Civil war breaking out in the Federal Coalition govt

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Interesting post. How do you define being mocked? Some people feel like they're being mocked whenever someone disagrees with them. Where do you draw the line?

Do you think that no views should ever be mocked? Eg., Believing the world is flat is pretty crazy. Should those beliefs not be mocked at some point if a person refuses to concede in the face of the evidence?

Lastly how do you reconcile the argument that it doesn't matter if we're the cause of climate change with the argument that if we can do something about it we should? It would seem that believing we can fix it implies a belief that we broke it in the first place

I'll take the last point first. It just isn't true to correlate the cause with whether we can do anything about it. No is seriously suggesting it was done deliberately for a start, if it was done. Any action now needs to be very deliberate.

The flat earth thing makes my point perfectly, tks. The resistance to Copernicus was largely driven by the church, and involved a lot of ignorant mocking.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Ask for this for Christmas
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/209776/fantasyland-by-kurt-andersen/9780812978902

Tks
It's an interesting topic to me and I haven't yet found it in my wandering online. New leads to books worth reading are great.

 

[Balls In]

We voted - and despite the obvious efforts to cripple the plebiscite in your favour - you lost.

Give it up.

Wasnt the plebiscite specifically about gay marriage and wasnt the main concern expressed by the no lobby that it was just the thin end of the wedge?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Its like finding out an adult believes in santa

The Earth is flat, mankind is only 6000 years old, praying will save us...Oh and Climate change is a Chinese hoax

 

[Baltimore Jack]

It's always dangerous when people mock other views, and it's usually a sign they're wrong. I instinctively dont want to support an argument that's case is made by counting scientists in agreement. No step forward has ever been made by consensus, and it's much more often been done in face of mocking and denigration.

I think it's reasonable to conclude that the climate of the planet has never been stable and has swung wildly throughout history. That places a strong burden of proof on any claim that change is man made. Too often this argument is countered by evidence the planet is warming, which completely misses the point.

That said it's not entirely rational to think that given the scope of the change we haven't had any effect. Whether it's actually initiated by us doesn't matter anyway. If we can do anything to prevent the climate becoming less hospitable we clearly should.

I'm not negative about action, I actually align pretty closely with Turnbull's argument that if you doubt then view action as risk management, and it does need to be urgent.

Dont ask me to espect people mocking arguments and acting very much like preachers trying to shut down discussion though. That isn't going to happen

So if someone had an opinion that the Earth was flat, you would expect rational thinking people to enter into a debate with that person?

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

So if someone had an opinion that the Earth was flat, you would expect rational thinking people to enter into a debate with that person?

Clearly I've offended your faith, that's a discussion not worth entering into.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Clearly I've offended your faith, that's a discussion not worth entering into.

Like with climate change deniers, you mean?

Oh and I'm an Atheist

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Tks
It's an interesting topic to me and I haven't yet found it in my wandering online. New leads to books worth reading are great.

You're welcome.

It's long but always very readable.

He's not specifically tackling climate change denial, or indeed any other single topic currently being debated, although he touches on lots. His subject is American belief, and he likens the gradual erosion of the once-admirable American rationalism over the centuries to the boiling frog metaphor.

He shows that a number of strands in American life have started to intersect to bring about a dangerous situation where people are now not just free to believe any old tosh, but are in a way made to feel it's almost less than full-blooded American not to.

Everything about the US is more extreme than Australia, but there's no denying it's still the driving force of so much of the politics and culture here, for better or for worse, so it's very pertinent to Australians who want to know what's driving a lot of the change they see about them.

I found it enormously clarifying.

 

[kranky al]

It's always dangerous when people mock other views, and it's usually a sign they're wrong. I instinctively dont want to support an argument that's case is made by counting scientists in agreement. No step forward has ever been made by consensus, and it's much more often been done in face of mocking and denigration.

I think it's reasonable to conclude that the climate of the planet has never been stable and has swung wildly throughout history. That places a strong burden of proof on any claim that change is man made. Too often this argument is countered by evidence the planet is warming, which completely misses the point.

That said it's not entirely rational to think that given the scope of the change we haven't had any effect. Whether it's actually initiated by us doesn't matter anyway. If we can do anything to prevent the climate becoming less hospitable we clearly should.

I'm not negative about action, I actually align pretty closely with Turnbull's argument that if you doubt then view action as risk management, and it does need to be urgent.

Dont ask me to espect people mocking arguments and acting very much like preachers trying to shut down discussion though. That isn't going to happen

If 97 % of engineers told you a bridge was knackered and will most likely collapse if i drive over it - you would be a special kind of tardo to get in your car saying “consensus is over rated”

 

[Baltimore Jack]

If 97 % of engineers told you a bridge was knackered and will most likely collapse if i drive over it - you would be a special kind of tardo to get in your car saying “consensus is over rated”

...........or if 97% of Industrial Hygienists said "listen people, stay out of that building it is full of asbestos which has become airborne"

Nah, let's debate that....yeah sure!!

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

If 97 % of engineers told you a bridge was knackered and will most likely collapse if i drive over it - you would be a special kind of tardo to get in your car saying “consensus is over rated”

Engineering opinions about a bridge are much simpler than climate change.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

...........or if 97% of Industrial Hygienists said "listen people, stay out of that building it is full of asbestos which has become airborne"

Nah, let's debate that....yeah sure!!

Are you really that ignorant?

1. Industrial hygienists is an amusing concept.

2. Anyone venturing an opinion as to the presence if asbestos in a worksite should never be allowed near one, obviously. It can be proven and given the health risk, really really needs to be.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Wasnt the plebiscite specifically about gay marriage and wasnt the main concern expressed by the no lobby that it was just the thin end of the wedge?

Yeah, if only those gays could shut up and act like us normal people right??

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Are you really that ignorant?

1. Industrial hygienists is an amusing concept.

2. Anyone venturing an opinion as to the presence if asbestos in a worksite should never be allowed near one, obviously. It can be proven and given the health risk, really really needs to be.

1. Yes, they have only been around for 40 years or so, I guess to you, that time frame might be considered amusing, since you seem to be stuck in the 1950's

2. But on your stated laughable ignorance, if 3% say, its ok, we should treat them with all seriousness and debate the issue

This is the level to which climate change deniers stupidity has plummeted, they honestly believe we still need to debate if climate change is real

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

1. Yes, they have only been around for 40 years or so, I guess to you, that time frame might be considered amusing, since you seem to be stuck in the 1950's

2. But on your stated laughable ignorance, if 3% say, its ok, we should treat them with all seriousness and debate the issue

This is the level to which climate change deniers stupidity has plummeted, they honestly believe we still need to debate if climate change is real

Perhaps in time you can experience personal growth. The ability to assimilate contrary arguments would d be useful.

I can and do read Tim Flannery for example, and have a lot of respect for his intellect and humility.

It requires the discipline to detach though.

I also find it amusing that my post, that didn't oppose action on climate change offended you because it criticised the sheep mentality and ignorance.

 

[Hawk Dork]

Are you really that ignorant?

1. Industrial hygienists is an amusing concept.

2. Anyone venturing an opinion as to the presence if asbestos in a worksite should never be allowed near one, obviously. It can be proven and given the health risk, really really needs to be.

I had a 70 year old electrician doing the asbestos inspections on a job I was doing out in the Qld Coal Fields.
Basically took of a light switch took a swab and it told you yes or no.
Then risk was assessed depending on how bad and what needed to be done.
He volunteered to be trained/ticketed because if he got it he would probably be dead by then anyhow

 

[Chameleon75]

Engineering opinions about a bridge are much simpler than climate change.

Climate change has been a part of engineering undergraduate study since the 80’s (at the request of industry), so the comparison has validity.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Climate change has been a part of engineering undergraduate study since the 80’s (at the request of industry), so the comparison has validity.

Oooookehhhh

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

I had a 70 year old electrician doing the asbestos inspections on a job I was doing out in the Qld Coal Fields.
Basically took of a light switch took a swab and it told you yes or no.
Then risk was assessed depending on how bad and what needed to be done.
He volunteered to be trained/ticketed because if he got it he would probably be dead by then anyhow

Yeah ok. I take your point.

My experience is more with Public Sector Project Management related to construction. I did travel around the country working in construction for a couple of years days cabling so I have some experience with reality.
It often looks clearer from the site meetings than at ground level.

 

[Heisenberg_]

Wasnt the plebiscite specifically about gay marriage and wasnt the main concern expressed by the no lobby that it was just the thin end of the wedge?

Yes but one of the main leaders of the No lobby who expressed these concerns was ******* Lyle Shelton- a man who compared children with gay parents to the stolen generation and supports conversion therapy.
In other words these concerns have less then zero credibility

 

[kranky al]

Engineering opinions about a bridge are much simpler than climate change.

Yes the engineers can tell you it will probably collapse - whereas the climate scientists can only tell you that the effects will be somewhere between bad and catastrophic - they arent quite sure yet.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Yes the engineers can tell you it will probably collapse - whereas the climate scientists can only tell you that the effects will be somewhere between bad and catastrophic - they arent quite sure yet.

Again though you're joining change with man made change.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Interesting post. How do you define being mocked? Some people feel like they're being mocked whenever someone disagrees with them. Where do you draw the line?

Do you think that no views should ever be mocked? Eg., Believing the world is flat is pretty crazy. Should those beliefs not be mocked at some point if a person refuses to concede in the face of the evidence?

Lastly how do you reconcile the argument that it doesn't matter if we're the cause of climate change with the argument that if we can do something about it we should? It would seem that believing we can fix it implies a belief that we broke it in the first place

Last sentence isn’t necessarily true. We can take action to mitigate impact if a natural process, similar to what is happening with bushfires. Although I do believe it is largely man made in terms of correlation between co2 levels and temperatures inferred by ice thickness

(Inb4 correlation is not causation)

 

[kranky al]

Again though you're joining change with man made change.

No normal climate change occurs over thousands or millions of years.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

No normal climate change occurs over thousands or millions of years.

That's just not true. You're confusing Geology with climate I think. The last ice age was 5000 years ago. It was climate change that drove humans out of Africa.

There is this very common myth that without people the climate would be stable. There's more than ample evidence it is a myth though.

That actually doesn't disprove man made climate change, and that's why I was ambivalent.