Jara

Morning Biff - certainly agree with your last comment - in part, anyway. I'm sure a lot of it is because of badly planned migration (my wife works as an emergency nurse - reckons their work load has doubled in the past 10 years and staffing levels more or less the same - same seems to be true of most other aspects of the public infrastructure) - but I also suspect a lot of it is due to the behaviour of the rich (for example - tax avoidance - read this book a couple of years ago - called Treasure Islands, or something like that - pointed out that in a typical western capitalist country like ours, about 10% of our GDP is buried away in tax havens (another amazing fact I remember - in many Third World countries, around 20% is squirrelled away - in Russia, it was around 40% - I presume this is all because technology has made it easier to do - governments always lag behind the spivs and conmen) As for The Rhino - she's weird - inherited iron ore worth tens of billions and grumbles because we won't work for African wages. Hope things are going well for you in North Altona (as I think said to you once before, I grew up round there)

Self-crippling? That makes about as much sense to me as Wrecker's suggestion that I was 'jealous'. I feel neither crippled nor jealous of anybody. I just happen to believe that societies that allow massive amounts of wealth to accumulate to a few individuals tend not to work as well as their more egalitarian counterparts . Last year I heard a documentary about Norway's Sovereign Wealth Fund. Basically they've saved vast amounts from their North Sea oil. Their savings are ten times greater than our own; their financial future is secure. Australia, on the other hand, seems to have just p*&%ed our resource income up against the wall and given it to people like Gina Rhino. Which, I presume, is one of the reasons our public infrastructure is disintegrating and so many of us worry about our kids' future.

We can embrace the greater good or dwell on a small minority who's only crime is to make lots of money. Jealousy is a curse. Morning Wrecker So you'd be happy to see Hawthorn win the next fifty premierships?

Hey Ethan - dunno where you got your stats from, but Choke was quite right - coincidentally, there was an article about it in this morning's Age - by Peter Martin. IMF forecasts US growth from 2.3-2.7 % in 2018, then from 1.9% - 2.5 % in 2019. Personally, I don't pay much attention to GDP. I reckon inequality is a better measure of how well a society is doing. If there are ten people in my street, one of them is a billionaire and the others have nothing, the stats will suggest we're all millionaires. Interesting figure in yesterday's paper: the number of billionaires in Australia has doubled in the past few years, while wage growth has been sweet fa.

Terrific post, Choke. - but there must be a mistake somewhere. The man's a stable genius.

Fair enough. Thanks for saving me the trouble. I suppose you do get a bit of a boost when you unleash the shackles on big business, increase inequality and indicate an eagerness to destroy the environment to increase profits. Long term, we'll see (the last crash came at the end of an 8-year Republican party)

GDP, stock market and unemployment figures - all measurable are pointing towards a genius. Didn't most of those things improve under Obama? (General recovery from the GFC)

I haven't followed any online debates about Churchill - got better things to do - but have read a few biographies (especially the Manchester one) - I know the arguments, for and against, and agree that he was an extraordinary man, especially when he first took over the Prime Ministership and gave the Brits some backbone - but no apologies for using Wikipedia - if you are going to make any sort of assertion, Wikipedia is as reliable a source as you can find on the net - they go to extraordinary lengths to make sure that their information is reliably referenced, objective and unbiased.

Hi guys I haven't followed this whole thread, but if Dieter doesn't want to criticise the British Empire, allow me. Sure, the guy defended his own country against Hitler. He was also a racist imperialist. Indian colleagues of mine believe him largely responsible for the Bengal Famine, because he was annoyed with them for daring to want independence. Millions died as a result. A quick search of the Famine on Wikipedia gives the following: "According to historians Bayly and Harper, quite apart from the exigencies of war, it was difficult not to conclude, that the Churchill war ministry and Winston Churchill himself had a visceral hostility toward India; "The prime minister believed that Indians were the next worst people in the world after the Germans. Their treachery had been plain in the Quit India movement. The Germans he was prepared to bomb into the ground. The Indians he would starve to death as a result of their own folly and viciousness."

Well, if you can honestly do that (and support your argument with solid references), I will be impressed. I must admit, i just pulled the article off the Met Soc's website after a five-minute search - it was one of quite a few articles by highly qualified scientists suggesting that global warming is anthropogenic. I read it, but couldn't understand much of it, but the opening and closing bits did seem to be suggesting what i said. I listened to the Christy, and read about him - he's obviously highly qualified, and his comments seem to make sense - I'm not equipped to refute him - all I can say is that his opinions don't seem to be shared by the majority of his colleagues - (I watched to the clip last night - haven't got time to find details right now, but I did notice that his own professional organisation - were they called the Geophysial Society? - have opined that global warming is man-made)

You can't help me or you can't refute the article? It was a fairly straightforward task I gave you. So you're saying that all of these world-leading scientific organisations - the American Chemical Society, the Geological Society, the Met Soc etc - are wrong? And that little old Pro, the uneducated Melbourne footy fan sitting at his computer and spitting out his venom, is....right? I'll say it one more time. Refute the article. Or be honest enough to admit that you are unable to.

Huh? I already did. I gave you the link just before Christmas. It was from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It was signed by the leaders of major scientific organisations like the American Chemical Society, the Geological Soc of America. It stated, quite clearly, that they believe that global warming is man-made and dangerous. Go back and read it for yourself. And by the way, that article I listed earlier on, I got it from a publication of the American Meteorological Society. From my reading of it, it seems to state, quite clearly, that the record global temperatures of 2016 were anthropogenic. Here's the link: www.ametsoc.net/eee/2016/ch3.pdf (message me back if you can't find it) Here's your mission, Pro, should you choose to accept it: Show me where that Met Soc article got it wrong. Prove to me the record global warming of 2016 was NOT anthropogenic. As I've said, I've got no science qualifications, and can't respond to the hacks you drag out, but you, of course, with your legendary "predilection for climate" and your deep study of the topic, will have no problem (and by the way, please don't just quote another of your IPA stooges like Marohasy - be a clever boy and find the mistake yourself)

Thanks. Very kind of you. From what I can see, the guy is a moustachioed buffoon with no qualifications whatsoever - an ex-TV weatherman - who gets paid by your beloved Heartlands institute (i.e. the billionaires' front) to tell them what they want to hear. Since when does quantity equal quality? A lot of morons barrack for Collingwood as well. You still haven't answered one question that interested me. Do you question other branches of science (et quantum mechanics) or do you focus your brilliant mind upon climate science alone?

Thought it was pretty clear. The thirty or whatever respected scientific organisations, peer bodies in their respective professions, including chemistry, geology etc., that I mentioned a few days ago. You know, the ones that say that global warming is anthropogenic.

Thanks Dieter. Yes, I always thought I was a fool - coming from a powerhouse intellect like Pro's, I suppose that confirms it. Dunno bout the leftie - judge things on their merits, these days. And, to be honest, I'm not sure what a nuffie is. Anyway, happy new year to you.

Hey Pro - home now - just checked up on that Watts guy. He has no qualifications whatsoever - not even a basic degree (according to his Wikipedia entry) - even less than that Jack Steele school teacher and his polar bears. Lots of people read his blog. So what? Lots of people watch The Block. Why do you give more credit to what this whacko says than to - oh - say, what the American Meteorological Society, the foremost organisation in the field, state in their official policy publications? Here's one example: (sorry whole page came through - meant to just put in link) By the way, I've been meaning to ask, do you doubt all science the way you doubt climate science? Do you, for example, have doubts about the Theory of Relativity? Quantum Mechanics?

I'm going out with kids, so don't have long, but I had a quick look at that Watts fellow - he's about as compelling as our own Watts fellow - he's an ex-tv weatherman with no climate qualifications whatsoever. Does Jane Bunn (or whatever her name is) blog as well?

If it's such a stupid question, why don't you answer it?

But not enough to influence the policy stance of a single professional scientific organisation?

Hi Wrecker - just heard an interesting talk on The Infinite Monkey Cage, if you know the program - BBC science show, with Brian Cox - on scientific method. Answered your question, i thought, quite directly. Sorry, I'm in a rush, going out, no time for long answer, but we're both intelligent enough to know how scientific theory works, are we not? Theories are out there until they are proved wrong. Nobody's saying you have to accept a particular position, they're just saying, on the evidence we have so far, this is what we believe. I suppose you'd still find the odd renegade physicist who reckons Einstein got it wrong, but I doubt you'd find him or her on the board of whatever organisation represents physicists. Same with Darwin - I gather there have been numerous refinements of his theory, but the core ideas still hold firm. That's why I put emphasis upon the views of the leading organisations of the different branches of science. Despite Pro's very impressive list of concerns above, he can't come up with a single scientific organisation which supports his views, which makes me smell a rat.

Hey Wrecker - welcome back - (except that you're a bit scary cos you're on the ball and usually find holes in my arguments) But here, I don't see the problem. All sorts of organisations come up with policy positions on all sorts of things, usually based on some sort of consensus among the members of the organisation (e.g. . a political party, an employer group, your local cricket club) In my experience, policy positions are usually developed and signed off by the board members, who are elected by the general membership of the profession. Candidates standing for election state their beliefs, and are voted for accordingly. I presume that happens with the scientific organisations I mentioned (e.g. the Chemical , Geological Associations or whatever they were). This seems like a pretty sensible approach to me; it means that the scientific organisations tend to represent the general consensus of opinion among the professionals in that particular branch of science. As accepted theory evolves, policy platforms change. That's why I'm a bit wary of people like this Wrightstone fellow. He may be right - he certainly knows enough to bamboozle an ignoramus like me - but he clearly doesn't know enough to bamboozle his fellow experts, who, as the quote I gave demonstrates, accept that climate change is anthropogenic and dangerous (I'm also a bit suspicious because he's working for the fossil fuel industry - I'd question his objectivity). Re your last comment - pleeeze - you can do better than that.

I love learning and find the science and debates fascinating. While I don't post on science blogs the amount one learns from the comments section is extraordinary. There are a lot of people out there who have incredible insight into temperature and the atmosphere on BOTH sides of the argument. Pro, If you find the insights from "BOTH" sides so incredible, how come you only ever cut and paste the stuff from one?

Alas, Dieter, I fear he'll keep em coming. It's not hard to do his so called 'research' - all you have to do is log onto a few sites like Breitbart etc and they give you all the propaganda links etc. you want. And, as he confessed, he never actually contacts the real experts to see what they reckon. When I asked him why he didn't do that, he mattered something about just being a footy fan and being busy running his small business. I thought (but very politely refrained from saying) - huh? - you've got all the time to run around cherry-picking Breitbart rubbish, but you haven't got time to actually ask an expert? I was amused by this earlier comment from Pro: I do know the answers. Anyone who has shown a predilection for the climate has learnt the basics. A predilection for climate? What's that supposed to mean? I don't think he even knows. If anything, I'd say he's got a predilection for nuthouse conspiracy theories.

Wrightstone is a petroleum geologist who works for the fossil fuel industry (i.e. hardly objective) Whatever - I'm sure he knows a lot more than I do. That said, if he's going to be preaching climate denial, he would be well advised to begin with his fellow geology professionals (who collectively know more than he does) This is a quote from the website of the American Geological Society: The use of abundant and cheap fossil fuels has contributed to the emergence of the United States as an economic power and has raised the standard of living for much of the developed world. This use, however, represents an energy business model that must change. We now know that anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions, including those from fossil fuel combustion, have a profound impact on global climate, with effects on local and regional ecosystems and public health.

I know, it's a hard slog, trying to refute logic. But really, it's a pretty simple question: is there a single credible science organisation in the world that supports your opinions on climate change? I'll take one from anywhere. The Lesothian Rabbit Skinners Institute. The Baumberg Knee-Slappers.