OUT: Abbott IN: Turnbull

[Guest]

So you want a free press, outside the government sphere and immune from government abuse, but operating under a regulatory scheme put in place by the government?

How does that work?

Let's be honest. The only reason Gillard threatened regulatory intervention was to hit News Corp with a stick because she didn't like their coverage of her Government.

Abbott and Dutton whinging about the ABC and Fairfax was the just the other side of the same coin.

How it would works is that it would be part of the public service and would have a charter of independence banning political interference regardless of who is in power. Sadly, with our current batch of pollies that would most likely be a non starter.

These days, since Howard purged the public service upon his election in 1996, so much of what the public service is is wound up with the fortunes of the party in power thus making the two indistinguishable. It shouldn't be this way. Menzies recognized an independent public service was vital to a healthy democracy.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Colin B. Flaubert

[Guest]

CBF - I went to page 11 as well as reading the rest of the brochure. Karen's interest in alternative music and student activism as a from of teenage rebellion was given as background not a reason for her becoming a destructive eco-terrrorist.

That's a pretty big hair you are splitting there wrecker!

[dee-luded 2,959]

CBF - I went to page 11 as well as reading the rest of the brochure. Karen's interest in alternative music and student activism as a from of teenage rebellion was given as background not a reason for her becoming a destructive eco-terrrorist.

In the other case studeies background was given as well. Erin felt she didn't belong and maybe had self esteem issues. Jay didn't have a father and had an impressionable nature. Karen was rebellious. I think background was included so people could relate to the people and see how quickly and easily they can be lead down the wrong path.

I think anyone far left or right who believes what they're doing is righteous and therefore the right thing to do without question is dangerous.

what is the wrong path exactly?

[P-man 13,366]

I've written extensively about global warming on Demonland. Feel free to point out anything that I have said that is factually incorrect.

You may have noted that China has now pledged to introduce a nationwide ETS. The excuses for the Coalition government's tokenistic approach are now running empty. We are becoming more and more isolated.

Having engaged with a flat earthers on the subject before, I'm not in a rush to do it again. If you or anyone else wants to continue to question the science, feel free. Most of the world moved past you well over a decade ago.

Edited September 30, 2015 by P-man

[Wrecker45 3,378]

You may have noted that China has now pledged to introduce a nationwide ETS. The excuses for the Coalition government's tokenistic approach are now running empty. We are becoming more and more isolated.

Having engaged with a flat earthers on the subject before, I'm not in a rush to do it again. If you or anyone else wants to continue to question the science, feel free. Most of the world moved past you well over a decade ago.

In your opinion how can the science be falsified? II'll give you a tip; if it can't be it is not scientific.

[P-man 13,366]

In your opinion how can the science be falsified? II'll give you a tip; if it can't be it is not scientific.

Cool.

Moving on.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

Cool.

Moving on.

I don't like discussing religion much either.

[Earl Hood 6,099]

What I find astonishing is that Malcolm has to move slowly on climate change policy because he has done some deal with the Nationals who are determined to hold him to Tony's hard line position. Now Tony was an unthinking apologist for the coal and gas industry who were big donors to the Liberals. But the Nationals are representing farmers and farming communities, many of which are under seige from the coal seam gas cowboys. So what have the Nationals and the farming industry got to fear from sensible climate policies?

Do they have a death wish? They want more droughts and floods for Queensland farms? Alternatively if they dont believe in climate change what do the Nationals lose if a Government brings in tighter rules on emissions?

Not sure unless Every farmer is hellbent on land clearing or something?

[dee-luded 2,959]

What I find astonishing is that Malcolm has to move slowly on climate change policy because he has done some deal with the Nationals who are determined to hold him to Tony's hard line position. Now Tony was an unthinking apologist for the coal and gas industry who were big donors to the Liberals. But the Nationals are representing farmers and farming communities, many of which are under seige from the coal seam gas cowboys. So what have the Nationals and the farming industry got to fear from sensible climate policies?

Do they have a death wish? They want more droughts and floods for Queensland farms? Alternatively if they dont believe in climate change what do the Nationals lose if a Government brings in tighter rules on emissions?

Not sure unless Every farmer is hellbent on land clearing or something?

regional employment? from miners? or could it be doners? & advertisers in the media. uncle rupert, that other rabbit? surely he isn't a climate change sceptic, is he?

after all, we don't want a return to where the industry giants sack our democratically elected governments again, do we.... the worst days of our democracy i can remember, from my lifetime... disgusted by the miners attitudes, then, & still, & reflected by the recent 'double Irish sandwich', & other Tax evasion strategies of the multi-nationals.

it is high time that these big companies were made to pay their taxes, & pronto. they currently hold governments to ransom. we the people must start to stand up against the power crazed minds that cause companies avoid their responsibilities..

& rupet, how about you bring back those squillions from just the other year, that went to the states?

http://www.smh.com.au/business/rupert-murdochs-us-empire-siphons-45b-from-australian-business-virtually-taxfree-20150405-1meu0l.html

Edited September 30, 2015 by dee-luded

[Grapeviney 9,786]

How it would works is that it would be part of the public service and would have a charter of independence banning political interference regardless of who is in power.

How do you define 'political interference' and can you provide some examples where this has happened in the past?

And how do you ban a story retrospectively? Or do all stories have to be submitted to the regulator before they are published to get the green light?

And who decides what's OK or not? You? Me? Given that senior public service jobs are appointed by the Government of the day, what hope is there of having an impartial regulator? See past ABC board appointments to see how this really works in practice.

Lastly, you haven't addressed the inherent contradiction in your earlier post; you can't have a free press under the thumb of a regulator.

[Guest]

How do you define 'political interference' and can you provide some examples where this has happened in the past?

And how do you ban a story retrospectively? Or do all stories have to be submitted to the regulator before they are published to get the green light?

And who decides what's OK or not? You? Me? Given that senior public service jobs are appointed by the Government of the day, what hope is there of having an impartial regulator? See past ABC board appointments to see how this really works in practice.

Lastly, you haven't addressed the inherent contradiction in your earlier post; you can't have a free press under the thumb of a regulator.

The clause of non interference would require those appointed to the board to divest themselves of any partisan allegiances or to have none in the first place and to keep a buffer between the executive and the ministry. It would work as an segment of the public sector is supposed to work but in reality does not anymore. Your point about the ABC board is a pertinent one. For how many years did Howard try to stack that board?

The concept of 'banning stories' is your attempt to put words into my mouth to try and warp this debate into something that it is not as I have not once used the word 'ban'. What I believe should happen is that a media regulatory authority should be established whereupon stories that are clearly dishonest and inaccurate be held to some measure of account. I guess the biggest stick one could wield would be fiduciary and loss of face in the journalistic establishment. As I and you have both said however, a pure process is unlikely to happen due to the public service being politicized as much as it has been after 1996.

I would address your last point by saying that your idea of 'free press' would lead to (and has perhaps already led to) a situation that is akin to a group of monkeys in a zoo flinging their feces. Whoever is the biggest monkey who can produce the most crap wins that battle and it's fairly comparable to what gets put on commercial TV and in the papers. The biggest monkey with the capacity to poop out as much as possible ends up winning. Your argument is based on the premise of a truly free market of ideas in the private sector which is demonstrably false.

Stephen Colbert summed it up fairly well when he stated that 'you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.' Sadly, a lot of the NewsCorp tabloid empire and Sydney talk-back radio live in their own little bizarro universe due to the state of affairs I stated above. I have had my little tete-a-tetes with BenHur and RobbieF while they were around but the asylum seeker issues and how it is grossly misrepresented in commercial media is a great example. Has it ever been pointed out how low we are in regards to per capita acceptance of refugees? Or in regards how much we spend per head per refugee vs. how much the EU is spending on resettling the vast amounts of refugees right now? Or how high the approval rate was when the three step appeals process was in place? No, we only get tales of how refugees are blocking traffic in Western Sydney or how they are mostly economic migrants.

If there were some kind of government body that could keep people's feet to the fire in regards to being intellectually honest then the partisan nature of news media itself would begin to crumble. There is a precedent in the US for a legislative regime to regulate (to some degree) news content. The Fairness Doctrine was preserved until the 80's until Reagan tore it down. It required in cases of editorial content on TV and radio that a member of the opposing side be also given a chance to reply in the same broadcast.

Any regulator would be bound by a charter that would require processes and tests to insure that anything that would be looked at would be based exclusively on provable evidence and not people's hurt partisan feelings. Sadly though with the political culture that exists in Australia, I don't see that happening.

[Earl Hood 6,099]

Talking climate change which we weren't I know. Strewth it is hot for this early in the year, in fact it has broken all 154 years of records. What is that telling us? Maybe a coincidence, a random anomaly, maybe a disturbing trend!!! I doubt it myself.

[daisycutter 29,703]

Talking climate change which we weren't I know. Strewth it is hot for this early in the year, in fact it has broken all 154 years of records. What is that telling us? Maybe a coincidence, a random anomaly, maybe a disturbing trend!!! I doubt it myself.

records are made to be beaten, earl, given enough time

my thoughts went to the fireys, poor buggars

[dee-luded 2,959]

Talking climate change which we weren't I know. Strewth it is hot for this early in the year, in fact it has broken all 154 years of records. What is that telling us? Maybe a coincidence, a random anomaly, maybe a disturbing trend!!! I doubt it myself.

its wreckers anomaly,, & his latest, the Earth IS actually flat. boom boom.

no truly its the El Nino... its back, to bust Wreckers anomalies... because its to show all those who aren't appreciative of whats been supplied to sustain life, how wrong they are.

La Nina has gone to Sth America; I expect, & I surmise that it is warmer there, than they're last La Nina...

[Guest]

its wreckers anomaly,, & his latest, the Earth IS actually flat. boom boom.

no truly its the El Nino... its back, to bust Wreckers anomalies... because its to show all those who aren't appreciative of whats been supplied to sustain life, how wrong they are.

La Nina has gone to Sth America; I expect, & I surmise that it is warmer there, than they're last La Nina...

At least Wrecker is respectful for the most part. Remember BenHur and RobbieF's legendary performances on here? I don't think I have seen someone throw a bigger tanty in my entire life than when RobbieF skulked off.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

Talking climate change which we weren't I know. Strewth it is hot for this early in the year, in fact it has broken all 154 years of records. What is that telling us? Maybe a coincidence, a random anomaly, maybe a disturbing trend!!! I doubt it myself.

Earl Hood you will notice despite writing extensively on climate change I have never mentioned how we missed last summer and how cold this past winter has been because it is local weather not global climate. You do yourself no favours mentioning a few hot days locally in October as evidence of global warming.

I'd also appreciate a link to whatever records you claim are being broken. And also point out (again) that we have been warming since the Little Ice Age so of course we are getting record temperatures when you begin measuring from the Little Ice Age. I'd also point out that it is great for mankind that we have warmed since then.

The IPCC in 1990 predicted warming of 0.2 to 0.5 °C per decade over the next few decades “under the IPCC Business-as-Usual ... a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade) ..." whereas in the real world we've had at most 0.17°C per decade since then. This is fact and not a matter of subjectivity. You can check at any of the 5 major data sets but for convenience sake here is a link to NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association).

The models were wrong then and they haven't changed their sensitivity to Carbon Dioxide since so why would they be correct now?

I also ask you what P-man wouldn't answer for me. What can falsify global warming theory? And if nothing can it is not science.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Wrecker45

[hardtack 10,602]

Wrecker45...greater minds than yours say that global warming is very real and greater minds than mine say it is not. Unless you have some sort of qualification in the area of climate science (I certainly don't), I would say that you are none the wiser than the rest of us.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

Wrecker45...greater minds than yours say that global warming is very real and greater minds than mine say it is not. Unless you have some sort of qualification in the area of climate science (I certainly don't), I would say that you are none the wiser than the rest of us.

Greater minds than mine and yours said we should take Toumpas over Ollie Wines. Now the real world evidence indicates Wines would have been a better pick. The game is not over yet and Toumpas could come right back but on current observations our prediction was a dud.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Wrecker45

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

I also ask you what P-man wouldn't answer for me. What can falsify global warming theory? And if nothing can it is not science.

Hi Wrecker, interesting point.

From my understanding, the science CAN be falsified, but not until we have a long enough timeline of data. Unfortunately by the time that an entire dataset is available, it may be too late. As I understand it, the scientists are looking at the models and trends and making inferences based on that. Those inferences by and large indicate that the globe is warming. From there, the natural conclusion is to take action to prevent it.

If we do nothing, we may find that when the full data picture is available to provide falsifiability that it's too late and we cannot reverse the effects.

FWIW a close friend of mine works in the BOM in Darwin. He said that he has examined the issue in detail and he concurs with the assessment that the Earth is warming due to human influences. He actually reads and understands the science behind it unlike me, so I will trust his judgement. Having said that, he's a Saints supporter so his judgement may actually be suspect.

[daisycutter 29,703]

Hi Wrecker, interesting point.

From my understanding, the science CAN be falsified, but not until we have a long enough timeline of data. Unfortunately by the time that an entire dataset is available, it may be too late. As I understand it, the scientists are looking at the models and trends and making inferences based on that. Those inferences by and large indicate that the globe is warming. From there, the natural conclusion is to take action to prevent it.

If we do nothing, we may find that when the full data picture is available to provide falsifiability that it's too late and we cannot reverse the effects.

FWIW a close friend of mine works in the BOM in Darwin. He said that he has examined the issue in detail and he concurs with the assessment that the Earth is warming due to human influences. He actually reads and understands the science behind it unlike me, so I will trust his judgement. Having said that, he's a Saints supporter so his judgement may actually be suspect.

i suppose he stands by his weekly weather forecasts too, choke

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

i suppose he stands by his weekly weather forecasts too, choke

Yeah, I've asked him about it several times.

According to him the problem is the way that their probability models are presented as absolute fact, not statistical likelihoods.

Typical public servant, blaming the media.

[daisycutter 29,703]

Yeah, I've asked him about it several times.

According to him the problem is the way that their probability models are presented as absolute fact, not statistical likelihoods.

Typical public servant, blaming the media.

he just like us, choke. a loyal fan - lol

[Jara 1,153]

records are made to be beaten, earl, given enough time

my thoughts went to the fireys, poor buggars

Hey Daisy, I was one of the fireys at Lancefield. Been CFA for years, spoke to lots of the older guys. None of them had ever seen anything like this, so early in the year.

Global warming is real and terrifying. Don't care what the deniers say, the evidence is there in front of us. We'll all be bloody fireys before much longer.

[daisycutter 29,703]

Hey Daisy, I was one of the fireys at Lancefield. Been CFA for years, spoke to lots of the older guys. None of them had ever seen anything like this, so early in the year.

Global warming is real and terrifying. Don't care what the deniers say, the evidence is there in front of us. We'll all be bloody fireys before much longer.

maybe you're right jara

but i object to everytime there is an unusual climate event people immediately point the finger and say see i told you so

but nobody said much when last summer was mild after so many experts predicted a summer from hell

nor was there much chatter when last winter was colder than many for decades

one must be wary when being selective with the evidence in front of them, eh?

Edited October 12, 2015 by daisycutter

[Jara 1,153]

Hey Daisy

I'd never point to individual weather events - that would be a bit silly - it's more a matter of overall trends - and they're only going one way. Up! Things are getting hotter (although of course there will be variations)

I regard Black Saturday itself as probably a global warming event - not just the fact that it was a terrible bushfire - we've had plenty of those before - but because the drought leading up to it and the fire itself broke all kinds of records (eg hottest temp recorded in Melbourne, or, even more significant from a firefighters perspective, spotting at a distance of 35 kilometres - I think the fires in the Yarra valley were caused by embers from the Kinglake ranges )

Anyway, I just reckon we have to keep talking about these things in a rational manner - getting people's backs up won't do much good.

Cheers