicians access the advice of the best scientists in their field to develop an agenda worth persuading or convincing people of.
You still need to let go of your erroneous preconceptions about what constitutes “reality” and for that matter “evidence” as well.
I’ve corrected your wacky sentence structure too.
Typos don’t count as mortal sin Wal ;o)
I note that the definition of bullshit that you provided includes “untrue talk or writing” which concurs with my statement that bullshit is “something which is not true. Were you trying to make a point there.
Is this better? Science is the best way of understanding, both subjectively and objectively, the reality of what is.
It could be OK but then again its actually quite a religious sounding position!
Your definition of orthodoxy uses theory in the sense that it is used in the humanities. Scientific theories are something else where orthodoxy does not apply.
Utter nonsense! there is simply no distinction between using the term orthodoxy in the sciences or the humanities.
Your humanities education is showing. C. P. Snow is rolling in his grave yet again.
I thought that you don’t accept the existance of an afterlife? How can anyone who is dead roll in their grave? (sarc)
Why should I provide you with the key arguments that have convinced me and 97% of other scientists in this field that the anthropogenic global warming theory is correct when it’s already been done by others but you haven’t read their papers or even the popular books for those of low scientific literacy?
I’m thinking that you are obfuscating here because you know that its not something that you can do as easily as you have been implying, even though you love to big up your own science background
To determine if the bat you revived was M. australis not M. schreibersii you would need to make some experimental measurements of the animal concerned to know which species you were really dealing with.
Frankly it does not matter one way or another at this point in time.
I have seen the experimental evidence of the existence of anthropogenic global warming as I have read the scientific papers detailing the experiments that show the existence of this process.
Well then it should be a lay down misere for you to cite that evidence to me
but you are still squibing it instead.
You can do the same and don’t need me to hold your hand through this library research.
I am trying to defer to you claimed expertise here by giving you the opportunity to explain how you came to accept the theory as valid Your continued prevarication makes me think that yours is actually a position based on faith which is why you won’t cite your evidence.
My acceptance of the existence of these processes is based on the evidence provided in these papers and the scientific reasoning expounded by the authors. There is no faith involved.
If you can’t list those papers why should I think that they are why you believe?
You too can find out about the real world by reading the scientific literature or if that’s too hard the popular books such as the one I recommended previously. I also recommend learning about protein synthesis in ribosomes, a process with ramifications way beyond sausages.
Still spruiking Flanery ?
Because Ed and I went out with the same girl you somehow come to the erroneous realisation that I’m a woman. To paraphrase the Talking Heads, you’ve stopped making sense.
You are a man? OK, apologies for the error.
I haven’t avoided Al Gore’s movie but as with many other movies I haven’t got around to seeing it. If there are statements in the movie about the science that you claim are hyperbole and exaggeration, tell me what they are.
It has been one of the seminal icons of the propagation of the AGW theory and you haven’t seen it? Well take the time to watch it and then get back to me. Please!
My daughter went to Copenhagen. I realize this more than most. But scientists and effective moderate politicians are no stranger to tasks which are hard at many levels. That something is difficult or hard to do doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
You can’t honestly tell me that you think it can be don though can you? Come on be honest here!
Neither you nor I not need faith to know that something is achievable. The evidence of recent human history shows that agreements can be achieved as happened recently in Paris.
What did the Paris conference actually achieve in REAL terms? and excess of platitudes and empty promises
I note that you reproduce my earlier posts or sections thereof with no clear demarcation between what I said and what you are saying.
NO I use the “blockquote” facility and it clearly differentiates the quoted text on my PC screen presenting it in a slightly different shade of Grey if you are viewing on a phone that may be less clear though.
To claim that per capita emissions are irrelevant as you do is to lose contact with the reality that people produce net greenhouse emissions. Total emissions of any group of people is a function of their per capita emissions multiplied by the number of people.
Sure I understand that But. and its the important point, the problem is claimed to be the total of the emissions so a per capita measure is irrelevant to the end goal
All counties contribute to the total world net carbon emissions no matter how small or how large their population. Some such as Australia punch above their weight.
Its still all about the totals Wal
China is the world’s biggest emitter of net carbon emissions but it’s also the worlds biggest country.
China’s per capita emissions are similar to those of the European Union. India’s population is nearing that of China but their per capita emissions are much lower.
You can’t show show me when, where or how its been tested can you.
There not the room to show you all of that here but I have already referred you to one popular book on the subject and the copious scientific literature on the subject is not hard to find. You only yourself to blame for your lack of knowledge.
I’ll narrow the task a bit for you Wal How about you explain to me how it could have been warmer than it is now during the medieval Warm period and the time of the Roman empire even though the CO2 concentrations were apparantly so much lower than they are now.
If Lomberg bases his knowledge of AGW or anthropogenic global warming on belief it’s not surprising that his academic career is so lacklustre.
He also lacks the scientific, engineering and economic skills to assess the viability of current means of effectively reducing net carbon emissions.
You would have to ask him why he accepts the AGW theory and as I understand it he is an economist.
I have recommended a number of times that you research and read the copious readily available scientific literature on climatology, global warming and climate change. You have not done this but instead expect me to, within the the word limits applied to posts on this forum, provide you with a potted summary.
Which is not unreasonable in any way
I’m not here to spoon feed you even if such a task could be done within that word limit.
Well why are so afraid to even try?
Other scientists have already published popular accounts of the science of global warming accessible to those such as yourself with relatively low levels of scientific literacy.
Well that should mean that someone such as yourself should eb able to do so as well
One local example is the book entitled “The Weather Makers” by eminent Australian scientist Tim Flannery.
Pardon me while I have a laughing fit!!! He is not actually even a “climate scientist” is he?
“YOU are the one USING ‘ideology only as a disparagement which is very clearly a perjorative..”
You are deluded in that you see disparagement, admonishment and perjorative within what is a perfectly civilised and rational, rigorous and robust argument.
Like a lot of people you think that “ideology” is something that only thise you consider to be extreme have. It is quite simply a word that describes a a system of belief and anyone who has thought out the way they see the world has such a system of belief, even you.
Elsewhere you said you like a good argument. Why haven’t you addressed my repeated criticism of ideology per se?
Because one can not actually have a criticism of “ideology per se” You can certainly have criticisms of particular ideologies, like Marxism or Islam or the ideology of the ALP or the LNP
“You need to read the definition” (of rhetoric) “I posted again Wal.”
The definition of rhetoric that you provided makes no mention of relevance to my criticism of your use of belief in suggesting erroneously that there are only two types of rhetoric and that rhetoric is not based on evidence and hence reality.
That makes NO sense at all Wal
Your comment above about two types of reality sounds like something you learnt in a Micky Mouse communications course.
If there is one failing of science graduates it is that they often have severe weaknesses as communicators. That said my understanding comes more from understanding the role that persuasion plays in democratic politics. You should read more of the Bard or listen to some of the great speeches from history. That is where you will see examples of some very effective rhetoric. Have you ever heard any of Kennedy’s speeches? Or Martin Luther KIng’s “I have a dream speech? How about Churchill’s “fight them on the beaches” address to the British people when it looked like The Nazi’s would invade?
“You post enough confus(ed) sentences”.
The confusion is all yours.
Yes thanks to your some times wacky sentence structure!
“In the local parlance to spread bullshit is to lie and deceive”.
Bullshit is something that is not true. Whether this is because you have lied and deceived, I don’t know. It’s not true because it’s not based on evidence and hence is divorced from reality.
stupid or untrue talk or writing; nonsense.
verb: bullshit; 3rd person present: bullshits; past tense: bullshitted; past participle: bullshitted; gerund or present participle: bullshitting
talk nonsense to (someone) in an attempt to deceive them.
Science is the best way to understand the reality of what is both objectively and subjectively.
objectively and subjectively.what? You need to add more to this sentence for it to make any sense at all.
Science also has great practical utility in understanding and dealing with welding, climate change, biodiversity and epidemiology.
Accepting the validity of a scientific theory is based on the evidence gathered by means of numerous experiments. This has nothing to do with orthodoxy which is a term associated with religion and some parts of the humanities. Science is by nature of it processes unorthodox.
That is nonsense this is the definition I am using:
noun: orthodoxy; plural noun: orthodoxies
authorized or generally accepted theory, doctrine, or practice.
synonyms: doctrine, belief, conviction, creed, dogma, credo, theory, view, idea, tenet, teaching, practice, received wisdom, article of faith
“the prevailing aesthetic orthodoxies”
Telling you to reads the readily available scientific literature on global warming, climate change and climatology in general is by no means a cop out. Why haven’t you done it already if you are so interested in the topic.? You’re the one copping out by not reading the literature.
I have essentially asked you to provide the key arguments s that convince you that the AGW theory is correct and you repeatedly squib it as you do again here
As for proof, what is your proof for the existence of Miniopteris australis?
Well I had one get it self caught in a water bucket in my house a few years ago and I had to warm it in my hands to stop it from dying from hypothermia. Utterly amazing experience.
What is your proof for the existence of the force of gravity?
I can see its effect every day
What is your proof for the existence of protein synthesis at ribosomes?
Why do I need to know that? will the process stop If I can’t prove it works? I don’t think so.
What is your proof for the existence of global greenhouse warming? Is the fourth question different from the preceding three other questions?
That is the question you keep avoiding answering
If you want to know the names of the null hypotheses involved in the many experiments unraveling the reality global warming, climate change and its causes, you will have to read the scientific literature yourself. It will do you good to do some proper study.
If you are so good at science then providing the evidence for your belief in the theory should not be that hard.
There is nothing to stop you doing this. Morphine is a cop out
There is a total lack of desire to allow you to continually cop out of substantiating your claims that the theory has been substantiated “by the scientific method” I say YOU should prove that claim or admit that your acceptance of it is an act of faith not reason.
“you are wrongly using rhetoric as a perjorative.”
I’m not. I’m criticising rhetoric as being divorced from reality.
It can’t be that because “rhetoric” applies to ALL forms of persuasive speech or writing which is exhaustively inclusive
My partner knew Ed when they were both teenagers. He was very obsessed with music as were the other boys in the band. I saw him with the Laughing Clowns in the early 80s. I didn’t know then that he hadn’t returned by friend’s brother’s Miles Davis records. I also didn’t know then that that friend would become the love of my life. We went and saw Ed playing solo electric guitar at Woodford this summer just gone. Wonderful music.
Oh I had not previously realized that you are a woman
“I am truly surprised that you are unfamiliar with this film” (produced by Al Gore).
I am familiar with the existence of the film. Why would I see it when I’ve read the scientific literature on climatology, climate change and global warming. I was studying climate change in the mid seventies.
You are being rather remiss by avoiding it when arguing about the topic here, Not because its has virtue but because it contains a great deal of hyperbole and exaggeration.
“Yes and motherhood is a wonderful thing” and like effective public health programs involving scientists such as myself cooperating with our colleagues from many different countries is also a good thing to do. There is much goodness and fine moral behaviour in this world.
I am not disparaging what has been achieved through international co-operation but you can not have failed to realize just how hard it is to secure any agreement at a global level and more important how hard it is for such agreements to be maintained in the longer term at a global level. That is at the core of my point here the “cure ” for climate change requires a level of international co-operation unprecedented in human history so why should we have any faith that it is achievable? The evidence of human history certainly shows that such an agreement has never been achieved before so what makes you think that it can be done now?
Global warming can be reduced by reducing greenhouse emissions as much as practically possible. The complete cessation that you suggest is most likely impractical, so you are wrong.
That is prevarication which belies the fact that the biggest players , like China and India are going to be increasing their emissions for the the foreseeable future no matter what lip service they may pay to “climate change”
The per capita emissions of both China and India are both way below those of Australia.
You know that in this context “per capita” emissions are simply irrelevant if your beloved theory is correct then what matters is the TOTAL amount of emissions from any nation and according to this china is the world’s biggest emitter
The theory is not wrong as it has been thoroughly tested. Bjorn Lomberg is neither a scientist nor an economist and has not produced work of sufficient quality to be accepted for a post at any Australian university even with a substantial financial inducement from climate change denying ex PM Tony Abbott.
Yet you can’t show me when, where or how its been tested can you? As for Lomborg what is significant about his work is that he believes in AGW BUT he also appreciates that the cure being pursued is simply not going to work and that its a false hope to think that it ever could.
“Ideology is not by definition a perjorative”.
You are the one mentioning perjorative. I am critical of ideology as it’s not evidence based or in other words has lost contact with reality.
YOU are the one USING “ideology only as a disparagement which is very clearly a pejorative
“I work with the simple and true belief that there are only two types of rhetoric, that which is effective in persuading and that which isn’t.”
Truth is about what really is. It’s not about belief. There are many types of rhetoric but all are not based on evidence of reality hence are synonymous with the Australian term bullshit.
You need to read the definition I posted again Wal
It is obvious that you completed a degree in communications. Your fantasy about people who find these two terms synonymous is not borne out by my public speaking abilities nor those of my family.
Really? You post enough confused sentences to suggest otherwise Wal
“your mistaken belief that Rhetoric is by definition bad or a form of deception.”
The terms “bad” and “deception” are your terms in respect to rhetoric not mine. My criticism of rhetoric is that it’s not based on evidence and hence not connected to reality. It doesn’t tell you the truth about the real world.
You have repeatedly suggested that “rhetoric is synonymous with “Bullshit” and in the local parlance to spread bullshit is to lie and deceive.
“You can’t see it” (scientists who overestimate the certainty of their projections) “because you agree with their message.”
Scientists find out the reality of what is happening. Reality is not a message it’s simply what is. I agree with their science in most instances and hence accept the reality of what they find. I can’t see instances where scientists exaggerate the certainty of their projections because I can’t find such instances. You have to find something before you can see it.
There is none so blind as she who will not see.
Ridiculous, very likely. But impossible? In my experience of school and university there’s nothing in the core subjects of Arts and Science for anyone not to enjoy and score 50% in across twelve years of schooling, and without the ugly cramming they do in some countries.
I have two school age children and I have been rather disappointed by just how superficial so much of the teaching actually is however I also realize that children are already overburdened with a great deal of SJW indoctrination and what you suggest would simply not work because a lot of the children simply can’t absorb that much information in the time frame you are suggesting.
Any eighteen-year-old should be able to travel back to 1650 and intuitively explain the principles of modern knowledge to a scientist of the day. It’s only our ‘el cheapo’ education system that makes it impossible.
That and a lack of any workable time travel technology
We probably agree, more than anything. I don’t think any precious time from those years should be wasted on training specifically for jobs.
Being functionally literate and numerate is a core skill that is needed as is understanding of our history culture and dare I say it how to behave with all of the right social graces.
But nothing is a waste if it has anything to do with how stuff works (including society), how to find out how stuff works, and how not to be bullshitted to.
Much of that is really the responsibility of parents though, and to expect the schools to teach such things is to give the generally left wing teaching profession too much influence over our children. Sadly those in the education unions think that they know better than parents but they are wrong.
There is a shit load of philosophical stuff that doesn’t make sense. It’s clear that you don’t understand what reality is.
No I am entirely sure that I understand what reality is, for me, but the problems arrive from questions about whether reality can be properly described as being objective or subjective. That is a deep philosophical question all on its own
I have not suggested you are younger than you are but it’s clear you are not too old to learn new tricks.
I learn new welding tricks all the time Wal but that is because they have practical value to me. Formal scholarship would simply take up too much of my time, time I don’t have to spare at present.
There are advantages in the challenges presented by formal scholarship when it comes to learning a discipline. You may not be up to making the effort. Pain killers don’t help.
I have been on Morphine for quite a while Wal and although it does allow me to function you are right that it does have some drawbacks in terms of concentration.
Climate change is a reality not an orthodoxy. You are confused. AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is an established scientific theory not an untested hypothesis.
Accepting the validity of the theory constitutes the orthodoxy I am referring to here Wal
It has withstood the tests of many experiments. It explains the mechanisms behind the change in the temperature of the Earth’s climate that we have seen.
what tests and what experiments Wal? and please don’t cop out and tell me to refer to the literature, or to learn maths and chemistry
Theories of anthropogenic global warming are as provable as any scientific theory.
How precisely is it provable?
As many null hypotheses have been experimentally disproved these theories of anthropogenic global warming have with stood the test of decades of scientific scrutiny and hence best reflect the reality we are dealing with.
Name them and explain how this was achieved.
The worst mistake you can make in politics and advertising is to believe your own bullshit or rhetoric.
On bullshit I agree but as I have previously explained you are wrongly using rhetoric as a pejorative.
Politics is also best when reality based and even the art forms that I like are best when connected to reality as is the art of Emily Kngwarreye and the post punk explorations of Ed Kuepper.
Much of your bullshit or rhetoric about climatology derives from your lack of understanding of the underlying science and of how science functions as a discipline.
Not so, I do understand how it works well enough its just that I won’t genuflect to the priests in their white coats.
In the light of that it’s far from silly to suggest that you would greatly increase your ability to understand the scientific literature on the subject by expanding your scientific background beyond high school biology.
Maybe that would be useful but I have nether the time nor the inclination to do so.
I’ve not seen any movie by Al Gore.
try here then but it will be an hour and a half of your life that you will never get back! the point of me citing this is of course that its one of the biggest propaganda tools used to spread the message of doom and gloom about the climate. I am truly surprised that you are unfamiliar with this film
I’m not sure what you base your knowledge of global politics on
About 45 years of studying it, being interested in it and argeuing about it.
of science is that much can be achieved at the international level in response to problems identified and solvable by modern science.
Yes and motherhood is a wonderful thing
Your perception of human nature has more to do with ideology than fact. Scientific theories are hypotheses which have withstood the test of repeated tests over time. To suggest they are moot is to lose contact with reality and enter the realm of bullshit.
Correct me If I’m wrong but isn’t the claimed “cure” for climate change a total cessation of all man-made GHG emissions, not in a century but within the next decade or so? Do you think this can be achieved? I don’t because apart form some radical Greenies in the first world no one is even thinking about doing it and when you get to China and India they will go to war rather than for go development. Thus it becomes a moot point for us to argue about the validity of a theory that if wrong simply does not matter but if correct there is nothing that we can do at a global political level which will stop it. Its whay I have a fair bit of time for Bjorn Lomborg who argues that all of the focus on mitigation is futile and we had better think about adaptation instead.
“But its” (the Guardian’s) “definitely NOT a science journal is it.”
You’re the only one talking about it being a science journal.
No you are implying it is one because you keep admonishiong me because U am not corresponding to its articles in a scientific enough manner
The Guardian provides better coverage of scientific discoveries than other Australian newspapers.
Hmm I think that the Oz does OK but both it and the Guardian are both willing to publish longer pieces on the subject
Sensible moderate, middle of the road politics is not based on the ideologies of either the extreme left or the extreme right of politics but instead is based on reality, which is why it is the best way to govern a country.
As I said all of those who play at the game of politics have ideologies even those in the center that you are eulogizing here Ideology is not by definition a pejorative as you are trying to suggest
You can keep your ideologically bound politics which is divorced from reality.
Rubbish as I showed you previously my politics are very much of the center and I am utterly pragmatic in how I approach the issues
As the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques, rhetoric has no connection with reality and hence is synonymous with the term bullshit.
No matter what you may think even your style of arguing is a form or rhetoric so if you want to be admitting to producing bovine excrement then we can go with you understanding. But I work on the simple and true belief that there are only two types of rhetoric, that which is effective in persuading and that which isn’t. The claim that “rhetoric” is only to be seen in pejorative terms is really the plaintive cry of those who are utterly ineffectual at either public speaking or persuasive writing denouncing those who are more skilled with tongue or pen.
What those on the left do is of no importance to someone such as I on the moderate right of politics, but in any discussion on science rhetoric or bullshits lack of connection to reality is a valid criticism.
I think that you are far more left wing that you think you are
I don’t lack rhetorical skills but realise their limitations and prefer to be truthful rather than to bullshit.
You really need to get over you mistaken belief that Rhetoric is by definition bad or a form of deception its isn’t.
I find much of the advertising I see on TV and receive by means of cold calls on the phone to be rhetoric or bullshit. They are not trying to communicate any information of use to me. Communication degrees are notorious for being divorced from reality. The mute button was one of the great inventions of the 20th century.
I agree with you about the mute button but mostly I am to lazy to use it. as for anyone who cold calls me I am on the “do not call” register and I delight in reminding those callers that they should be fecund and departing form my electronic presence.
I have not seen the scientists who are the players in the field of modern climatology or climate science overestimate the certainty of their projections. You claim to have seen this but have offered no proof.
You can’t see it because you agree with their message
I realised you were talking in metaphor but stated reality to show what a poor metaphor that old aphorism is particularly for someone of your relatively tender years.
There is a shit load of philosophical stuff about defining “reality” and I simply don’t see it the way that you do. If I was a woman I might be flattered by suggesting that I am younger than I am.
It is a shame for you that you no longer wish to learn.
I try to learns something new every day WaL but i have no interest in taking up formal scholarship if any subject.
Indeed it’s the analytical skills of a lifetime in science that stops me falling for trite orthodoxy.
But you are firmly welded to the orthodoxy of “climate change”
You are stuck in the orthodox rhetorical loops of your arts degree training with minimal connection to reality and logic.
I am in fact quite logical but unlike you I don’t see the logic of futile belief in the AGW hypothesis when it is unproveable one way or the other and even if it was provable we can’t do anything about it,
This is a general magazine which means it concerns itself with politics, science, the arts and many other topics.
But its definitely NOT a science journal is is?
Sensible middle of the road politics is based not on ideology but like science it is evidence based.
ALL politics is based on one ideology or another and to think taht any brand or branch of thinking is above or out side of ideology is just silly and wrong.
Rhetoric is a polite term for bullshit.
No not in the least Here is the definition I go by.
the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.
I realize that many from the left try to use the word only a a pejorative but they are utterly wrong to do so. Its about how we try to persuade others to concur with our own opinions. It was considered to be one of the classical skills of player in politics regardless of their ideology and frankly its only those lacking in rhetorical skill who consider it to be “bullshit”.
If that’s all you learnt in your degree you have my sympathy and further encouragement to study a reality based discipline.
Both my Drama and my media studies were about trying to understand about how ideas can be effectively communicated, learning about things like how advertising works and how works of art communicate their core concepts have served me well when considering the politics of the issues you and I have been discussing in these threads. When it comes to your favorite, Climate change, I have repeatedly seen players grossly over estimate the certainty of their predictions and rely on emotional arguments and all sorts of dodgy persuasive devices and when I point this out the claim that I need a science background to do so is silly.
Scientific argument is based on evidence and logic not on rhetoric or bullshit.
What is Al Gore”s film if its not an example of “Rhetoric or Bullshit” No side of an argument is free from using hyperbole or exaggeration if they think the ends justify the means .
You may delude yourself that you are countering scientific arguments with your rhetoric or bullshit but you a failing abysmally to make a scientific counter argument.
my primary aim here is to point out the politics of the issue are NOT on your side because as I have pointed out MANY times no matter how right you may be about the science(and you could be) I know global politics and I know human nature and its a scientific fact that we humans simply can not work together in common cause at a global level for the millennia that your AGW theory says that we need to do if we are to “solve” the climate problem. Beyond that simple truth the validity of the theory is entirely a moot point.
You’re not a dog. You’re human and you’re not that old.
You are too literal Wal its a metaphor and I am old enough to value my time enough not to waste it (and incur a debt) by taking on further study.
The best way to mitigate the depredations of ageing is to learn something.
I have done so and as a consequence I am now a reasonably passable mig welder
If you wish to comment on scientific matters you should first learn about that which you wish to comment on. If only to stop making a fool of yourself.
Actually I think your thinking has been just a little too funneled through the filter of your scientific background when it comes to discussion these issues because it has made you far too much of a slave to orthodox thinking.
As an English graduate
After reading many of your posts, I take it you are about my age and gained your degree back at a time when grammar and spelling was not a priority in education.
How old are you then?
Your answer to the question is false and shows you know nothing of the scientific method “so please”.
How is my answer “false” and “so please” what precisely? You need to finish that sentence better if it is to have any meaning at all.
No it is a question that is worded to specify if you know anything about the scientific method quite basic really.
As an English graduate I am well aware that the way in which we both select and order our words is most important in ensuring that the meaning that we wish to impart is actually the meaning which us understood by the recipient of our message. As such I dispute your claim quoted above because I certainly do understand how the scientific method works and I still think that your original question still has a serious problem with specificity.
So I shall rephrase the question to suit a more general field.
Which I will take as a general admission that I was right to query your question.
What is the goal of a research scientist in any field of science?
The answer is of course to learn more about their topic of study
This is a question that basically asks you if you have an understanding of the scientific method.
No its a question about the scientist’s job description
Are you blaming the quality of the teaching in your Drama and Language in the Media Degree for the manner in which you “argue” on line? I suppose drama and language in the media is not a good grounding for scientific arguments.
As I have pointed out to you before this venue is not a scientific journal it is a forum about politics and even when the topics here have a scientific question at their heart they are still really about the politics of that issue. Thus my degree gives me a more than adequate background in understanding the rhetorical structures of the arguments put and the best way of countering those arguments.
No they need to be competent in numeracy and literacy and the basics of science.
Are their any of the LNP or you for that mater competant in the basics of science.
Of course there are
Answer this question
What is the goal of a research scientist?
This is such a vague question and one that is surely dependent upon which “research scientist” you are talking about that you think that there is a single definitive answer for you question is very concerning and shows that you have a rather narrow and blinkered way of thinking.
If you cant answer this question please shut up.
Of course I can answer any question but you will have to be far more clear cogent and specific in how you frame your question first.
Its called “education”, even if the courses that are studied dont take into relevant occupations, these people have a higher level of education, which broadens their minds, their understanding of many things, their future prospects, even if it is to become an entrepreneur, a business owner, an innovator.
I used to think like that bit then I got my degree before the internet and other tools for the autodidact made self education so much easier.
Not too many people these days stay in the same occupation, especially those with University educations, they have many different & diverse occupations, but the bottom line is, they have had a university education, which is not a waste of money, its the beginning of their careers, sometimes to be in occupations they would never have dreamt of.
That is the eternal line that is used to justify humanities degrees but
having got one that I have never used (except for arguing online) I am no longer convinced its all that true any more.
Take this away, & we are all the less for it.
Education is the key that opens many doors, & educating only the brightest is an even bigger mistake. Many students may struggle through, but if they have that burning desire to succeed, they are in a way more likely to be successful in life.
Because they want it more.
The thing about degrees is that when they are rared then they have higher value in the way that you can leverage them to build yourself a better future, but when they have become ubiquitous they give you no advantage at all. So the higher the percentage of our high school kids we send to Uni the less value they get for their efforts.
further it has got to the ridiculous situation where degrees are now being asked for as a prerequisite for jobs that will not even use a single bit of the things that have been studied.
You have always posted ridiculous comments, but this one must surely take the cake for ignorance and stupidity.
So kindly explain HOW what I am saying is wrong and why having ever more of our young people wasting years of their life learning things that they will never use again in their working lives is a good way to spend public money?
Just go away and let the real human beings work out how to make this world a better and fairer place for everyone.
Pragmatism does not sap ones humanity you know.
Iain_Hall: The only way I could possibly agree with you is if we improved our school education so much that by the end of Year 12 everyone had achieved the equivalent of a basic combined Arts & Science bachelor’s degree.
That is both impossible and ridiculous
But that idea needs funding, anyway. And – sorry, however you cut it – education these days (even for engineers, bless them) means getting broad perspectives on society (gender!), science (climate!), history and critical thinking (the bullshit detector!). Just think of it as Liberal Values and you’ll be fine with it.
No they need to be competent in numeracy and literacy and the basics of science.
On education, Labor says it will introduce a Student Funding Guarantee to remove the need for higher tertiary fees. It also wants to boost university degree completions by 20,000 graduates each year from 2020.
notice how this line does not say that these extra graduates have to be in STEM fields the next line which does mention STEM does not say that these new palaces have to be in STEM either
It wants science, technology, engineering and maths (Stem) occupations to become a “national strength,” and will offer 100,000 Stem award degrees over five years, with the entire Hecs-Help debt to be written off upon graduation.
Its actually making no claim about how much of those 20K places will be in STEM now is it? They just want a higher attendance at UNIs in general
Seriously? ‘useless learning’? You argue for less education?
I am arguing for a much better focused education spend and that means we try to produce graduates with useful skills at the end of higher learning.
You do know that access to education is a primary indicator for health, wealth, lack of crime etc, ie well being in general, on both an individual and state level?
That is only so IF the learning gives a graduate a kick-start to their adult life and a useful return for their time effort and money. Something like “Gender studies” is utterly and completely useless
And then say the left is regressive? Sorry but that is just an astonishingly ignorant statement!
You simply need to stop remembering what a grand time you had a t uni and ask yourself the ultimate question? does that effort make someone a more useful member of our society or does it just give them a flash looking CV to tote around during an extended period of looking for something worthwhile to do with their lives?
I completely disagree. Who gets to decide what is useful?
The society that ultimately has to pay for the education
Let people learn and expand, life is complicated and we need broad thinking.
And there are lots of free MOOC courses that anyone can enroll in to do that.
Who wants to live in a world that tells people their interests and talents are worthless?
That’s not only cruel but self defeating.
Its all about value for the expenditure
To some extent I agree.
But given that the STEM subjects are the way to progress why is it that the Liberlas are science averse and hellbent on dumbing our country down?
There is sadly already a great shortage of jobs for graduates of theses disciplines
Think CSIRO as an example.
Even given more funding they can ot possibly employ ally of those we are training in STEM
Think of university as a place for the young liberals to polish their infighting skills while studying law so they can ascend to the privilege into which they have been born.
We have 150 members in the Reps how many apparatchiks (for all parties ) do we need?
My whole point here is that we should be focusing tertiary education on producing the well trained professionals that we need NOT just providing extended schooling that serves no great social purpose costs the society and the individuals a lot of money
On tertiary education it beggars belief to claim that having more young people complete useless degrees will be of any benefit to them or the country. The only people who will benefit from such an increase is the staff who will teach them and the institutions that will such government revenue to fiance this useless learning.
What we need instead is a freeze on new places in our universities and true merit based entrance to study that will create the professionals that the country needs NOT more people who have degrees in “gender studies” or other courses for activists to blight our society with the regressive left’s silly values.
Depends where you live. Despite my user name I now live in the NSW Northern Rivers and my shopping day takes me to Aldi and Coles at Casino which are just round the corner from each other. Dead simple to check the Coles catalogue online, make a shopping list for both stores, hit Aldi first for the bulk (which are definitely not “generic” as in the 1980s, they are pretty top quality) then hit Coles for any good specials and the regular items that I buy there such as maple bacon. Then lunch at the RSL next door.
Perfect shopping day.
My shopping day is like yours may day out and like you I have my rituals and I use the same process each week. My wife usually gives me a list of things that she particularly wants but as its never exhaustive I simply always start at one end of the supermarket and work my way up and down the aisles from one end to the other finishing at the frozen food so it is out of the freezer for the minimum time. Further because I always park in the same part of the car park if I can I walk past Aldi on arrival and departure so I could easily divert there if I wanted too. But it takes me a little under an hour to do the main shop I simply don’t think its worth the extra time to split my shopping between two stores. Oh and I too have a choice of venues for a nice lunch afterwords.
I do the family shopping and have done so for more than forty years so I am well acquainted with the hype form all retailers and there really isn’t that much in it between Coles and Woolies on your total spend and the few times I have been into Aldi I have been rather unimpressed by its all generic offerings. I like to buy the brands that I have come to like and which I know will meet my expected standards.
Now I could, as some shoppers do, become obsessed about chasing the specials and splinting my main shopping depending on who has what at the cheapest price for various commodities but it actually takes an awful lot of your time to do that. Instead I buy essentially the same things each week and try not to be seduced by the special offers unless its something I was going to buy anyway. For me though its NOT all about the money I save when I can and you can do a lot of saving if you buy big ticket items like coffee or Olive oil when it comes up on the cyclic special schedule. Your time is worth something too so shopping in the same place can save you a lot of time because you do learn the layout of the store that way.
A predictable response Iain, but entirely your right, of course. If you don’t already live in Queensland, maybe you should move there (particularly given what the Senate is going to look like in the Federal Parliament post July 2; I don’t think you will find it pretty).
As Wal points out I do live in Queensland and I have done so for the majority of my life. I must correct a couple of errors in his explanation to you, while I do live near Mt Mee I am actually a bit further south that Wal thinks I am and while he may think declaring the former state Forrest a national park is an absolutely good thing I don’t think it is as good as he does for a number of reasons, firstly it is very far form being in any sense pristine as it has been harvested for firstly red ceder and the eucalyptus saw logs for more than a century, secondly I am concerned about the reluctance to do adequate hazard reduction burning in “national parks” and thirdly locking up the renewable timber resources is not such a good idea to me. And Yes I have spent a fair bit of time in what is now that National park
The interesting thing about the abolition of the upper house is that it was done by the ALP, that said I don’t think that having just one house in the state parliament is such a bad thing if it saves us from the pernicious influence of the Greens and other minor parties who want to have more influence than they deserve based on their vote at elections.
Well, I will concede this to you.
A good start
Though you don’t know much about how legislation works,
You keep saying that but you are still wrong
nor how to construct an argument,
Your mistake here is thinking that not having the same politics as you do is equivelent to being unable to frame an argument.
you are very good at being patronizing. Well done.
Its one of the few privileges of being a curmudgeonly old codger…
You would do better to educate yourself about the way the legislative process actually works, because you clearly do not understand it, and to rant less.
My dear I expect that I have forgotten more about parliamentary practice than you even know or understand, as for “ranting” I simply don’t do it.
1) Evidence of not doing enough to protect the environment
Lets see how that holds up
the great barrier reef
Sure I think that the government should do more on addressing the things it can change and it is trying
the depletion of groundwater
This one like the Barrier reef is a “how long is a piece of string” thing they are doing what tehy can
pollution of aquifers
is that really a problem? please explain
and this is just off the top of my head
2) The fact that the legislation passed by a government is repealed. this can happen to any legislation, whether inspired by a minority party or the government of day. The percentage of the voters who support the Greens is irrelevant to the role they can play in the legislative process.
No Janeee in a democracy numbers mean everything
YOu don’t understand the legislative process and how it works and you are not interested in evidence
Gee my having followed politics for more than 50 years suggests otherwise
You are simply interested in having an anti-greens rant that is not based on an accurate understanding of our parliamentary system and is uninterested in evidence. End of story.
My comment on this topic was not long enough to qualify as a rant and I don’t need to apologize for thinking that the Greens are loopy.
Janeee @ 7m ago said:
The evidence does not suggest that the major parties have done enough on environmental protection.
What evidence Janeee?
Secondly, you misunderstand the nature of the legislative process. Incumbency is not necessary to have legislation passed into law, so to say that the Greens have no power to implement their agenda because they are not the government is simply incorrect.
Unless the party which has a majority in the legislature is prepared to support a private members bill it won’t get past the first reading stage
They have used their parliamentary presence to impede legislation to which they are opposed and they have successfully amended legislation that does support their agenda. The pie in the sky argument is just wrong.
When the Greens were in cahoots with the Gillard government every thing the leveraged their vote to achieve was both a disaster and repealed as soon as Labor lost office. Even so with less than 9% of the vote they simply can’t expect to have to prove their pudding with any eating at all.
I don’t think he’s infamous.
I am actually, even though it is rather undeserved
He’s just another right wing troll without any logical argument.
My argument here is entirely logical
His comment above is typical of the argument or evidence free nonsense he constantly posts.
If you want evidence that The Greens can’t form government kindly consult the electoral results from the last election
“lock everything up mentality of the Greens “
Tried to set foot on a mining or forestry operation lately? Even those that are on crown or public land? No, you haven’t, because you can’t. They are “Locked up”.
Tried to exercise your democratic right to free assembly and political expression by protesting lately? In a number of states in Australia Lib/Lab parliaments have attempted to make this illegal, additionally arbitrarily banning people from entering public spaces, effectively “locking up” even places like the CBD of cities, harbours, national parks, and public parks.
I’ll give you credit for the attempted bait and switch but we both know taht si not what I was talking about.
It’s up to the electoirate to decide whether it might remain in the sky or fall to the plate… this is why Parties announce policies before elections. The Greens are a Party. This is a policy. There is an election a month ahead.
Sure but the undeniable reality here is that at a little over 8% of the vote they can not form a government even if they were to double their vote.
You seemed to have missed the more obvious point is that the Liberal and Labor Parties have been in power and have done very little to protect the environment.
that is simply not true and you know it, were it not for teh Major parties we would not have any national parks or legislation to enforce environmental standards in development. Now you may well argue that they have not done enough but just look at the rest of the world and make the comparison, we do better than most nations on the planet.
Based on the evidence, locking up is better for the environment than open slather.
Well no that is simply not true
Face it, you are just anti-green and anti the environment and that is your right.
No that is not true at all I am. as I write, looking out on unspoiled bush-land and I have the greatest love and respect for the Environment. My disdain for the Greens political party has never been disguised
But it is probably better if you are just open about your agenda rather than trying to advance incoherent arguments that have no evidence to support them.
What further evidence do I need here? the Greens polled a little over 8% at the last election so they are no where near to being in a position to make any of their policies into law so I am entirely and absolutely correct to characterize their policy as “pie in the sky” nonsense.
Those silly Greens and the silly people who vote for them.
There is many a true word said in jest (bold above)
Don’t they realize that the environment is doing so well under the duopoly of Labor/Liberal governments?
Which misses the point that only a party which can form government will be able to DO anything for the environment.
From the Barrier Reef, promoting old growth forests and protecting prime agricultural land and their aquifers, it’s all going so well with the status quo.
No but its going better than it would be under the lock everything up mentality of the Greens
More comment nonsense from the infamous right wing blogger Iain Hall.
Kindly demonstrate how my comment above is in any way inaccurate, as for my so called “infamy” well its largely an exaggeration and I am in fact just an ordinary bloke who likes a good argument.
I have an ambivalent attitude to this issue on one hand I stridently desire that there should be no way that those who abuse children can get away with their vile criminal behavior I am also deeply concerned that there have been many examples in the UK where activist social workers have got it horribly wrong and mistakenly pursued individuals who have done nothing wrong. Likewise we need to be aware that accusations can be entirely false. Sadly this issue is a can or worms no matter which way you look at it.