Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...

So Laurie do you agree with "The Conversation"

Reply
Created by decrepit 28 days ago, 17 Sep 2019
TonyAbbott
257 posts
18 Sep 2019 12:09PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
log man said..

TonyAbbott said..


decrepit said..




Subsonic said..>> That sounds like a dictatorship decrepit.
>>>






As I've said elsewhere I'm getting disillusioned with democracy, modern communication allows the spread of sophisticated false information. And most of the science is just too complicated for most people to understand, (me included), so we are fed oversimplified "facts", out of context, and without a full explanation.
Like posting past cyclone activity that's actually dropped a little recently, with out the explanation that at the moment the elnino, lanina cycles are what's causing it.





The empirical data is just that....data. It does not care about your feelings.




It's not the data it's the explanation. You don't want to show that because you're being dishonest.


Nope, I just posted the link, so people can read and interpret the data how ever they want. If they are interested in knowing things.

Decrepit believes that 50 years of data can be explained away with short cycles of el Nino or la Nina.

How do you explain the decreasing trend in cyclone activity?



evlPanda
NSW, 8797 posts
18 Sep 2019 2:42PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
decrepit said..
It's posting, stuff that's designed to be misleading that's the problem,


It's also the "thumbs". It only takes, what 6 thumbs to "max out".

Person A can come along and say "I think killing people with long hair is a good idea". 6 people can agree with them, by giving them a "thumbs up", and will "max out'.

By the green thumbs being "maxed out" It looks like "SeaBreeze" is in total agreement.

Nobody can give a "thumbs down". There is no disagreement, at least not at this very visual, and some would say very influencing level.

Person B can come along and say "That is obviously a very stupid idea," and literally all of "SeaBreeze" can agree.

But it looks like "SeaBreeze" agrees with Person A as much as they agree with Person B.

Sometimes it's not a good look for "SeaBreeze".

People are influenced by what other people think. The thumbs influence people, and at the moment they are not representative at all.

Bring back the red thumbs. Happy smiley positive only = censorship.

Mobydisc
NSW, 8668 posts
18 Sep 2019 2:44PM
Thumbs Up

Back in the day Pravda probably had some editorial guidelines too. If a journalist wrote an article describing how the price mechanism was a feature of markets for consumers and producers to work out the value and need of an item & thus supply of it, most probably he or she at the very least would have had a very stern talking to from their editor.

The Conversation seems to be a publication pushing a certain agenda like all publications do to a greater or lesser extent. They should be free to stop anyone they like publishing on their site. However, will they keep accurate records of what they do publish? For example they recently published an article from Tim Flannery:

theconversation.com/the-gloves-are-off-predatory-climate-deniers-are-a-threat-to-our-children-123594

Tim Flannery has predicted a whole bunch of stuff. None of it has happened despite predictions on the record. He is basically not held to account for his predictions like Paul Ehrlich has never been held to account for his predictions of global catastrophe from over population.

Will this article be kept on record for just say twenty years? So in 2039 if Flannery is still around and predicting climate catastrophe and it hasn't happened, will he admit being in error? Will he be kept to account? If Tim Flannery wants the gloves off then he should be prepared to be held account both professionally and financially. How much money and how many livelihoods have been lost so far due to his failed predictions?

We are currently told, not explained to, we are told, we have ten years to save ourselves from climate catastrophe. If its business as usual, and most probably it will be as very few people are voluntarily prepared to give up living the lifestyle they are accustomed to, then what will they say in 2029?

Will it be just like it was in 1989 to 1999, 1999 to 2009 or 2009 to 2019? Predict catastrophe and when somehow life goes on for most people in an ever better way, just forget the failed predictions and double down on predictions of greater disasters.

evlPanda
NSW, 8797 posts
18 Sep 2019 2:46PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Mobydisc said..
We are currently told, not explained to, we are told, we have ten years to save ourselves from climate catastrophe.


We are most definitely explained to. Some people just aren't listening. You tell me why.

Failing being able to listen it is 2019 and you can learn about anything.
lmgtfy.com/?q=explain+climate+change
lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+listen
lmgtfy.com/?q=Why+don%27t+people+listen

ALL of the information is right there.

firiebob
WA, 2897 posts
18 Sep 2019 1:09PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
evlPanda said..

decrepit said..
It's posting, stuff that's designed to be misleading that's the problem,



It's also the "thumbs". It only takes, what 6 thumbs to "max out".

Person A can come along and say "I think killing people with long hair is a good idea". 6 people can agree with them, by giving them a "thumbs up", and will "max out'.

By the green thumbs being "maxed out" It looks like "SeaBreeze" is in total agreement.

Nobody can give a "thumbs down". There is no disagreement, at least not at this very visual, and some would say very influencing level.

Person B can come along and say "That is obviously a very stupid idea," and literally all of "SeaBreeze" can agree.

But it looks like "SeaBreeze" agrees with Person A as much as they agree with Person B.

Sometimes it's not a good look for "SeaBreeze".

People are influenced by what other people think. The thumbs influence people, and at the moment they are not representative at all.

Bring back the red thumbs. Happy smiley positive only = censorship.


Yeh I agree EP, I have been thinking the same for a long time.
I think bring back the red thumbs but don't show them, if 6 clowns green thumb but 8 red thumb just show a blank box. I never liked the red/green thumb system from before but the system now doesn't work. You could have 100 who don't agree on something but 6 can make it look as you said, us Breezers are in total agreement. If more green thumb than red then it just shows as now, hope that makes sense

japie
QLD, 5379 posts
18 Sep 2019 3:38PM
Thumbs Up

log man
VIC, 7189 posts
18 Sep 2019 4:35PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
TonyAbbott said..

log man said..


TonyAbbott said..



decrepit said..





Subsonic said..>> That sounds like a dictatorship decrepit.
>>>







As I've said elsewhere I'm getting disillusioned with democracy, modern communication allows the spread of sophisticated false information. And most of the science is just too complicated for most people to understand, (me included), so we are fed oversimplified "facts", out of context, and without a full explanation.
Like posting past cyclone activity that's actually dropped a little recently, with out the explanation that at the moment the elnino, lanina cycles are what's causing it.






The empirical data is just that....data. It does not care about your feelings.





It's not the data it's the explanation. You don't want to show that because you're being dishonest.



Nope, I just posted the link, so people can read and interpret the data how ever they want. If they are interested in knowing things.

Decrepit believes that 50 years of data can be explained away with short cycles of el Nino or la Nina.

How do you explain the decreasing trend in cyclone activity?





you picked the bit you thought backed up your story......if you'd posted the whole thing and the explanations your story would have looked a bit weak, so you didn't post the whole thing.

Chris 249
NSW, 1876 posts
18 Sep 2019 4:37PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
japie said..



So being a Professor of Psychology makes you an expert in climate science?

log man
VIC, 7189 posts
18 Sep 2019 4:40PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
japie said..


he's a joke.

japie
QLD, 5379 posts
18 Sep 2019 5:06PM
Thumbs Up

^^^

Thank god for that. I know I'm on the right track when I have you disagreeing.

japie
QLD, 5379 posts
18 Sep 2019 5:08PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Chris 249 said..

japie said..




So being a Professor of Psychology makes you an expert in climate science?


No. I listened twice and he made no such claims. Did you hear any?

He has, however, an incredibly alert mind and understands logic better than most.

Toph
WA, 1458 posts
18 Sep 2019 3:11PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Chris 249 said..


japie said..





So being a Professor of Psychology makes you an expert in climate science?



No it probably doesn't. But nor did he attempt to answer the climate debate. He was asked whether climate change will unite us and he very much used human psychology to explain why it hasn't and more so, why it won't....

Toph
WA, 1458 posts
18 Sep 2019 3:17PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
log man said..
he's a joke.


That may be so, but he is an educated and considered joke
He even made a few comments that align with your usual beliefs

Emeboy
NSW, 260 posts
18 Sep 2019 5:41PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Chris 249 said..

japie said..




So being a Professor of Psychology makes you an expert in climate science?


He certainly doesn't claim to be Chris.... but he has nailed the point that addressing climate change will not unite us. As a Professor of Psychology (and I believe a quite accomplished one at that), I will sit up and take notice when he comments on how people are likely to react to the prospect..... Look at the polarisation happening here between a small but somewhat similar group of people.....

It is also hard to argue with his comment around the current inaccuracy of our data on climate change which, when extrapolated over a long period, creates a massive likelihood of variation or complete inaccuracy.

For sure there is something going on with the climate.... but just what it is we really don't understand and we certainly don't understand what to do about it.... yet. Worse still, (and as was mentioned in the vid) we are not really sure what the effect of our actions will really have.... positive or negative.

A much more in your face issue that needs attention now and is tangible, measurable and actionable.... is fricken solid waste pollution. Lets clean our ** up and see what happens after that. And I am talking plastic, waste, deforestation dumping of crap in the oceans and waterways.

psychojoe
WA, 485 posts
18 Sep 2019 3:59PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
eppo said..
This post had nothing to do with climate change and whether you agree or not or you are unsure. It's about one dude declaring other opinions are not tolerable from his little world of so called scientific fact. I've got 6 years of tertiary maths and physics background including a degree in environmental science (among others) and I can tell you science and it's conclusions still roam in the grey area.

Especially when it comes to to meteorological maths and physics. That stuff borders on bloody magic and art. Did our heads in trying to wrap our head around that field.

But to proclaim other points of view should not be expressed is horrendously out of place here. Express your opinions, provide evidence - regardless of its validity (because we can never tell in this era of misinformation). But to say some should be silenced the others not is completely out of line and I implore you to reconsider such a limited doctrine.


Ran out of room for green thumbs so I had to repost

eppo
WA, 7304 posts
19 Sep 2019 8:04AM
Thumbs Up

"Low resolution thinking " the proff" said.

sums this argument up succinctly.

Teams of the greatest economic minds kept coming back to childhood nutrition of all things. Imagine that hey!

Complex issues need multi faceted opinions and view points not editorial edicts. Shame on you decrepit. You are better than that.

stoff
WA, 189 posts
19 Sep 2019 9:59AM
Thumbs Up

Green thumbs are being changed by moderators so may as well ditch them altogether!
In another thread about foiling I had a couple of greenies on a post but when I went back a couple of days later they had mysteriously disappeared...
Mild case of censorship but censorship all the same.

Toph
WA, 1458 posts
19 Sep 2019 10:17AM
Thumbs Up

Or maybe whoever gave you the green thumb in the first place changed their minds after thinking about the post and clicked the green thumb button again. That will reduce your green thumb count.

decrepit
WA, 9505 posts
19 Sep 2019 10:31AM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
eppo said..>>Complex issues need multi faceted opinions and view points not editorial edicts. Shame on you decrepit. You are better than that.


So you don't think "The Conversation" is entitled to think about the impact of stuff it publishes?

There's plenty of that going on already, there's even laws about publishing really nasty stuff.

petermac33
WA, 5323 posts
19 Sep 2019 2:06PM
Thumbs Up

So what other stuff are you advocating should possibly be censored?

Anti-vax opinions,pro holistic practices for healing,fluoride concerns,pro gun opinion?

Discussion of 911 Truth to be be excluded from Seabreeze and from all mainstream media as well.

China will soon look like a bastion of free speech by comparison.

eppo
WA, 7304 posts
19 Sep 2019 2:19PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
decrepit said..


eppo said..>>Complex issues need multi faceted opinions and view points not editorial edicts. Shame on you decrepit. You are better than that.




So you don't think "The Conversation" is entitled to think about the impact of stuff it publishes?

There's plenty of that going on already, there's even laws about publishing really nasty stuff.



Not sure convo's on this site will have any bearing on the future of our planet man...lol.

Just people, mainly middle aged fellas, being grumpy bar fly level pricks, talking about stuff they really have no idea about. But that's the beauty of it. I spend most waking hours having to edit what I really think (as most men do)....shouldn't have to do that here (unless of course it crosses the 'ist lines).

it's a complex issue mate, there is no single truth to the mess (and potential remedy) we may or may not have created...

decrepit
WA, 9505 posts
19 Sep 2019 5:05PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
eppo said.. ...Not sure convo's on this site will have any bearing on the future of our planet man...lol.



1 site isn't going to make any difference, same as 1 person isn't going to make any difference. But if everybody uses that argument, nothing happens at all.
At least "The Conversation" has made a stand for their principles.
And you haven't answered my question?

decrepit
WA, 9505 posts
19 Sep 2019 5:07PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
petermac33 said..
So what other stuff are you advocating should possibly be censored?

Anti-vax opinions,pro holistic practices for healing,fluoride concerns,pro gun opinion?

Discussion of 911 Truth to be be excluded from Seabreeze and from all mainstream media as well.

China will soon look like a bastion of free speech by comparison.


Peter you're just making stuff up, as I said before there's absolutely no point arguing with you, so I'm not going to try.

decrepit
WA, 9505 posts
19 Sep 2019 5:30PM
Thumbs Up

OK here's another, --- I was just reading this and had to post it.
from here.
www.newscientist.com/article/mg24332472-400-brexit-makes-us-question-democracy-and-so-does-climate-change/

"In a democracy, is it ever legitimate to decide that an objective is of such profound importance that established political structures or constitutional procedures can be swept aside to achieve it? Contemplating the Brexit struggle, I was reminded of conversations I had with scientists and policy-makers after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its 2018 report about the radical and rapid changes required to stop warming from exceeding 1.5?C. Some openly questioned whether the scale of the challenge was compatible with democracy.

"Which is more important, saving the planet or saving democracy?"

You can see why they worry. Environmental action is political. The status quo is dragging us to disaster and we face difficult choices about how we run the economy, obtain energy and food, move ourselves around and build infrastructure. Freedoms we take for granted will have to be constrained. There will be losers."

A very hard question with no easy answer, but you can see why it's being asked.

Mobydisc
NSW, 8668 posts
19 Sep 2019 7:31PM
Thumbs Up

It's weird for a site labelling itself as The Conversation basically saying to people who have contrary views "shut up and get lost"

Not much of a conversation happening there. Maybe the name should change to The Lecture.

whippingboy
QLD, 987 posts
19 Sep 2019 8:33PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Mobydisc said..
It's weird for a site labelling itself as The Conversation basically saying to people who have contrary views "shut up and get lost"

Not much of a conversation happening there. Maybe the name should change to The Lecture.


Like a newspaper owned and run by a US citizen calling itself The Australian

Tamble
146 posts
19 Sep 2019 6:47PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
decrepit said..

"Which is more important, saving the planet or saving democracy?"

You can see why they worry.


I've stayed out of this after regretting an initial comment. I know I'm not usually dealing in these discussions with people who have any sense of interactive discussion or proportion. But a line's been crossed.

You've hit the nail on the head of what the anti alarmist are really worried about.

This is classical extreme left talk and strategy. Create a crisis and exploit it to take control. And as soon as you link it with the Brexit vote and tar it as a failure of democracy you've nailed your colours to the mast (whether Brexit is a good idea or not). Extreme left. Dangerous left. Murderous left. A left where a desire to silence dissent eventually leads to genocidal actions all in the name of the common good.

Here's a more nuanced discussion; www.lomborg.com/news/climate-alarmism-isnt-rational
But there's actually a lot of other facts and figures (even in the IPCC report itself) that makes it clear the alarmists are cherry picking the most extreme ideas and selective figures and presenting them as fact and proof. They are neither.

petermac33
WA, 5323 posts
19 Sep 2019 7:33PM
Thumbs Up

From Wikipedia. Who the fark writes this unadulterated BS?

Windsurfers will soon be sailing all the way up to Canning Highyway if this rubbish is to be believed.

A two to three foot rise every 100 years - talk about taking the P

Some think a 2-3 feet rise in sea levels means the water encroaches that distance up the beach



"Sea Level rise will not be uniform" - do a experiment with water and that 'fact' will be impossible to replicate.

Please read and at least question the plausibility or likelihood of such a extreme scenario.


Since at least the start of the 20th century, the average global sea level has been rising. Between 1900 and 2016, the sea level rose by 16-21 cm (6.3-8.3 in).[2] More precise data gathered from satellite radar measurements reveal an accelerating rise of 7.5 cm (3.0 in) from 1993 to 2017,[3]:1554 which is a trend of roughly 30 cm (12 in) per century. This acceleration is due mostly to human-caused global warming, which is driving thermal expansion of seawater and the melting of land-based ice sheets and glaciers.[4] Between 1993 and 2018, thermal expansion of the oceans contributed 42% to sea level rise; the melting of temperate glaciers, 21%; Greenland, 15%; and Antarctica, 8%. Climate scientists expect the rate to further accelerate during the 21st century.[5]:62

Projecting future sea level is challenging, due to the complexity of many aspects of the climate system. As climate research into past and present sea levels leads to improved computer models, projections have consistently increased. For example, in 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected a high end estimate of 60 cm (2 ft) through 2099,[6] but their 2014 report raised the high-end estimate to about 90 cm (3 ft).[7] A number of later studies have concluded that a global sea level rise of 200 to 270 cm (6.6 to 8.9 ft) this century is "physically plausible".[3][9] A conservative estimate of the long-term projections is that each Celsius degree of temperature rise triggers a sea level rise of approximately 2.3 meters (4.2 ft/degree Fahrenheit) over a period of two millennia: an example of climate inertia.[2]

The sea level will not rise uniformly everywhere on Earth, and it will even drop in some locations.[10] Local factors include tectonic effects and subsidence of the land, tides, currents and storms. Sea level rises can influence human populations considerably in coastal and island regions.[11] Further effects are higher storm-surges and more dangerous tsunamis, displacement of populations, loss and degradation of agricultural land and damage in cities.[12][13][14] Natural environments like marine ecosystems are also affected, with fish, birds and plants losing parts of their habitat.[15]

decrepit
WA, 9505 posts
19 Sep 2019 7:38PM
Thumbs Up

HMmmmmmmmmm, I certainly wouldn't put that sort of policy past extreme politics, on either side of the fence, but I hadn't considered it to be a factor here.

There's obviously a lot of people pushing the fossil fuel agenda as well.

I guess time will tell who is right.
I'll leave it to younger people to decide the future, I won't be here to experience it either way, they are the ones who'll have to live with it.

log man
VIC, 7189 posts
19 Sep 2019 9:55PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Tamble said..

decrepit said..

"Which is more important, saving the planet or saving democracy?"

You can see why they worry.



I've stayed out of this after regretting an initial comment. I know I'm not usually dealing in these discussions with people who have any sense of interactive discussion or proportion. But a line's been crossed.

You've hit the nail on the head of what the anti alarmist are really worried about.

This is classical extreme left talk and strategy. Create a crisis and exploit it to take control. And as soon as you link it with the Brexit vote and tar it as a failure of democracy you've nailed your colours to the mast (whether Brexit is a good idea or not). Extreme left. Dangerous left. Murderous left. A left where a desire to silence dissent eventually leads to genocidal actions all in the name of the common good.

Here's a more nuanced discussion; www.lomborg.com/news/climate-alarmism-isnt-rational
But there's actually a lot of other facts and figures (even in the IPCC report itself) that makes it clear the alarmists are cherry picking the most extreme ideas and selective figures and presenting them as fact and proof. They are neither.


oh, my, god.

misunderstanding, misrepresentation and idiotic paranoid delusion.



Subscribe
Reply

Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...


"So Laurie do you agree with "The Conversation"" started by decrepit