Is this the end of the Greens?

[romeohwho]

It's not a questionable alignment. The far left continues to use catastrophic warming prophesies to support their goals of big government, wealth redistribution and negative growth. They selectively search for science that supports their political position - which is anti-science. The same unthinking neo-hippies are also anti-vacc, anti-fluoride and anti-GM crops.

The IPCC is a political body designed to promote the 'climate change' agenda but, even so, they can't deny scientific evidence. The models they used to 'project' the catastrophic warming have failed.

In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend.​

And

During the 15-year period beginning in 1998, the ensemble of HadCRUT4 GMST trends lies below almost all model-simulated trends (Box 9.2 Figure 1a), whereas during the 15-year period ending in 1998, it lies above 93 out of 114 modelled trends ((Box 9.2 Figure 1b; HadCRUT4 ensemble-mean trend 0.26°C per decade, CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend 0.16°C per decade). Over the 62-year period 1951– 2012, observed and CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend agree to within 0.02 ºC per decade (Box 9.2 Figure 1c; CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend 0.13°C per decade). There is hence very high confidence that the CMIP5 models show long-term GMST trends consistent with observations, despite the disagreement over the most recent 15-year period. Due to internal climate variability, in any given 15-year period the observed GMST trend sometimes lies near one end of a model ensemble (Box 9.2, Figure 1a,b; (Easterling and Wehner, 2009)), an effect that is pronounced in Box 9.2, Figure 1a,b since GMST was influenced by a very strong El Niño event in 1998.​

As I said, am not bothering with this debate, so far past it are we.
The discussion needs to be what can we do about it.

 

[Maggie5]

Is this thread still about the Greens or Climate Change?
The sceptics want to derail every thread.
However to get back to main topic, I can see the Greens playing a bigger part in both Federal and State politics with the change of Leadership.
Three well spoken, intelligent people.
DiNatale will show that the Greens are not just about the environment.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Is this thread still about the Greens or Climate Change?
The sceptics want to derail every thread.
However to get back to main topic, I can see the Greens playing a bigger part in both Federal and State politics with the change of Leadership.
Three well spoken, intelligent people.
DiNatale will show that the Greens are not just about the environment.

Check the thread Maggie. It wasn't the 'skeptics' that started that discussion.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

The far left continues to use catastrophic warming prophesies to support their goals of big government, wealth redistribution and negative growth. They selectively search for science that supports their political position - which is anti-science. The same unthinking neo-hippies are also anti-vacc, anti-fluoride and anti-GM crops.

Your argument is typical of the Bolt followers.

Lump every person who doesnt fall into the uncritical neo-liberal category as 'far-left'. It's lazy labelling, and shows the person using it is little more than a uninformed hack.

The notion that academic science is overrun by the 'far-left' is plainly laughable. The notion that they would put their highly paid jobs on the line is even more laughable.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Not suggesting Bolt is anything like Einstein,

Good. One of these 2 is a tabloid journalist who pumps out opinion columns 3 times a week, and has been shown to be shoddy and unscrupled in this already meager task.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Deplorable former Trotskyite and Warmist defends the Communist world government: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-11/sparrow-maurice-newman-v-the-un/6460160

 

[pazza]

A medical doctor with a young family and a long history of sporting involvement would be in a great spot to understand a lot of issues.

 

[Northalives]

Your argument is typical of the Bolt followers.

Lump every person who doesnt fall into the uncritical neo-liberal category as 'far-left'. It's lazy labelling, and shows the person using it is little more than a uninformed hack.

The notion that academic science is overrun by the 'far-left' is plainly laughable. The notion that they would put their highly paid jobs on the line is even more laughable.

If Bolt is the center, which he and his followers think he is, then I reckon that about 90% and more of the population are "lefties" a majority of the time.

Just on the Greens, Di Natale strikes me as an articulate, pragmatic and no nonsense type of a person: someone that will take the Greens to a new level of acceptance amongst the electorate.

The change in leadership was handled superbly and to see Milne grinning like a Chesire cat in the presence of Di Natale when the leadership change was announced, makes a mockery of the mincing poodle's assertion that the Greens have "blood on their hands": it was truly a love fest that news conference.

With Milne now gone and Di Natale the leader, the Greens don't appear to be as extremist and "lalaland" as they were under Milne and that has severe connotations for both the quaintly named "Liberal" party and especially the ALP under Shorten.

The Greens are now in a position where they can cause significant heamorrhaging of the ALP vote and maybe attract enough votes from disaffected "Liberal" voters to really set the cat amongst the pigeons at the next election that is assuming though, that Di Natale says and behaves like he says he is; mainstream.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Good. One of these 2 is a tabloid journalist who pumps out opinion columns 3 times a week, and has been shown to be shoddy and unscrupled in this already meager task.

Is Bolt a journalist? Or is he a polemicist?

He writes opinion columns, but does not write hard news (reactive), or investigative reports (active)..

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Is Bolt a journalist? Or is he a polemicist?

He writes opinion columns, but does not write hard news (reactive), or investigative reports (active)..

Yeah good point. It's very Fox news. It's loud, abrasive but ultimately it's just him shooting his opinion on to a computer screen.

 

[medusala]

The Greens are now in a position where they can cause significant heamorrhaging of the ALP vote and maybe attract enough votes from disaffected "Liberal" voters to really set the cat amongst the pigeons at the next election that is assuming though, that Di Natale says and behaves like he says he is; mainstream.

And ensure the coalition wins.

Lol at them pretending to be mainstream.

The notion that they would put their highly paid jobs on the line is even more laughable.

That is the point, they wouldn't. A climate change scientist arguing there is no issue at all is hardly front and centre to get more funding are they?

Talking their own book. Some can see it for what it is, others aren't quite sharp enough.

 

[swingdog]

I missed the point where a climate scientist isn't allowed to argue against climate change as a phenomenon through the usual channels: peer review.

 

[Gough]

Talking their own book. Some can see it for what it is, others aren't quite sharp enough.

You seem to be claiming some sort of intellectual superiority not immediately evident to others.

 

[medusala]

You seem to be claiming some sort of intellectual superiority not immediately evident to others.

Hardly surprising given you think Gough Whitlam had something to offer.

Pixies at the bottom of the garden stuff.

 

[Bosun]

Is this thread still about the Greens or Climate Change?
The sceptics want to derail every thread.
However to get back to main topic, I can see the Greens playing a bigger part in both Federal and State politics with the change of Leadership.
Three well spoken, intelligent people.
DiNatale will show that the Greens are not just about the environment.

The Australian Greens have never been about the environment.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Also I don't get this whole Lomborg thing. He is neither an economist, nor a scientist, so why is he getting a large federal grant to establish this consensus centre?

I also don't understand the inconsistency of many of his supporters. Quite a proportion do not believe in man made climate change, yet Lomborg does? So surely you would see this for what it is, a grand waste of money.

Or is this a case of any muddying of the waters will do. We aren't experiencing global warming, no wait we are but humans aren't the cause, no wait they are but it is too expensive to do anything about it, no it's not too expensive but what you are proposing is an ineffective method. I mean honestly, this kind of willful obfuscation and shifting of opinions, or adoption of new champions is so unscientific and downright dishonest. But hey, it's all a big conspiracy that is about global control and meagre grant money, even though a reputable scientist could make a killing shilling for any anti AGW think tank.

 

[medusala]

The Australian Greens have never been about the environment.

To be fair to Bob Brown he actually was for quite a while. IIRC starting off with Lake Pedder. He genuinely did some good work re the environmental exemptions for heavy industry in Tas (Burnie pulp mill, EZ etc). Then went off the reservation re timber and other stuff.

 

[Maggie5]

The Australian Greens have never been about the environment.

Huh?

 

[Play by Numbers]

The Australian Greens have never been about the environment.

Really, that is a provocative statement.

 

[Northalives]

And ensure the coalition wins.

Lol at them pretending to be mainstream.

Yep, absolutely correct: it ensures a coalition win.

Pretence is part of a politicians armoury, and if he can convince some that he is "mainstream", they'll vote for him/the Greens.

Interesting question though, if he purges the extremists from his party, you know, the ones whose hearts are in the right place but don't understand the fact that what they wish for can't happen tomorrow or the day after nor, do they appreciate the social dislocation some of their "policies" would create if they were implemented today, you know the ones I mean, the Christine Milnes, if he purges them, do they become the new "Democrats"?

 

[medusala]

Also I don't get this whole Lomborg thing. He is neither an economist, nor a scientist, so why is he getting a large federal grant to establish this consensus centre?

Should have asked Cate Blanchett

(or Bracksy if it involved cute little cars)

 

[Contra Mundum]

Also I don't get this whole Lomborg thing. He is neither an economist, nor a scientist, so why is he getting a large federal grant to establish this consensus centre?

I also don't understand the inconsistency of many of his supporters. Quite a proportion do not believe in man made climate change, yet Lomborg does? So surely you would see this for what it is, a grand waste of money.

Or is this a case of any muddying of the waters will do. We aren't experiencing global warming, no wait we are but humans aren't the cause, no wait they are but it is too expensive to do anything about it, no it's not too expensive but what you are proposing is an ineffective method. I mean honestly, this kind of willful obfuscation and shifting of opinions, or adoption of new champions is so unscientific and downright dishonest. But hey, it's all a big conspiracy that is about global control and meagre grant money, even though a reputable scientist could make a killing shilling for any anti AGW think tank.

That is correct - they might as well set up the Alternative Medicine Faculty and appoint Belle Gibson as the Chair. Pivotal point was the open letter by the Climate Science PhDs - they made a fair point that the institute would totally devalue their degrees

 

[clogged]

they might as well set up the Alternative Medicine Faculty and appoint Belle Gibson as the Chair.

Hahaha, brilliant.

 

[Father Jack]

It's not their conclusions that make deniers unscientific, it's their methods. If they were able to support their arguments using facts instead of bullshit, they would be taken seriously by the wider scientific community.

 

[Qsaint]

A medical doctor with a young family and a long history of sporting involvement would be in a great spot to understand a lot of issues.

In today's age there is an article about the alp candidate to stand against bandt in Melbourne she has a list of things she wants done including marriage equality and makes the point this won't happen if you vote green which is very true