Play Nice Politics #3 - Covideo killed the radio star

Status
Not open for further replies.
ScoMo denies using the phrase ‘Shanghai Sam’.

It’s revealed he’s used it 17 times, including twice in Parliament.

Now he reckons he misheard the question.

Great, our PM prefers to outwardly lie to protect a colleague... & show he has double standards.

It's a pity most politicians on both sides lack integrity.
 
Aug 9, 2019
37,997
64,903
Victorian Central Highlands
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Panthers, GWV Rebels, Central Augusta
Pull the other one Jackie, must be a very loose relationship if you're not aware your husband has just spent $700K on an "investment" property which just happened to be in close proximity to her signature $5.4 Billion infrastructure project The Cross River Rail with prices of properties in the area set to rise as a result.


Ms Trad failed to declare on her pecuniary interest register and in a key cabinet meeting that her husband had bought an investment property on March 27 through their family trust, near a proposed station for her signature infrastructure project, the Cross River Rail. The three-bedroom Woolloongabba house stands to rise in value thanks to its proximity to the $5.4bn project, the state’s largest. Ms Trad claimed she only learned of the purchase when husband, lawyer Damien Van Brunschot, texted her to advise of the $695,000 “property to be purchased and location” on March 29, two days after he signed the contract to buy it.
 
Aug 9, 2019
37,997
64,903
Victorian Central Highlands
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Panthers, GWV Rebels, Central Augusta

Elite Crow

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts TheBrownDog
Mar 21, 2008
56,538
77,659
adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
SA unemployment has gone from 6.9% up to 7.3%.

Is Marshall going to once again stupidly try and claim that SA doesn't have an unemployment problem and the figures are the best they've looked in a decade?
More people found jobs but the participation rate is at near record levels and highest for 10 years.
 
Pull the other one Jackie, must be a very loose relationship if you're not aware your husband has just spent $700K on an "investment" property which just happened to be in close proximity to her signature $5.4 Billion infrastructure project The Cross River Rail with prices of properties in the area set to rise as a result.


Ms Trad failed to declare on her pecuniary interest register and in a key cabinet meeting that her husband had bought an investment property on March 27 through their family trust, near a proposed station for her signature infrastructure project, the Cross River Rail. The three-bedroom Woolloongabba house stands to rise in value thanks to its proximity to the $5.4bn project, the state’s largest. Ms Trad claimed she only learned of the purchase when husband, lawyer Damien Van Brunschot, texted her to advise of the $695,000 “property to be purchased and location” on March 29, two days after he signed the contract to buy it.

Both sides of politics continue to flaunt the rules & unfortunately have no desire to fix properly.

Politicians wonder why they are mostly held in such low regard by the public..
 
Jun 7, 2011
58,395
60,435
Mount Gambier
AFL Club
Adelaide
Pull the other one Jackie, must be a very loose relationship if you're not aware your husband has just spent $700K on an "investment" property which just happened to be in close proximity to her signature $5.4 Billion infrastructure project The Cross River Rail with prices of properties in the area set to rise as a result.


Ms Trad failed to declare on her pecuniary interest register and in a key cabinet meeting that her husband had bought an investment property on March 27 through their family trust, near a proposed station for her signature infrastructure project, the Cross River Rail. The three-bedroom Woolloongabba house stands to rise in value thanks to its proximity to the $5.4bn project, the state’s largest. Ms Trad claimed she only learned of the purchase when husband, lawyer Damien Van Brunschot, texted her to advise of the $695,000 “property to be purchased and location” on March 29, two days after he signed the contract to buy it.


I can easily believe her. Mate of mine bought a house with telling his missus, she found out eventually. It wasn’t something he deliberately hid, an opportunity arose and he took it without thinking about whether he should run it past the wife. The husband in Trad’s case is effectively insider trading in my view and there should be penalties for that.
 
Dec 29, 2000
23,401
20,541
AFL Club
Adelaide
I can easily believe her. Mate of mine bought a house with telling his missus, she found out eventually. It wasn’t something he deliberately hid, an opportunity arose and he took it without thinking about whether he should run it past the wife. The husband in Trad’s case is effectively insider trading in my view and there should be penalties for that.

Seriously. What sort of relationship do these people have? We are talking a major purchase, not buying another pair of shoes. So one day one just pulls up into the driveway with a new car?
 
Dec 29, 2000
23,401
20,541
AFL Club
Adelaide
Both sides of politics continue to flaunt the rules & unfortunately have no desire to fix properly.

Politicians wonder why they are mostly held in such low regard by the public..

No one we have no respect irrespective whether right, left or somewhere in between.

So we have politicians generally, ministers, bankers, advertising executives, clergy and journalists the least trustworthy - who would have thought.
 
No one we have no respect irrespective whether right, left or somewhere in between.

So we have politicians generally, ministers, bankers, advertising executives, clergy and journalists the least trustworthy - who would have thought.
They have no desire to clean it up either as there is an understanding by both sides that it is ok to rort the system for their own benefit... with very little in the way of any penalties if caught.
 
Aug 21, 2008
12,563
15,279
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
I was lucky enough to have been forwarded one of Joyce's drought reports to the PM by someone I know with access to the PM's office:

















"G'day cob. Real dry up here mate. Not a lot of water about. Crops are dusty. The rains are NOT ere' lol (remember that Mcains ad?). Anyway take it easy. BJ xx"
 
Aug 21, 2008
12,563
15,279
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Malcolm Roberts says family courts driving men to lash out and 'hurt the other person'

These two need to find a cave and stay there. I think we can sacrifice 1 cave.
 
Jul 27, 2004
55,058
47,004
Las Vegas
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood
Seriously. What sort of relationship do these people have? We are talking a major purchase, not buying another pair of shoes. So one day one just pulls up into the driveway with a new car?
High net worth individuals don't have the money issues we all have.

That investment property was more like us buying a pepsi at lunch instead of having water from the tap.
 

Dandy_GO

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 25, 2005
8,126
3,263
Yunnan, China
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Celtic, Sunderland
I'm gonna put this here, as it's a bit long and the conversation in the main board thread has moved elsewhere.
That’s all very general, and dare I say hopeful.

Firstly no one even says that 97% of scientists agree there is a climate emergency

The story, insofar as it is alleged to be true, is that 97% believe climate change is at least partly anthropogenic

[/i] however the 97% that people like you just lap up is bogus.

Let’s look at where it came from, which woke numpties like you have never bothered to consider.

(1)

The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists andhad “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 79 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

(2)

A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists.

And finally (3)


the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sandand creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent!

When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.



Now I’m not denying climate change, or anything like that.

I am sceptical of this climate emergency angle.

There are real questions about the quality of the models and their ability to predict effectively enough to drive policy to he extent they are being relied upon

climate emergency is pure politics.

Those studies that don’t fit the narrative seem to sink without a trace

And then there is the professor Phil Jones scandal...

I DID look where it came from. In fact, I had previously read the very study in question, as well as criticism of it (some of which state Cook was actually far too narrow in his own definitions of what a stated position is and underestimated the level of consensus). I did note the part about 'papers taking a position' earlier. In the Cook study, this was calculated both from looking at abstracts of thousands of papers, as well as, in a follow-up survey, inviting those climate study authors to comment personally on the position of their papers - over 1000 responded (this is a much bigger number than 41). Both methods reached a conclusion of a 97% consensus that human activity is causing a majority of the current warming. This was then cross-referenced against several other surveys of climate research corpus, all of which reached very similar conclusions.

No, it's not likely to be a perfect number, but does it have to be when there are *-all peer-reviewed studies that definitively state the opposite position?

Meanwhile, you're, again, relying on a very dodgy source.

David Legates, mentioned in your source, is employed as an expert by the Heartland Institute and the Marshall Institute, both of which receive hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars from companies like Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries etc. Vested interest perhaps? Co-authors of the study your source has cited are Willie Soon who, again, has received millions from fossil fuel companies, as well as Lord ******* Monkton (no scientific background). Brilliant! Furthermore, amongst that handful of scientists who apparently protested the use of their work in Cook's survey, your old mate Lindzhen pops up again. Who woulda thunk it?

The most recent IPCC climate assessments (again, co-authored/reviewed by hundreds of climate scientists and field experts) clearly state the following positions:
Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely (95–100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century
It is extremely likely (95–100%) that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.
Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which, together with adaptation, can limit climate change risks
If overshoot (beyond 1.5 degrees) is to be minimized, the remaining equivalent CO2 budget available for emissions is very small, which implies that large, immediate and unprecedented global efforts to mitigate greenhouse gases are required
Sounds a bit like a crisis, no? I'd recommend looking into these reports (as you falsely stated Lindzhen was the lead author, I presume you haven't), as well as the recent IPCC Global Warming of 1.5 degrees Special Report, which predicts the likelihood of serious consequences of overshooting the 1.5 degree target.

So, given there are hundreds of leading climate scientists contributing their research to these climate assessment reports which clearly state the same conclusion as Cook was looking for in his survey (humans are causing recent global warming), don't you find the figure of '0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts' to be just a little bit unbelievable? It's almost as if it's complete bullshit from denialists funded by companies that have spent significant amounts of money on misinformation campaigns to protect their profits (Exxon being the best example). The Legates paper also doesn't investigate just how few credible, peer-reviewed papers actually take a position of disagreeing with AGW. It simply invents a narrow as heck definition of a position of agreement and uses that to distort the figures.

I think you seriously need to start to consider the context of the sources you choose to consume. There are some good media literacy courses you can check out online.

I would bloody love if the climate issue wasn't at the point of crisis, but when the work of the many scientists contributing to IPCC are telling us we need immediate, serious action or else we'll surpass the +1.5 degree target, as well as predicting a huge number of different life-threatening consequences as having medium to extreme likelihood if we do go beyond it, I find it a little hard not to agree with Thundberg's positions that we need to wake up and do something.
 
Nov 1, 2012
38,542
58,991
AFL Club
Adelaide
I'm gonna put this here, as it's a bit long and the conversation in the main board thread has moved elsewhere.


I DID look where it came from. In fact, I had previously read the very study in question, as well as criticism of it (some of which state Cook was actually far too narrow in his own definitions of what a stated position is and underestimated the level of consensus). I did note the part about 'papers taking a position' earlier. In the Cook study, this was calculated both from looking at abstracts of thousands of papers, as well as, in a follow-up survey, inviting those climate study authors to comment personally on the position of their papers - over 1000 responded (this is a much bigger number than 41). Both methods reached a conclusion of a 97% consensus that human activity is causing a majority of the current warming. This was then cross-referenced against several other surveys of climate research corpus, all of which reached very similar conclusions.

No, it's not likely to be a perfect number, but does it have to be when there are fu**-all peer-reviewed studies that definitively state the opposite position?

Meanwhile, you're, again, relying on a very dodgy source.

David Legates, mentioned in your source, is employed as an expert by the Heartland Institute and the Marshall Institute, both of which receive hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars from companies like Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries etc. Vested interest perhaps? Co-authors of the study your source has cited are Willie Soon who, again, has received millions from fossil fuel companies, as well as Lord ******* Monkton (no scientific background). Brilliant! Furthermore, amongst that handful of scientists who apparently protested the use of their work in Cook's survey, your old mate Lindzhen pops up again. Who woulda thunk it?

The most recent IPCC climate assessments (again, co-authored/reviewed by hundreds of climate scientists and field experts) clearly state the following positions:




Sounds a bit like a crisis, no? I'd recommend looking into these reports (as you falsely stated Lindzhen was the lead author, I presume you haven't), as well as the recent IPCC Global Warming of 1.5 degrees Special Report, which predicts the likelihood of serious consequences of overshooting the 1.5 degree target.

So, given there are hundreds of leading climate scientists contributing their research to these climate assessment reports which clearly state the same conclusion as Cook was looking for in his survey (humans are causing recent global warming), don't you find the figure of '0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts' to be just a little bit unbelievable? It's almost as if it's complete bulls**t from denialists funded by companies that have spent significant amounts of money on misinformation campaigns to protect their profits (Exxon being the best example). The Legates paper also doesn't investigate just how few credible, peer-reviewed papers actually take a position of disagreeing with AGW. It simply invents a narrow as heck definition of a position of agreement and uses that to distort the figures.

I think you seriously need to start to consider the context of the sources you choose to consume. There are some good media literacy courses you can check out online.

I would bloody love if the climate issue wasn't at the point of crisis, but when the work of the many scientists contributing to IPCC are telling us we need immediate, serious action or else we'll surpass the +1.5 degree target, as well as predicting a huge number of different life-threatening consequences as having medium to extreme likelihood if we do go beyond it, I find it a little hard not to agree with Thundberg's positions that we need to wake up and do something.

So in other words you don’t have any real contribution or rebuttal beyond “they once took funding from... XYZ, so they must be compromised”

Tedious and specious
 

Dandy_GO

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 25, 2005
8,126
3,263
Yunnan, China
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Celtic, Sunderland
So in other words you don’t have any real contribution or rebuttal beyond “they once took funding from... XYZ, so they must be compromised”

Tedious and specious
That's a distortion of one of several lines of reasoning and evidence presented in response to the crap you quoted. To clarify, they didn't once take funding, they repeatedly and, especially in the case of co-author Soon, almost exclusively take funding from fossil fuel-producing/profit reliant companies. I'm not sure what your issue is with spotting clear examples of vested interests at play.

But you're absolutely correct - it is awfully tedious how you always fall back on your default position of "you don't have an argument" when challenged.
 

Carmo

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 15, 2011
6,522
5,860
SA
AFL Club
Adelaide
I’m still waiting on you to provide the list of recessions that followed the Costello/Howard surpluses. You stated recessions always follow surpluses and you’ve been asked numerous times that one exceedingly simple question. You’re full of s**t and anybody that thinks different is a dimwit.

Here you go numnuts. I admit I made a mistake when (if) I said surpluses lead to recession guaranteed. In the US this has typically been the case. I should have said that surpluses vastly increase the likelihood of poor economic position and eventually recession. In Australia we missed a recession in the surplus years from 97 through 2008, though it still dented our economic position as I'll explain in a second.

Explanation of the diagram below - According to modern monetary economics which I follow the growth in the economy is the product of injections of money into and out of the economy (plus a few other goings on but we can ignore them here). There are 4 main injections, the current account deficit, which the government has limited control over currently, the federal budget, the amount of private savings and the amount of private debt. Below all these graphs I have the growth data as that is a product of relative movements in the others. I have collated the data and lined it up as best as I can given the vagaries of excel. I have circled the two surplus periods plus the one we seem to be heading for now.

You can see that the effect of the late 80's early 90's surplus in the purple circles was to make a dent in the level of private savings, make a jump up in private debt (admittedly not to dangerous levels) and caused a recession.

The surplus years from 97-2008 didn't cause a recession but did do damage. On the savings and debt graphs you will note two black bars. One at the level of zero on the savings graph and on the private debt at a level of 150. These both represent the end of the lines for these factors. Private savings can only get to zero and then that's not a lever you have in the economy anymore. When private debt gets above about 150% of GDP it typically induces a financial collapse. As indicated in the red circles these surplus years drained savings right down and also took private debt to the brink until labor's injection of money back in via deficits got things back under control a bit.

Finally in the black circles you can see that the current surplus attempt is driving savings back down, pushed private debt back up to the edge of financial collapse and has begun to stunt growth. I predict further stunting of the growth if further pursuit of a surplus happens.
Australian economy 4 inputs plus resultant growth 2.png
 
Last edited:

Carmo

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 15, 2011
6,522
5,860
SA
AFL Club
Adelaide
I had a look at this, it is a lot of self referential dribble that is typical of the economics field... ie they use a general equilibrium model and then find that things generally equilibriate, how amazing! Problem is they, for example, conveniently chose to do the modelling over the period post the GFC. Convenient because if they had run the model prior to and during GFC and up til now, they would have been miles off in that GFC period.
 
Aug 21, 2008
12,563
15,279
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
I had a look at this, it is a lot of self referential dribble that is typical of the economics field... ie they use a general equilibrium model and then find that things generally equilibriate, how amazing! Problem is they, for example, conveniently chose to do the modelling over the period post the GFC. Convenient because if they had run the model prior to and during GFC and up til now, they would have been miles off in that GFC period.
Not a fan of the GE model? I always thought it was as an accurate representation ;)
 
Mar 23, 2007
8,603
7,324
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
So another interest rate cut. Watch the banks not pass it on to the consumer.

I got this from here.

“In balancing these interests, we have carefully considered how to best meet the needs of over six million savings customers — who may find it challenging to make ends meet with record low savings interest rates — with the needs of our 1.6 million home loan customers, who want to pay less on their mortgages; and the needs of our shareholders, many of whom are retirees who rely on our dividend.” (from CBA executive Angus Sullivan).

lolwut.
 
Nov 6, 2003
120,636
165,730
Melbourne
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
🇦🇺 🇦🇺 🇦🇺 West Adelaide
Indigenous leader says cop who laughed and played up for the camera while he stoned a wombat to death in a sickening video did nothing wrong because it's his traditional RIGHT as an Aborigine
An off-duty policeman who stoned a wombat to death in a sickening video did nothing wrong, an Aboriginal elder has said. Waylon Johncock (left, centre and top right) was filmed repeatedly throwing rocks at the wombat's head while a friend lit up the road with truck headlights on South Australia's Eyre Peninsula. The video went viral after it was posted by appalled animal activists - but a Wirangu-Kokatha elder Jack Johncock (bottom right) has said the young man, who is indigenous, was acting within his rights. Under the Native Title Act of 1993, Aboriginal people are allowed to maintain ancient customs such as hunting local wildlife.

giphy.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back