The 2015 Prime Minister shuffle

[dajop]

Surely with yet another Pri Mincer Australia must be a laughing stock amongst the more stable countries.

FWIW I think this one will be around for some time.

People talk about laughing stock etc but to be brutally honest elsewhere in the world (outside the diplomatic sphere) people are just as self obsessed so wouldn't notice or care, to be a laughing stock would actually imply people were taking notice ....

That aside there is definitely a problem with Australian politics today (at least that centred on the east coast). Not sure what it is. But count up the number of Prime Ministers and Premiers (of NSW, Vic & Qld) in the last ten years, compared to the previous ten and the difference is huge.

 

[medhead]

We can disagree on 'global warming, the causes etc. But please, oh please banish all notion of some science being 'correct' or 'settled'. It never is. There are various degrees of likelihood, but the history is littered with 'scientific revolutions', where the almost universally accepted theory is overturned in a very short time but a new theory that fits the evidence better. Quantum mechanics; continental drift to name but two. Einstein was completely wrong in his 'denial' of Quantum mechanics. Imagine if he got as vilified as anthropomorphic climate change sceptics are today!

Umm, Gravity???

Imagine if the theory of relativity was vilified as much as theories of climate change are today. Imagine if someone like a Prime Minister said relativity is cough, or gravity is cough. Or even the Earth revolving around the sun is cough. Or even that quantum mechanics is cough. Hopefully we can see the massive difference between someone like Einstein says a theory is wrong and someone with no expertise saying it in a a blatant grab for power.

 

[Ausbt]

Surely with yet another Pri Mincer Australia must be a laughing stock amongst the more stable countries.

Australia under Abbott was a laughing stock IN Australia, however our electoral system and protocols of changing government are the envy of the world. Out in the street rioting were you this morning? I think not. Chewing your Weeties like me and everyone else in Australia as after yet another boringly-violence-free changeover from a dictator to an apparent statesmen (but let's not get ahead of ourselves perhaps). We didn't even witness a crowd-scene on the parliament house steps that was a poor imitation of Gough in 75, unless you count the journos.

 

[RooFlyer]

<snip>

As for Unions the allegations are of fraud, theft, corruption, violence, extortion and related activities. All of which are currently covered by existing laws. As such it is hard to see the case for any special action. Instead of wasting $80 million on the TURC, how about just give that money to the existing agencies to enforce the existing laws.

There is also the suggestion that there is anything special about unions in relation to these crimes. The examples I mention simply demonstrate that suggestion is nonsense.

<snip>.

Just out of interest, would you say the same about the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse? Not necessary because of the crimes and shortcomings (to put it mildly) being uncovered are covered by normal laws? The Royal Commission into Deaths in Custody? Waste of money because the crimes uncovered there were covered by normal laws? the Fitzgerald Royal Commission? Same?

I just don't understand the strenuous nay-saying of TURC. It can't be denied surely that union corruption exists, and the police are demonstrably incapable to get to the root of the problem (money for the cops won't fix witness intimidation and general standover tactics). Just think of Craig Thompson - how long and hard did it take to bring him to justice (although he did have some political coverage).

As I said, investigate and jail corrupt businessmen; investigate and jail corrupt unionists. I honestly don't understand why people just can't say "Yes, of course."

 

[medhead]

If you dont think TA has been vilified just read this article written after the last election.
The Twittersphere and facebook have got worse since then.

Why doesn’t the Facebook abuse of Tony Abbott prompt outrage from the moral guardians? » The Spectator

I guess you just don't understand the difference between abuse by random members of the public, and abuse by the opposing political party.

 

[RooFlyer]

Umm, Gravity???

<snip>.

Ummmm ... no. Newton's Gravitational Law (I assume that's what you mean) is perfectly open to challenge. In fact, its not long that the 'cause' of 'gravity' has been the subject of a new theory - rather than an inter-particle attraction or a force, it may be about curvature in space time. (A falls towards B because of a bend in space time - other than that its beyond me). It doesn't matter if that's right or wrong or if I understand it correctly - no scientific concept is (or should be) safe from challenge or further investigation. Its so basic it shouldn't need to be said.

So your example shows I'm correct in what I said above. Try another one, please.

Anyone like to respond to my poser above: What was the cause of the initiation and end of the huge climate change events known as the last global glaciation; or closer to our time and human recorded data, the Medieval warm period? (Hint - anthropomorphic CO2 emissions is not the answer in either case )

 

[drron]

I understand it very well.But then no point arguing with you is there.

 

[TheRealTMA]

This sums it all up well

Australian Women Left Directionless After Minister For Women Loses Job – The Shovel

 

[blackcat20]

Surely with yet another Pri Mincer Australia must be a laughing stock amongst the more stable countries.

Apparently:

Were a movie to be made of Australian politics over the past decade it would have to be X-rated, and, as I have said before, be directed by Quentin Tarantino.

Source: Australia: Coup capital of the democratic world - BBC News

 

[medhead]

Just out of interest, would you say the same about the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse? Not necessary because of the crimes and shortcomings (to put it mildly) being uncovered are covered by normal laws? The Royal Commission into Deaths in Custody? Waste of money because the crimes uncovered there were covered by normal laws? the Fitzgerald Royal Commission? Same?

I just don't understand the strenuous nay-saying of TURC. It can't be denied surely that union corruption exists, and the police are demonstrably incapable to get to the root of the problem (money for the cops won't fix witness intimidation and general standover tactics). Just think of Craig Thompson - how long and hard did it take to bring him to justice (although he did have some political coverage).

As I said, investigate and jail corrupt businessmen; investigate and jail corrupt unionists. I honestly don't understand why people just can't say "Yes, of course."

there is a massive difference, Institutional abuse - that means institutions for public benefit supported by government money or even arms of the government. Institutions that are from a broad cross section of organisations. Not a single group of organisations that just happen to support you opponents. Then there are the revelations of widespread and systemic for institutional abuse over extended periods of time. Compared to just about nothing coming out of the TURC - certainly not widespread and systemic or over extended periods of time.

Police corruption - deaths in custody - The people who are suppose to enforce the law covering up their breaking of the law. Tell me you don't think that is anything like a union. The Fitzgerald commission of inquiry (pretty sure it was not an RC) was into police corruption. Last I checked unions don't enforce the law on themselves.

Your comparisons just highlights how far the TURC is blatant, massive overreach. What has been uncovered does not warrant an RC. Just investigate the allegations and be done with it.

 

[medhead]

Ummmm ... no. Newton's Gravitational Law (I assume that's what you mean) is perfectly open to challenge. In fact, its not long that the 'cause' of 'gravity' has been the subject of a new theory - rather than an inter-particle attraction, it may be about curvature in space time. (A falls towards B because of a bend in space time - other than that its beyond me). It doesn't matter if that's right or wrong or if I understand it correctly - no scientific concept is (or should be) safe from challenge or further investigation. Its so basic it shouldn't need to be said.

So your example shows I'm correct in what I said above. Try another one, please.

I'm pretty sure it was einstein that described that bending as gravitational wells. Newton's theory of gravity is used to describe the motion of planets and such. The search of the cause of gravity is a later activity. The cause of gravity will not change the fact that Newton's theory does describe the motion of planets, and objects like space probes or satellites.

Anyone like to respond to my poser above: What was the cause of the initiation and end of the huge climate change events known as the last global glaciation; or closer to our time and human recorded data, the Medieval warm period? (Hint - anthropomorphic CO2 emissions is not the answer in either case )

It is an irrelevant question. The issue raised now is related to the rate of change not whether change occurs. Visiting the AAD in Hobart the consequences for krill was scary - potentially good bye to the thing that sustains life in the oceans.

Anyway, this is way off topic. See ya.

 

[david1]

What galls me about all this talk about 'science' and 'science being settled' and 'science is correct' is that such notions are part of 'science'. In science everything is (or should be) able to be questioned; debated; examined and so on without hindrance. Those theories and ideas that survive such examinations - often hostile - are made stronger but that's never the end of the matter in hand. The next guy is perfectly entitled to shape up again.

<snip>

We can disagree on 'global warming, the causes etc. But please, oh please banish all notion of some science being 'correct' or 'settled'. It never is. There are various degrees of likelihood, but the history is littered with 'scientific revolutions', where the almost universally accepted theory is overturned in a very short time but a new theory that fits the evidence better. Quantum mechanics; continental drift to name but two. Einstein was completely wrong in his 'denial' of Quantum mechanics. Imagine if he got as vilified as anthropomorphic climate change sceptics are today!

Whilst this is true, it is the place of scientists and experts in the field to do the debating and examination. Scientists must be able to explain, at some level, how their understanding and theories apply to the world, but the general public is not the arbiter of scientific correct-ness.

No-one would stand for politicians stating things in contradiction to statements by particle physicists or medical researchers about their areas of expertise, why is climate science different? People without rigorous training in climate and environmental science don't have the right to make unsubstantiated claims about climate, but they do have the right to question those who do have such training. Likewise, climate and environmental scientists don't have the right to make claims about, or even refute out-of-hand, quantum mechanics. There is a weird thing about climate science that so many people (not talking about RooFlyer here) think they know better than scientists who have studied the subject for years, if it was any other topic the response to them would be completely different.

 

[RooFlyer]

I'm pretty sure it was einstein that described that bending as gravitational wells. Newton's theory of gravity is used to describe the motion of planets and such. The search of the cause of gravity is a later activity. The cause of gravity will not change the fact that Newton's theory does describe the motion of planets, and objects like space probes or satellites.

<snip>.

Like I said, it doesn't matter if the new ideas (and they are new ideas, going well beyond Einstein's ideas) - NO scientific law, theory or idea is immune from challenge, debate or tossing out with yesterday's leftover fish and chips. Including anthropomorphic climate change, and the more that's 'denied' the more ridiculous the proponents become, and the closer their work resembles a faith, not science.

<snip>

It is an irrelevant question. The issue raised now is related to the rate of change not that change doesn't occur.

I covered that above too. The rate of change in past global climate change events can be measured in certain sedimentary deposits - layers called varves record annual events (such as the amount and volume of sedimentary run off from glacial melt waters) in certain environments, so its time frame is pretty well constrained. The rate of 'climate change' in some past events was very rapid - and the rate of the current event has not even been determined - its paused for 18 years now ... who knows how long it might take to become significant? The models to date have been well off the mark (and they are only models - not fact).

Next?

 

[SeatBackForward]

I hope you'll forgive me for big-noting myself, but I have a couple of science degrees, have published peer reviewed scientific papers and belong to 3 or 4 scientific societies (just to set some cred )

What galls me about all this talk about 'science' and 'science being settled' and 'science is correct' is that such notions are NOT part of 'science'. In science everything is (or should be) able to be questioned; debated; examined and so on without hindrance. Those theories and ideas that survive such examinations - often hostile - are made stronger but that's never the end of the matter in hand. The next guy is perfectly entitled to shape up again.

Data should never be with-held from scrutiny; anyone who wants to challenge a theory or even a physics 'law' should be entitled and even encouraged to.

If the anthropogenic theories of global warming are sound, the proponents should say to the sceptics : "C'mon, throw at my work everything you've got." But they don't. Sceptics are muzzled in the scientific journals, derided in scientific colloquia and generally drummed out.

The 'Manne hockey stick' and 95% of the models relating global temperature to CO2 emissions published by the IGPCC have clearly been shown to be wrong, by the current 18 years or so pause in global temperature rise. For those who believe the theory, that shouldn't be a problem - theories change as more data is collected. But many players have invested so much of their credibility defending the old theory (not un-related to funding proposals, I suggest) that they simply can't acknowledge the observations, preferring their theory over observations.

We can disagree on 'global warming, the causes etc. But please, oh please banish all notion of some science being 'correct' or 'settled'. It never is. There are various degrees of likelihood, but the history is littered with 'scientific revolutions', where the almost universally accepted theory is overturned in a very short time but a new theory that fits the evidence better. Quantum mechanics; continental drift to name but two. Einstein was completely wrong in his 'denial' of Quantum mechanics. Imagine if he got as vilified as anthropomorphic climate change sceptics are today!

I agree with you on the pursuit of scientific endeavour, pity Dutton didn't by conclusively saying that sea levels are effecting Pacific islands. But hey, it was just a big joke, so you know, don't take him seriously, after all Liberal party denies all that complimicated stuff.

 

[RooFlyer]

Whilst this is true, it is the place of scientists and experts in the field to do the debating and examination. Scientists must be able to explain, at some level, how their understanding and theories apply to the world, but the general public is not the arbiter of scientific correct-ness.

No-one would stand for politicians stating things in contradiction to statements by particle physicists or medical researchers about their areas of expertise, why is climate science different? People without rigorous training in climate and environmental science don't have the right to make unsubstantiated claims about climate, but they do have the right to question those who do have such training. Likewise, climate and environmental scientists don't have the right to make claims about, or even refute out-of-hand, quantum mechanics. There is a weird thing about climate science that so many people (not talking about RooFlyer here) think they know better than scientists who have studied the subject for years, if it was any other topic the response to them would be completely different.

Nicely put points.

I would argue however that the climate change thing, and politicians input into the debate is OK, as the costs and consequences of what's being proposed by many of the 'scientists' are so enormous and so potentially damaging to the economy and people's livelihoods (when, as I keep banging on, the climate change models have mostly been wrong to date) that it becomes a political decision.

Statements by particle physicists don't tend to involve the shut-down of the 2nd or 3rd largest industry in Australia, nor do they have the consequence of stranding the third world in the third world, without the ability to pull themselves out of poverty like the western world has.

Medical research is another matter. Any politician who condemned cancer research as cough would be justifiable condemned all round (and on that topic, wasn't there a $20 Bill medical research fund proposed by a certain former Prime Minister?) Oops, sorry, maybe OT.

It may surprise some people that I am very much against CO2 emissions by coal fired power stations; not because I think we'll all gunna fry, but because its just a bad thing to pump into the atmosphere in large quantities (being plant food notwithstanding#). I honestly am .. and in a former life I was a leader of an ASX listed renewable energy company. (I can debate energy sources, grids, renewable energy statistics till the cows come home!) I just don't like the quack science being promoted by many, nor the economy-destroying "close the coal industry NOW" rants of the Greens. And of course not the 'the science is settled, you have to shut up" response to many in the climate change industry to the debate about the significance, cause and rate of climate change, which has happened since the earth cooled to its current brittle, plate tectonic form about 3.5 billion years ago.

# BTW extra CO2 in the atmosphere has been shown to promote food production, as the plants love it!

(Hint about the last ice age question .. think of the planets; that's a popular theory.)

 

[david1]

I think I agree with all those points! Of course there is a political debate, but it has to be centred on the policy response rather than debating how correct the science is. On the whole, the scientific debate should be left to the scientists.

It may surprise some people that I am very much against CO2 emissions by coal fired power stations; not because I think we'll all gunna fry, but because its just a bad thing to pump into the atmosphere in large quantities

I've often thought this as well, regardless of one position on anthropogenic climate change, surely reducing the amount of rubbish we pump into the atmosphere has to be a good thing. I guess the issue is how much money is it worth to do so.

 

[drron]

Whilst this is true, it is the place of scientists and experts in the field to do the debating and examination. Scientists must be able to explain, at some level, how their understanding and theories apply to the world, but the general public is not the arbiter of scientific correct-ness.

No-one would stand for politicians stating things in contradiction to statements by particle physicists or medical researchers about their areas of expertise, why is climate science different? People without rigorous training in climate and environmental science don't have the right to make unsubstantiated claims about climate, but they do have the right to question those who do have such training. Likewise, climate and environmental scientists don't have the right to make claims about, or even refute out-of-hand, quantum mechanics. There is a weird thing about climate science that so many people (not talking about RooFlyer here) think they know better than scientists who have studied the subject for years, if it was any other topic the response to them would be completely different.

Politicians certainly have stated things in contradiction to medical researchers as do journalists and members of the public.
There are climate scientists who dont fully accept the rhetoric of thosec who espouse climate change.

And then there is the case of Bjorn Lomborg who does fully accept the story of climate change but whose area of expertise is the economics of the changes required.He does not accept the accepted solutions saying that instead we should be funding research into new ways of coping with change.His Copenhagen think tank does have several Nobel Prize economonists providing input but see the response of our acedemics to setting up a branch here.So much for academic freedom.

 

[drron]

I agree with you on the pursuit of scientific endeavour, pity Dutton didn't by conclusively saying that sea levels are effecting Pacific islands. But hey, it was just a big joke, so you know, don't take him seriously, after all Liberal party denies all that complimicated stuff.

But you are apparently unaware of this study.Deliberately chosen the ABC version to avoid charges of bias-
Pacific islands growing, not sinking - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[DC3]

Poor Jeff K probably needs to move on. Also, I can't see any double dis happening unless the polls go to 60:40.

 

[SeatBackForward]

But you are apparently unaware of this study.Deliberately chosen the ABC version to avoid charges of bias-
Pacific islands growing, not sinking - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

You're missing the point, how does that study change Duttons comment?