At least, that is the warning we received earlier this week from renowned greenhouse denialist Lord Christopher Monckton.
Hat-tip to the Hinterland Voice for alerting me to this story.
Here is the full-length video of Monckton’s address, for those of us with too much spare time on our hands.
Christopher Monckton’s views on climate change have previously been enthusiasically reported on by Bob Carter at Quadrant Online, and presented to an adoring audience at the Heartland Institute’s 2009 Heartland-2 conference on climate change, where Monckton rubbed shoulder with an all-star cast including not a few from Australia.
Piers Akerman is also a big fan of Monckton – as is Andrew Bolt.
Who cares about denialists? Ignore them, don’t feed them. Never link to them.
Meanwhile our glorious leader says:
FFS! The population forecast is a tragedy for this country. Who voted for this man? Anyone? Christine Milne for PM!
carbonsink, I have a post bubbling up about what’s wrong with Rudd’s “big Australia” trope. Look for it on Monday.
Kev’s “Big Australia” soundbite reinforces the point that he doesn’t take environmental problems in general, and climate change in particular, seriously.
The state of the Murray River should be enough to persuade him that Australia is already overpopulated.
Monckton is a fraud. He is not even a Lord. He is a Viscount. He claims to have been a science advisor to Thatcher, but he does not have any scientific qualifications.
David #4, what I’ll be arguing on Monday is that the problem with a lot of Labor politicians (probably including Rudd) is not that they don’t take environmental problems seriously (at least subjectively), but that they attempt to take them seriously within the limitations of a conventional mindset and preconceived priorities which don’t enable them to come to terms with the fundamental imperative of sustainability.
Another moth circling ever tighter around the burning globe attracted by the podium lights. Spectacular as they are in short, ultimately they are tragic.
That needs arguing? I would have thought its self-evident.
Unless… perhaps Kevi does what in chess parlance is called Castling. In one move protecting the king/his broader electability or popularity and threatening the opposition with his castle/ willing to accept more war or climate refugees.
Yeah, following #8 I would have thought that it was in the nature of Labor and Labourist parties.
Substitute “economic” for “environmental” and “revolution” for “sustainability” and it’s the very valid, very old criticism that’s been made of reformist Labor since the nineteenth century.
PS. A Viscount outranks a Baron, is by definition a peer, and can call himself Lord if he wants to. It’s just that he’s been kicked out of the House of Lords by rightful redistribution.
Monckton is also one of the speakers at the IPA Conference on the Economics of Climate Change Policy next month. I am not kidding.
Liam
Isn’t this Labourism also termed “productionism”? An apt noun used on LP some time ago…
PS
OT
I will not be accepting the Missy Higgins Medal/others more worthy than me/President Obama has spoiled it all for we undeserving medallists, throwing unwelcome spotlight on dubious and unmerited recipients./
It was the third cup of herbal tea that did me in.
No, Tim, that sounds about right
carbonsink @8 and liam @10 and Paul @6 – it’s seems pretty obvious the state is obliged to serve the interests of the elites before the interests of the rest. Given that a majority of people occupy a generally conservative middle class political position that protects the elites, any labor government is virtually incapable of radical action since it would alienate the middle class voters long before it adversely affected the elites or returned a dividend to the lower classes.
Democracy is up there on the list of potential casualties in the post global warming world, I mean how much longer can the fascade of talking about action hold up in the face of real world outcomes?
David H, I like and intend to use the neologism “fascade” (Fascist cascade?) in the context of threats to democracy.
But I don’t agree at all either that the State is somehow “obliged” to serve “elites” or that middle class conservatism is a majority position.
Serendipity!
I just bought a slab of that.
Wait, what?
Yeh, but Tim, since when have the IPA had anything useful to say on either the environment or economics?
OTOH, a slab of Fascade IPA would be even better than their Fail Ale, I reckon.
Conference on the Economics of Climate Change Policy next month
I mean, give a rats arse about the IPA and their loony ideas, but this is really sad. There is a lot of contested ground that could be dug over (if you excused the mixed metaphor) in the economics of the responses to climate change. This is an area where right-wing economists could have a red-hot go at actual interesting policy. However, Harry Clarke excepted, they’re too busy crapping on about serious scientific stuff that they are entirely unqualified to judge.
Personally I would have welcomed a bit of hard-nosed right-wing thinking in an ETS. The current beast we’re getting is a monstrosity.
As for Monckton, who cares really.
“OTOH, a slab of Fascade IPA would be even better than their Fail Ale, I reckon.”
LOL
Fascade would have to be a wheat beer. A muscular, well-bred, blond.
Triple-filtered for the utmost purity.
“Fascade is the ale of the future, which we will ensure that you won’t live to see.”
Fascade Lager. Goes down slowly with a sweet aftertaste, like national salvation from democracy’s descent into morally corrupt morass.
Fascade Lite — double the flavour, half the lebensraum.
Fascade Draught. If it’s not on tap at your local, smash its windows in and loot the stockroom.
Fascade Bitter – official malted beverage of the Nuremburg Trials.
Fascade Stout… no on second thoughts I’m not doing that joke
Paul, I’m glad you’re doing such a post. In between mad amounts of research and marking (hence no posts) it’s occurred to me that sustainability is just not the number one priority of the Labor frontbench.
They simply don’t appreciate that you can’t really negotiate with the planet.
Monckton Draught – you get it every time he opens his mouth
And after you’ve invaded the Czech Republic (and Poland), Fascade Pilsen Horror.
I must say I’m enjoying your increasing loss of patience with the pragmatists. Soon your journey towards the dark (green) side will be complete.
Fascade ALP: low on fizz so you can slam it down fast.
Fascade Democrats
The drink you’re having when you’re not drinking
“I didn’t say Bitter, I said SPLITTER !!!!”
FT@ 34 …
Despite what?
Denialist Dubbel – described as all body and no head. Filtered through clean coal. Drinkers can frequently be heard saying loudly “trusht me – I can drive a planet.”
IPCC Zero Order Draught
IPCC First Order Draught
IPCC Second Order Draught
IPCC Third Order Draught
IPCC SPM
The ZoD is very rough and each subsequent draught is more refined, until the SPM where it is rumoured the owners take the final draught from the brewers and water it down. Continued imbibing makes one successively more sober.
Spartacus’ UnReal Ale
One glass is all you’ll need to separate yourself from reality.
Australia is not alone in the world!
Ootz, it’s called Jiu Jitsu method whereby he just lets the opposition continue (over-extending) a bad move whilst he gets his counter punch in: the opponents anger is used to destroy them! Otherwise called parry-and-punch! Tai-Chi, Aikido and even bosing all use it… using the others momentum to reinforce the attack!
… I think in Chess it’s called, “In-between moves”!??!
A “Zwischenzug”, Keithy
aaah the tyranny of spelling. I personally represent the Judean Peoples Front and I demand forthwith that the splitters cease and desist their selfish isolationism and band together for the benefit of all Judeans. Otherwise I will sic my mate brian on to them…
Fascade Pale Ale: if you can’t see right through it, you’re not looking.
Three out of four Americans just cannot accept the Global Warming Hypothesis.Obama ‘s popularity drop is the highest of any President of the U.S.A. in 50 years.Go on!Tell me all these U.S.A. citizens have stuck their heads up their collective arses,and,only Al Gore represents the near truth.!?
These U.S.A citizens have stuck their heads up their collective arses.
Only Al Gore represents the near truth.
Three out of four Americans think that the world was created a little over 4000 years ago. These are the same folks who dispute the GWH.
Coincidence? You decide.
In any case, Monckton’s scare tactics are less about scientific truth than they are about rekindling the recurring American paranoia that World Government is plotting to steal their vital fluids.
Prodders,
I found the Monckton video highly instructive.
As Katz said, Monckton’s vid. makes clear that his interest in Climate Change is a second-order concern for him. Monckton’s real concern is that the Climate Change agenda is a proxy issue for proponents of One World Government.
In this way Monckton is identical to Pell (silenced by the Pope on climat esince World Youth Day 2008). Pell is a Climate Change Denialist not because he seriously enages with Climate Change science (though he pretends to) but because he believes Climate Change is a modern manifestation of Paganism, undermines Catholic positions on fertility and distracts clergy from their core of elucidating the teachings of Jesus. Here’s my post on the issue.
Its tehe old story, look for the real agenda.
BUT does the draft treaty, as Monckton asserts, really contain some provisions for ‘government’ if so, what are they? Anyone read the draft treaty for themselves ?
Certain issues ARE better handled by a centralized approach. Rudd was arguing just that in his “Big Australia” spiel teh other night and I think he’s right.
Katz, as to your assertion of a correlation between Creationism and Climate Change Denialism, maybe uts there, but I reject the inference that this is because both positions rely on an anti-science or pseudo-science or deliberate-ignorance-of-science approach to the issues.
I am a Creationist and accept the Climate Change hypothesis. Most ‘younger’ Creationists I know vote ALP/Green.
You can reject the inference if you like. It’s your inference, after all.
You can also reject my implication. But you would be wrong.
Katz,
It says in the bible somewhere that (hu)mankind is given dominion over the earth.
That is the problem for most Americans (75%).
Goddam it, the bible says we are the boss (White US citizens), so how can this be happening without our permission?
Therefore it is not happening.
Maybe the world is being punished for the transgressions of a few.
Maybe if I stopped wiping my arse with the pages of those Gideons I steal from hotel rooms it would all stop? I have a stack of about 100, unused yet, would any-one like one?
Huggy
They’re great for rolling spliffs, too, Huggy.
David,
Lighting fires too.
Huggy
Huggy, for G..s sake dont’ burn them, think of all the Co2. I mulch everything biodegradable, bills, old research papers and it’s the only thing you can do with Murdoch papers. Grow trees, lock the co2 up for awhile, thank you.
Actually Baraholka, from what you saying, AGW would make a good wedge within religious groups. Perhaps the Greenpeace should put the Pope on the spot, ask some pertinent questions in public.
Ootz,
AFAIK Benedict is AGW-Friendly. Pell isn’t. Benedict gave him the party line at World Youth Day 2008 and Pell has been considerably quieter on Climate since.
Getting back to Katz’s remarks that Three out of four Americans think that the world was created a little over 4000 years ago. These are the same folks who dispute the GWH. I suspect Katz may be accidently correlating independent data sets.
e.g. To take another statistic three out of four Americans thought that Saddam Hussein had ordered the 9/11 attacks. Many of these people are also Creationists. Can we therefore say ergo belief in Creationism leads to a propensity to believe Saddam Hussein ordered 9/11? Or as Katz might put it: “Coincidence? You decide.”
I contend that the power of the US corporate-government propaganda system has far more to do with AGW Denialism in the USA than a belief in Creationism, same way as that propaganda system manufactured consent for the invasion of Iraq amongst Americans.
As to AGW being a wedge issue among Australian Creationists, the split is along age demographics. Older Pentecostals, say 55 yrs plus vote are relatively more concerned about personal morality issues than climate issues as compared to younger Pentecostals. Younger Penteostals are more likely to elevate Climate to a vote-determining issue. This merely reflects Australian society where support for the Lib/Nats is highest in more senior age bands.
So!By consensus here,there is a likelihood that three out of four anti global warming hypothesis,persons of U.S.A. birth are essentially also creationists of a particular stream,and thus by the very nature of being Fundamentalist Christians would seem to automatically assume that they had no direct bearing on whatever is going on with the climate in the short and long term.Strange!?I thought Bob Brown claimed to be a Christian,and found some problem with the ancient science of physics as applied to the understandings about the influence of the Sun and the recognisable pattern of Earthly Changes through a seeming correlation with particular solar sunspot activity!So all those sciences that are not the ancient physics or influenced by the realities involved in the process of establishing physics type laws, are but the wonderful moments of science and Bob Brown’s non acceptance of physics!?So did you go down the beach today and understand the wave formations and predict the outcome of the waves in case a tsunami was welling in!?And dont rely on chook behaviour when it comes to earthquakes in your vicinity,they are domesticated fowl,and we cannot have them predicting Earthquakes either!
Ootz, I thought paper was made from trees an was OK to burn but perhaps mulching bibles with horseshit would be better and more apt.
Yea guys Pell has certainly pulled his head in since the Popy threatened him with a visit from a bunch of semi retired Hitler Youf.
Huggy
Real life is messy Baraholka.
When the subject is >200,000,000 persons outliers are inevitable.
Yet I would contend that among US residents the statistical correlation between creationism and denialism would be far above random expectation.
There is very little independent about that correlation.
Hiya Katz,
Maybe there is a correlation between Creationism and Climate Change Denialism in the US. But as you say, real life is messy. One may need to dig a bit to find the reason for the correlation.
I remember hearing on the radio about a professional study here in Oz that showed well-above random correlation between drinking Orange Juice and Child Obesity. Ergo Orange Juice leads to Obesity ?
For the purposes of argument I will accept your assertion in regard to a correlation between US Creationism and Climate Change Denialism. Can you elucidate on why that positive correlation exists ?
HuggyBunny has said the correlative factor is ‘dominion’ i.e. a theological concept hermeneutically applied to Climate Change.
This would mean that US Creationists reject Climate Change not on the basis of a poor understanding of science but of a fallacious theological hermeneutic.
For may part, as a long time member of Pentecostal denominations here in Oz I have never heard the concept of dominion used to explain away Climate Change.
There may be many reasons for that agreed correlation in the US between creationism and denialism.
And the subject of the reasons for that correlation may indeed be very interesting.
No doubt the explanation would be a complex thicket of intellectual, theological, cultural, political, educational and economic influences. There are many paths that may be taken to a creationist/denialist position.
Baraholka said …
I suspect that there are several predisposing factors:
1. The bulk of creationists in the US are social conservatives and, via the Republican Party that milieu overlaps with those who oppose business regulation. Mitigation entails business regulation. The same milieu takes a pessimistic and at times conspiratorial view of government in general and creationists typically share this predisposition.
2. South of the Mason-Dixon line, where creationists are disproportionately concentrated, teaching standards in general and science teaching standards in particular are very poor. It’s not uncommon for totally unqualified (but christian) people to be in front of classes. If the population suffers from disporportionately high rates of functional illiteracy, innumeracy and ignorance about matters of science then not only will the Bible seem a credible source, but they will be dependent on those best equippped to explain its nuances. Similarly, they will listen to the loudest voices in their mileue to the effect that science is a new religion that, like Lucifer, was trying to compete with god and his plans for the Earth.
3. If you believe in The Rapture, what does it matter what happens to the Earth?
4. The anti-mitigationists paint carbon trading as if it were analogous to the old system of Papal Indulgences. This is an excellent talking point in the anti-Catholic south.
5. Much of the anti-mitigation campaign has focused on Al Gore as he is unpopular amongst religious communities. This helped buttress the above message.
So I see the confluence of creationism and opposition to mitigation as being secondary effects of scientific ignorance, religious indifference/fatalism in relation to matters Earthly and social conservativism more genertally, with the tensions in these things papered over with mindless adherence to dogma.
Sidebar: I’ve long found it amusing that adherents of creationism raise the CO2 levels of past geological ages in an attempt to subvert the significance of the current climate … What do they say to those who think the world is only 8000 years old?
Baraholka, Fran,
The metaphysical concept of dominion by Man over the earth has survived the Enlightenment and leaked into modern thought through Marxism. Read some of the more extreme works by Trotsky and you will see what I mean. His call for terra-forming are absurd and totally unscientific.
In the “Christian” domain you will detect in the utterances of Pell for instance, an implicit belief that Man is in control. Examine in detail many of the Christian denialists and you will find the same stuff encrypted in some way.
There is a serious difficulty for God Botherers (GB’s); if we are made in the image of God and are his chosen ones over other animals we must be given total control over our environment by this God, otherwise we are no better than the animals etc. After all do we not have a spark of the divine that distinguishes us?
The more intelligent GB’s will blather on about “stewardship”, once again implicitly reinforcing the “dominion” garbage.
Its not really about a set of beliefs it is really about a mode of thought that is hard coded into many of a GB bent, be they hard right idiots like Cardinal Pell or hard left idiots such as Trotsky.
Huggy
Some hard data on the issue from Pew Research Centre. Their survey in April this year of 1,502 Americans found belief in AGW as:
Total Sample: Yes 47$ No 35% Dont Know 8%
Non-Religious: Yes 58% No 35% Don’t Know 7%
White Mainline Protestants: 48% No 42% Fon’t Know 8%
White Evangelicals: Yes 34% No 55% Don’t Know 11%
Creationists will be more highly represented in the White Evangelicals group.
So, its fair to assume a positive correlation between US Creationists and anti-AGW.
The more interesting question is why this correlation should exist. Here’s a good article I found that discusses some reasons.
In summary:
- AGW distracts clergy/believers from their core responsibility to elucidate Jesus’ message (pace Pell)
- God decides when the planet ends, not mankind through AGW (see below)
- White Evangelicals are overwhelmingly Republicans hence toe party line.
- Conservative inertia. Southern Baptist Convention cites Climate Change not settled among scientists. 50 years ago refused to acknowledge Racism as an issue.
- Generational change. Younger Creationists are pro-AGW, less pro-Republican and view Dominion and Stewardship in terms of caring for the planet
As the second point above confirms, HuggyBunny is correct that some Creationists dismiss AGW through a misapplied concept of ‘Dominion’.
certain Creationists
that AGW cannot be real because God decreed that he would never again destroy the Earth with a flood (rising sea levels).
So, it seems to me that while there is a correlation between US Creationism and anti-AGW, this correlation is weakening as younger Evangelicals turn away from the Republican Party and elevate Climate to vote-determining issues along with or superior to issues of personal morality.
For US Creationists who are anti-AGW, their opposition is not predicated on anti-AGW Science (e.g Monckton) or because they can’t understand science or because science is taught poorly to them but on theological understands of Dominion and Sovereignty or on Missiological understandings of Jesus’ teachings (similar to Pell).
I rather suspect, HB, that you are referring to a passage from Chapter 8 of Trotsky’s Literature and Revolution.
The pieces was mainly an attempt to situate art within the sweep of the human project, as Trotsky saw it.
Trotsky, of course saw the human project as the antithesis of the constraints of “nature” and its apologists, amongst them, the church. It was less a call for terra forming than a declaration that nothing lay beyond the scope of humanity to change for the better.
He continues:
The language is sharp and full of confidence about the future to come, but it’s not really an attempt to deal with the complexities of terra forming.
Yes Fran I have read it, and this is the bit that scares me “In the end, he will have rebuilt the earth, if not in his own image, at least according to his own taste. We have not the slightest fear that this taste will be bad.” Take a drive around any canal development in the Gold Coast and come back and tell me that.
I do not share Trotsky’s extreme anthropocentric view. If the global Warming crisis should teach us anything it should teach us that we are not all that different from the other creatures that live on and in this planet. It should teach us that there are limits to our exploitation of its resources. It should teach us that if we are to survive as a species we have to learn to live within our means. That we do not have any right to exploit the planet to death.
That our much vaunted intelligence imposes upon us the moral and ethical duty to care for our environment, not to make it over into our own image.
Above all we have the duty to work together to ensure that our home is healthy and that all the members of our global tribe share the resources we so ignorantly plunder.
This is what is at stake here.
Huggy
Just correcting my typos in the survey figures -
Percentage of Americans who believe in AGW
Total Sample: Yes 47% No 45% Dont Know 8%
Non-Religious: Yes 58% No 35% Don’t Know 7%
White Mainline Protestants: 48% No 44% Don’t Know 8%
White Evangelicals: Yes 34% No 55% Don’t Know 11%
The concept of Dominion as expressed by certain Creationists to theologically disprove AGW relies on a highly innovative understanding of Dominion. It is in fact so ‘innovative’ that I suspect that it has been invented expressly to cover the proponents real objections to AGW which I would say is likely to be that it challenges the rapacious corporate-government ‘free market’ paradigm beloved of the Republican Party.
Cross-denominationally Dominion is construed in terms of ‘care for the planet’, not as ‘Humankind can do whatever we want to the planet’. The idea that AGWa cannot be real because it would cause a second Noah’s Flood (which God said he would not do) is ingenious but ignores the fact that God is not causing AGW (note that ‘A’).
The Religious Right is a constituency of the Republican Party. In turn the RR has a very effective network of radio and television stations through which it can disseminate its opinions. These are controlled by the older members of the RR who are more conservative, more pro-Republican than the younger members. A theological ‘proof’ for anti-AGW would be very palatable to the senior RR movers and shakers and would allow them to reconcile their Political and Theological ideologies into a coherent whole.
So I contend again, the correlation between US Creationism and Climate Change Denial is a product of US corporate-government propaganda mediated through an acoomodative theology coined for that purpose.
Baraholka
Equally it could be, as you imply, that the old farts who control the Religious Right find opposition to GW both ideologically and financially beneficial to their principal obsessions.
Nevertheless I maintain that the opposition to GW theories by many in the hard right (and left) is founded in an anthropocentric belief that we are the masters of the planet.
They cannot even contemplate a situation where we must make concessions.
I think they sense that if the GW problem is to be resolved we will need a new social order. It is this that brings on the denial.
Huggy
Katz @ #46 “These U.S.A citizens have stuck their heads up their collective arses.
Only Al Gore represents the near truth.
Three out of four Americans think that the world was created a little over 4000 years ago. These are the same folks who dispute the GWH.”
On the other hand, 100% of Katz believes the sort of noxious rubbish propounded by, well, …Katz.
Advantage: 3 out of 4 Americans.
HB,
I agree with much of your contribution to this thread and would note in passing that your sentiments @63 pretty much represent out-of-the-box Dominion theology as understood cross-denominationally, I would say practically everywhere except a faction of US Republican Christians.
I recall encountering Trotsky’s opinions on terra-forming while at Uni.
I also agree that many of the the anti-AGW school fear a change of social order. Monckton was explicit on this and you hear various persons in Oz say ‘The Greens want to send us back to the Stone Age’.
For my Dad, the Cold War was a struggle of good v. evil, so for him the US economic system represents righteousness in praxis. He rejects AGW IMO on religious grounds because he worships the USA (again as Moncton does). I would say a whole generation of Australians feel the same. For them the challenge of AGW constitutes, almost literally, a heresy. Enbracing AGW means recanting 40/50 years of indoctrination and belief.
Gee Japerz, I hope I wasn’t out of line with the 3 out of 4 statistic.
In truth the figure could be a low as 5 out of 8.
But Katz, as long as you’re holding steady at a solid 100%, there’s no cause to be alarmed. The great thing about being delusional (or a leftist, same diff) is that you’re the one who never has to find out. Man, if you sold tickets to that trip you could make a bundle. In fact, many do.
Meanwhile, back in the jungle… Monckton, if I understand correctly, levels many rather strong accusations. I notice that so far on this thread, we have had some unfunny insult comedy and a lot of jokes about beer, but nobody has troubled themselves to reply to the substance of what Monckton is on about.
But then, with a track record of backing geniuses like Trotsky and Mao, you guys can afford to rest on your laurels, right?
OK JPZ re the Monckton speech -does the signing of a treaty supercede the rights of Congress or the executive to act unilaterally?
Who will be empowered to act against the US government if it does breech the treaty terms but does so acting in what it defends as the national interest? The UN seems to be the collective agency but apart from jaw-boning is it actually a paper tiger?
Can individuals in the US take the government to the Supreme Court to enforce the treaty provisions?
Those are some good questions, murph. Of course you ask the redundant question “is [the UN] actually a paper tiger?” so I can’t tell if maybe you’re a standup comic with an exceptionally good straight face; but what can ye do.
I’m more interested in hearing lefty replies to Monckton’s rather serious charges. Perhaps they’re trifling, perhaps not: I have no way of knowing unless you persuade me with something better than snark, being as I am a humble layman and not one of the more Mount Rushmore types. I’m not a scientist… but then again almost none of you geniuses are either, so I’m a trifle curious to hear upon what unshakable rock your faith is founded. For it is faith, unless you can show me a PhD in something more credible than Multicultural Studies.
Monckton says (among other things, I’ve never watched the whole speech) that the IPCC has falsified data, that key scientists are engaged in massaging the data for political purposes (viz. “we have to make the Mediaeval Warm Period disappear”), and that key interpretive strategies are not just wrong, but deliberately so (viz. the so-called “stochastic fallacy” if I’ve understood, and/or spelled that correctly.)
Since your team is pretty much bursting at the seams with scientific experts in such great sciences as the Infallible Marxist-Leninist March Towards Truth and the Inevitable Progress of Scientific Sciencey-ness Under Inflexible Mao Tse-tung Thought, I reckon at this point I can just sit back and watch in sheer amazement as you blind me with Science. The real stuff, though, not the pathetic leftist variety.
Got any?
Japerz, pretty much everything Monckton’s ever said on climate change has been thoroughly discredited, where this is even required. It’s usually unhinged enough that no serious person would bother.
Really.
You might as well demand a detailed refutation of David Irving or the Unabomber.
If you still want one, I’m sure someone more patient than me will walk you through it though.
Back in the day, my kind of leftie battled hard against that kind of leftie for the soul of the left.
We won and they lost.
I don’t take kindly to being accused of supporting a movement that we fought hard and effectively to defeat.
Katz, have you forgotten that you are a great fan of Fidel Castro and the socialist paradise he has created in the Caribbean?
Ahh, the righteous GregM.
Please link to the evidence of my fandom of Fidel Castro.
You may use the above link as a model, if you please.
FDB, I hope you meant the David Irving to whom I’m unrelated in your last comment. I’d hate to think that I was regarded as unhinged.
Heh.
I was going to say “David Irving (relation)”, but my sentences tend to the clumsy and lengthy as it is.
DI(nr): You can relax. — you are, as a matter of course, regarded as unhinged. No straight-faced person could do otherwise.
FDB: “If you still want one, I’m sure someone more patient than me will walk you through it though.”
Yes. Yes, I want one. In detail, and without snark, and in a neutral tone, and without reference to leftist shibboleths. (Or shoggoths, really; leftists don’t really have shibboleths so much as they have a Pit of Shoggoths. Tekeli-li!) If anyone here will do that, then, great. I’m like fucking Ahab nailing the coin to the mast — mebbe I’ll even kick in a hundred bucks to MSF, which seems to be the favored charity around here, if someone can be meticulous and reliable about it. I’d also, in passing, be curious to see someone ‘more patient than you’ appear on this site.
Katz: “Back in the day, my kind of leftie battled hard against that kind of leftie for the soul of the left.”
You can’t be serious. Actually, you probably are serious, which is of course why I find you so endlessly entertaining.
“Back in the day, my kind of Nazi fought hard against that kind of Nazi, for the very soul of Nazidom. Hurrah! — we won!!”
It sort of illustrates what I’ve come to think of as Zenger’s Law of Politics: Leftists have no idea at all what they sound like to sane people.
Enjoy your continuing battles, though. I wouldn’t disrupt you for the world.
Murph @ 70, as I understand it these UN bodies operate on the basis of consensus rather than the dictatorship of whoever has the 51% majority at the time. Hence the US would need to enact into law whatever it signed up to.
It’s also why concluding any agreement is extremely difficult.
The WTO is the only international body that has any teeth that is recognised by the US, where they can actually lose a case and feel some obligation to take notice of the outcome.
Now I’m not a lawyer and a lawyer would no doubt state it in a different way, but I’m trying to capture the overall meaning.
“Yes, I want one. In detail, and without snark, and in a neutral tone”
Well then I’m definitely not your guy.
Paging Brian!
“I’d also, in passing, be curious to see someone ‘more patient than you’ appear on this site.”
My spidey sense is tingling. This is a backhander of some kind, right?
Ain’t that the truth. I find LP essential for my daily WTF. Like this:
I take it that Katz isn’t a fan of Anita Dunn then?
j_p_z, you are starting to trade in insults. Maybe you didn’t start it, I really don’t care.
I’ve just spent a bit of time as a fellow house guest with this guy (a charming fellow) and listened to his very entertaining and persuasive public lecture, albeit to an audience that didn’t need much persuading.
I’m also reading this book at the moment, where a rich New Zealand guy decided to spend half a mill of his own money to bring in some leading ‘Sceptics’ to put their case. He borrowed some ‘Alarmists’ from the local university for free. I’d recommend the book if you are interested in the subject as distinct from slanging matches.
The point is that you can’t deal with the subject in a blog comment.
j_p_z, the book I referred to @ 82 fits that description, though it’s written with a dose of gently mocking NZ humour that might irritate some people. But amongst it there is information I’ve found nowhere else, like the shape of the CO2 molecule, the history of the standard thermometer, the hazards of measuring sea temperature by slinging a bucket over the side, to very plain expositions of things like the heat island effect and the hockey stick controversy.
Probably there are gaps, but they give the Sceptics argument an extremely fair run IMHO although they say it is actually less organised, as an argument, than the Alarmists’ case.
Hey Brian,
I dare you to run a thread about the latest ANSTO poll.
You know the one where they totally changed the results from opposed to in favour..
Your guys are getting desperate.
Huggy
That’s correct. She and about 6 billion other human beings didn’t make the cut.
Huggy, I’m not taking the bait. I’ve got other fish to fry in the next little while.
Happy to oblige. Who could ever forget ideational flexibility and its contribution to our understanding of world affairs.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/02/20/hasta-la-vista-castro/#comment-443084
However that may be, the reference JPZ makes is simply pure Glenn Beck.
A discussion of the issues attaching to this can be found at Media Matters
Here’s the precise quote:
She later went on to make this central by focusing on relevant episodes on this point — one from Mao and one from Mother Teresa.
Given the climate in contemporary rightwing America, her reference was unwise for a Comms Director, but it’s not as if she’s avowing Maoism or Catholicism here.
oops … last section should not have been blockquoted … I’ll have GregM complaining in a short while.
[Fixed, Fran - Brian]
Oh Righteous One, you appear to have linked to someone else’s comment.
Do get it right.
JPZ @71
The problem JPZ, is that Monckton’s claims are at odds with reality. The claims about the MCO/Hockey Stick have been repeatedly debunked, no data has been falsified, and Monckton has never shown that a model adduced by the IPCC in their assessments reports has been wrong beyond the error bars attached.
These latest hysterical claims are just that … Nobody is ceding sovereignty at Copenhagen, either in practice or in theory.
The salient reality is that temperatures continue to rise, CO2 forcing is the only explanation that fits the data and nothing Monckton and his fellow travellers have done entails an alternative theory that matches the data that they can’t contest. They are mere rock throwers on a mission to save business/culture-as-usual.
I’m more interested in hearing lefty replies to Monckton’s rather serious charges. Perhaps they’re trifling, perhaps not: I have no way of knowing unless you persuade me with something better than snark
Noted, but wait a minute…
I’m not a scientist… but then again almost none of you geniuses are either
Snark.
upon what unshakable rock your faith is founded
More snark.
For it is faith, unless you can show me a PhD in something more credible than Multicultural Studies.
Even more snark.
Since your team is pretty much bursting at the seams with scientific experts
Even more snark.
in such great sciences as the Infallible Marxist-Leninist March etc etc.
Even more snark.
Then there was his next post, which begins with the same request for unsnarkiness, but continues in the same snarky vein as the first post. I’m not going to be bothered analysing the second post as I did the first post, but the continuing evidence of hypocrisy is there for all to see.
This should help.
One of the best sites with a compilation and scientific evaluation of AGW skeptic arguments is here ScepticalScience
If you want to follow the discussion, then you need to have a background in science and well honed critical analysis skills, as in the end it boils down to integrity of the scientific argument and characters involved.
silkworm: ” but the continuing evidence of hypocrisy…”
*sigh*.
Look at the original post, why don’t ye. Paul Norton has such kontempt for Monckton’s opinion that he uses komedy spellings to summarize it.
You see, there’s this koncept kalled kontext, which…
eh, I’m too tired for this. Somebody else explain it.
There you have it folks.
Japerz thinks that all lefties are equally repulsive as Nazis.
Makes you wonder why Japerz frequents a lefty blog, doesn’t it.
But wait, maybe Japerz also frequents at least one Nazi blog as well.
Do you frequent at least one Nazi blog, and if so, why not?
Katz, japerz has just gone for a Godwin in the course of rallying to the defence of Monckton committing a reverse Godwin by comparing greenies to communists in a speech quoted from, and linked to, by an anti-semitic loony newspaper from up-country Queensland.
“I’m not a scientist… but then again almost none of you geniuses are either, so I’m a trifle curious to hear upon what unshakable rock your faith is founded. For it is faith, unless you can show me a PhD in something more credible than Multicultural Studies.”
Brian has already put paid to jpz’s assertions more eloquently than I can. Just on the remote chance that he is seriously interested in the credibility (or otherwise) of Monckton’s anti-science charges, he could do worse than have a read of Tim Lambert’s blogs.
AGW as an issue is far to important and fundamental to the survival of civilisation as we know it. There is no relevance nor any benefits to bicker along old and outdated ideological stances. If you wish to do so go back to your old refectory. In case you haven’t noticed the cold war is over, the USSR does not exist anymore, China has a rampant market economy and the US of A is unilaterally dominating world economy and politics, to the extent that they can ( without UN approval)invade a country based on lies. If Lord Monckton decides to stir up the isolationist elements, then he needs to be exposed as the fraud he is and left to his hanger-ons. He is a symptom of denialism not a cause. He has previously been exposed using inaccurate science and, as far as I am concerned, has little integrity or credibility. Like I said further up, he uses this issue to give him self a soapbox as he is a tragic in other issues too.
What gets me is how desperate people are to listen to such characters and still question or ignore people with far more integrity and intellect such as Professor Ross Garnaut.
The question about Copenhagen more so is, whether we will get a workable consensus without too much compromises to large powers and economic forces, rather than a fancy ideological conspiracy to take over proceedings.
Come on get real and don’t take your eyes of the ball!
I think you’re a bit hard on japerz, Katz. He doesn’t think we’re all as repulsive as nazis, he thinks some of us are merely unhinged (thereby demonstrating that it’s possible to be mistaken in more than one way at the same time).
j_p_z #71,
first, re-read what you wrote, then read this speech by Monckton earlier this year. I note a similarity in tone, so it’s hard to take you seriously.
Especially when you didn’t listen to all of what Monckton had to say, and have somehow managed to remain unaware of the main scientific issues wrt climate change. However, this didn’t make you too humble to lay on plenty of insults to those who may, just may, be able to answer them.
You need to do some homework. For an excellent set of FAQs on climate change, addressing many of Monckton’s objections, go here go here. And before you object that Parris is an economist, he also has a B Sc in Earth Science and these FAQs have been widely reviewed.
Given that Monckton refers to those who advocate policy action on climate change as bedwetters, Dr Jim Hansen as Dr Strangelove and trots out wrong and misleading statistics ad nauseum, what level of respect does he deserve from Paul Norton? Surely he wouldn’t wither under the mockery of the heading on this post?
If you have a serious question after reading the Parris FAQs, then by all means, ask it.
Now go away.
Oh yeah. Me – B Sc Earth Science, Ph D Palaeoclimate and hydrology, Research Professor working on climate risk. That left-wing enough for you?
Good on ya Jonesy, good to see some one is manning the barricades (sorry Ladies)! Any other fool ‘outhere’ we need to discuss?
You sound like a dangerous crypto-commie-fascist to me, Roger, so japerz probably thinks you’re as bad as the nazis and unhinged. Those scienticians have a lot to answer for.
I have a question or two.
A number of external treaties (signed by the Prime Minister) exist that overide common law rights and historical property rights. Example Tasmanian Dam case. These treaties cannot be overuled by our high court and we have no recourse to the Privy Council and/or Queen since the Australia Act 1986 (we are already a Republic).
What are the ramifications to Australia’s soveriegnty if K. Rudd signs a Copenhagen Treaty?
Do we as Australian’s wish to loose the ability to control of our countries destiny and the future of our children?
Would it be better to not sign a Copenhagen treaty and proceed to put plans in place to address our impact on the world (Australia) without signing a treaty that removes our and our children’s democratic rights.
John M@103
Plainly not …
None. At. All.
The treaty has no effect on Australian sovereignty at all until the Federal Parliament (both Houses) passes a law giving effect to it and passing it into “metropolitan law” (as it is called quaintly in international law)- or in other words, the law of the land, which then binds Australia until and unless the Parliament repeals the enacting legislation, which, under our Constitution, it can do at any time.
Which is exactly how our Constitution was framed at the turn of the century before last.
Do we as human beings wish to lose the ability to control our planet’s destiny and the future of our children?
Silkworm @106, that was a bit harsh!
JM @103 was just wanting us to live in a defacto relationship with the treaty.
Skip the church wedding in Copenhagen…keep our independence, etc.
Future progeny of this defacto arrangement can take their chances…
Planet Janet is totally convinced.
Katz: Ooch, sounds like I hit a bit of a nerve. It sucks when that happens, dunnit.
Paul Norton: Oh for pete’s sake.
Roger Jones: Greetings, Dr. Jones. So, finally, here we are at comment number 100, and somebody at last has decided to present some non-hilarious credentials. Good for you.
So… pull up a chair, if you please. We’re going to have a bit of a chat.
First of all, I’m quite sure you’re a whole lot better at science than I am. You know how I know that? Because the most meaningful (perhaps the only meaningful) thing I’ve written above (at #71, and thanks for reminding me) was — wait for it — “I’m not a scientist.” Well what do you know, some of us know our limits. (and at this point I’m using the word “know” comedically.) So, I guess I sorta ‘know’ myself slightly somewhat, and I’m also slightly aware of what I’m ignorant of, which is something that that Socrates feller was rather keen on, if I recall.
Humor me for a moment, caveman that I am. Let’s think briefly of three points in scientific history: heliocentrism, air travel, and AGW.
Heliocentrism: the Sun has never cared what our opinions are of what it is, or where it is located in relation to ourselves, or what it does with respect to us. Humanity has survived for millennia without ever having an accurate opinion of what the Sun was doing. Granted, once we discovered our new, more accurate viewpoint, we were better able to do a lot of other things. But the fact is that if we had never ever stumbled at all upon heliocentrism, we could still get on with our lives in a reasonable manner, just like Archimedes did. In other words, there never was, and there isn’t now, a “clock on it.” Right?
Air travel: I’m not a pilot, and I bet you aren’t either. But every time I get on a plane, I pretty much literally stake my life on the accuracy of aeronautic science. The science is very young — pretty much less than one hundred years, right? — but, for all that, there’s a considerable body of predictive evidence that helps me make a confident decision. Still and all, if I choose never to board an airplane for any reason whatsoever, then I have considerably mitigated my risk, have I not? There’s a risk involved, but there’s no clock on it.
Two other things to bear in mind: heliocentrism is ultimately indifferent to the human race; and air travel, because it involves human beings, has a social/political dimension that is independent of the necessary science. If you are, say, the political arm of the Catholic Church, you can choose if you like to make a political fuss out of heliocentrism… but that’s your own trip. The Sun will continue to do whatever it does, independent of your religious or political opinion about it. Right?
The same is not true about air travel. The physics may be constant, but because it is a human endeavor, air travel will be conducted in a certain given fashion, or else in a different fashion, depending on what sort of thing human beings want to do with it, at one moment or another. Luftwaffe, BOAC, Air France, take your pick.
Is the same thing true about AGW?
Well that’s sort of an interesting question, innit.
Unlike heliocentrism, AGW ostensibly has a clock on it. But like air travel, we are told we have to stake our lives on the truth or falsity of certain claims. Wow, that’s kind of a big deal, wouldn’t you say?
If I had to, in really rather quite a hurry, convince people that their entire economic reality must be catastrophically re-shaped more or less at the drop of a hat, or else the whole planet would be destroyed… then I think (but this is just me) I would make an effort to convince the people in a way that was…. well, convincing. I wouldn’t call them insulting names, or dismiss alternative arguments breezily, and I wouldn’t tell people “Now go away,” as you so charmingly did to me. I would try to be persuasive. And if somebody like Monckton went around claiming that his opponents were not merely mistaken, but actively LYING, then I think I would be at pains to debunk those claims in very clear and simple language. So far nobody has done that on this thread — not even you, Herr Doktor. All I see is snark. That’s fine as far as it goes… but recall where the burden of proof lies.
If I understand you folks correctly (and remember, I’m the guy, not you, who says he doesn’t KNOW), very serious concerted action must be taken within the space of a human lifetime, in order to avert permanent catastrophe. Have I got that right? But who are my witnesses? Leftist crackpots with a history of backing mass murderers?
Okay.
“Now go away.”
As you wish.
“All I see is snark. That’s fine as far as it goes… but recall where the burden of proof lies.
If I understand you folks correctly (and remember, I’m the guy, not you, who says he doesn’t KNOW), very serious concerted action must be taken within the space of a human lifetime, in order to avert permanent catastrophe. Have I got that right? But who are my witnesses? Leftist crackpots with a history of backing mass murderers? ”
Talking of snark,that last sentence sounded suspiciously like it to me. Pot…Kettle?
I’d suggest that the majority of the world’s scientists is quite a bit more than a bunch of leftist crackpots. If you believe Monckton has any serious points worth considering, then it is up to you (not others here) to take the trouble to read the references to scientific discussion that have been listed in this thread.
If you complain that you don’t know and that most of the posters here, apart from Roger, are not scientists (albeit you could learn quite a lot from Robert Merkle and Brian) then why not go to where scientists have discredited denialists?
Japerz,
I will offer you the courtesy of one response but am very busy preparing for a climate policy briefing. You’ve run a number of points together in your post, wrapped up in a good dose of what some might (but not me) interpret as snark, so finding where those go in relation to a logical resonse is difficult.
Heliocentrism – an even better metaphor is to think of the atmosphere, which doesn’t give a stuff about people but will respond to increases in greenhouse gases. Why should we care?
So there’s a risk, because changing the climate from a range in which humans have adapted to its dynamics (broadly) to something else will cause great hardship. Threatening large scale ecosystems can also affect planetary life support systems (e.g., if the Amazon shifts from rainforest to savannah or if humans cleared it, liberating thecarbon and altering regional rainfall). But this risk is not based on frequencies as in your plane (we have lots of planes and lots of passengers so can calculate the odds), we have one planet and lots of uncertainty. This is a single event uncertainty and people are not very well wired (neuropsychologically and culturally) to cope with those. Like it or not, everyone is a passenger on the climate change plane, so the choice of whether or not to board is moot.
The correct way to think about a risk is as hazard, event, outcome, response. The atmosphere as hazard doesn’t care. The event are many impacts, and I’m not going to list these. The IPCC Working Group II summary for policymakers has a couple of useful tables that show humans produce a wide range of potential outcomes with harm increasing with rate and magnitude of change. These risks have mostly been upgraded since the science in that report (current to late 2006). The outcomes is that many more people will be harmed than if we did not emit those gases. The response is to combine adaptation for climate change that cannot be avoided and mitigation to avoid future climate change, as much as is practicable given the will.
There are a great many people who, because they don’t like the solutions on offer, will try to invalidate the science. The result, as has been discussed widely on this site and elsewhere, is a form of denialism that cannot get voice in the mainstream scientific literature. This is not because there is a conspiracy – it’s because it is wrong.
Monckton clearly believes that the risks of climate change policy outweigh the risks of climate change itself. One way he does this is by attacking the science with language of the sort I linked to above. If he admitted the science, then disagreed with the risk management options, I would think him honest, but would still disagree, based on the conclusion made by many that we can devise a set of reasonable and equitable policy options. Does it mean the transformation of the economy? Yes. Does it mean the global ceding of authority of sovereignty to a global government? I wouldn’t think so and nor is that on the table. Any treaty needs to overcome market failure on the global scale. So it has to be developed through a combination of cooperation and competition.
As to the the LYING bit, it is easy to tell a lie about science and sound credible, and takes a great deal of evidence to disprove that. In a debate, the first thing that suffers are the facts. I’m well aware that it’s possible to win a debate by being entertaining rather than informative and have used this shamelessly in the past. So think the best thing for people to do is to read material that has been prepared from credible, refereed science for an intelligent lay audience, then to explore specific questions on that basis. I linked to one set of FAQs earlier.
My response to this statement.
1. It is folly to convince people in a hurry that a serious risk exists so I won’t try. My suggestion was that you spend some time exploring it yourself.
2. Catastrophically re-shaped at the drop of a hat – if you can find a reliable scientific reference that states this, I would be interested to see it
3. Or the whole planet will be destroyed. Ditto.
If you won’t take the time to explore the issue in greater depth, nothing I say on a blog is going to make up that deficit. Some would say (but not me) that to expect an instant answer to a complex problem is not heliocentric but solipsistic.
Oh, and here is the most offending para from the proposed (but unapproved) text for discussion in Copenhagen.
and here’s the killer that Albrechtsen objects to:
This is government with a small “g”. This is also one branch of text, and a complete alternative has also been proposed in the document.
My prediction – some people confuse small government with big government and this wording will not survive.
More here: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf
Obviously the wording should have said “The governing structure will be overseen by the COP …” or something similar.
But Paul, I think you’ll agree, that whatever the wording, it is a Kommunist Konspiracy
somewhat off thread, but I do recall Katz referring to Maoism as an illness rather than an ideology, or words to that effect.
Long ago, on LP.
On the contrary Japerz. I just a little disappointed in you.
The battles within the Australian Left have been referred to innumerable times on this blog. Believe it or not, those struggles have been and continue to be important to the politics of this nation.
Moreover, the broad outlines of the struggles I referred to and their outcomes can be easily verified.
Roger Jones@112
That’s a great summary of a complex set of problems and challenges in so short a space.
Well done indeed …
I don’t think there’s anything I can add to Roger’s excellent comments on the substantive issues – which is the climate, stupid! The significance of Monckton’s speech which prompted the initial post is that it displayed with particular clarity and frankness the mindset of a certain, and significant, denialist constituency which frames the climate change debate, not in terms of the climate and the substantive science thereon, but in terms of an imagined struggle to defend freedom against communism and the Jacobin temptation. Japerz’s reference to “Leftist crackpots with a history of backing mass murderers” places him squarely within this camp.
Other denialist constituencies likewise frame the climate debate in terms of a grand narrative of one or other manichaean dualism. Catholic conservatives like George Pell frame it in terms of the ultramontane struggle against secular modernity, Marxist cornucopians of the Spiked and Strange Times school frame it in terms of the struggle for progress against reactionary green anti-modernity, Brian McDermott and the Hinterland Voice frame it in terms of the struggle against the Jewish bankers’ quest for world domination, etc.
A final word to japerz. Unless you are either (a) able to substantiate your claim that a poster or commenter here has “a history of backing mass murderers” or (b) willing to withdraw that remark, you will be given due cause to complain to your heart’s content on other blogs about how the “leftist crackpots” at LP have banned you.
Greg M @ 105.
However this puts the whole issue outside of our Australian legal system. Further destruction of the three basic tiers of government.
I think John Michelmore means three branches of government rather than three tiers of government.
(Unless, of course, he is making a stand for the sovereignty of cities, shires, municipalities and boroughs the length and breadth of this great land of ours.)
Elise @ 107,
I know lots of cases of couples living together , complying with the “Rules” and signing the marriage certificate later.
The same can apply to our rampant overuse of our earthly resources, we can play by the consensus “rules”, fully assess the consequences of these “rules” and then if we are happy to be married to the IPCC treaty we can sign.
By not “jumping in off the deep end” initially we don’t condemn our children to either the further loss of democracy or the destruction of our environment.
Katz @ 119,
What I meant was the the parliament, the judiciary and the crown.
At the moment we have basically a single entity which encompasses all three (the parliament). External treaties further cement this and are a way of “diluting” our Constitution.
RJ to JPZ:
“If you won’t take the time to explore the issue in greater depth, nothing I say on a blog is going to make up that deficit. Some would say (but not me) that to expect an instant answer to a complex problem is not heliocentric but solipsistic.”
What’s that sound I hear? The sound of a well oiled hospitality machine.
John M #118 & 121, surely the point of GregM’s comment #105 is that the treaty has no effect in Australia until the elected Federal Parliament legislates for the purpose inter alia of giving effect to the treaty, to which I would add that it is the High Court of Australia which has the ultimate say, if a dispute arises, as to what that effect is.
Sorry to further plague people here, but you know, I have to offer my apologies to my interlocutors on this thread. Upon a bit of reflection I can see y’all are right, my tone has been preposterous. Sometimes you get in a mood. I think there are interesting areas of possible disputation in all of this, but I don’t seem to be contributing to them. Time to go soak my head in a bucket, probably.
Enjoy the rest of the discussion. Sorry to be a nuisance. Carry on!
Paul Norton — didn’t see your comment earlier when I just posted. I’ll certainly withdraw my previous remark that you took exception to, and I offer my apologies to you personally. If you think it’s appropriate to delete that comment, you’d get no protests from me.
Now it’s probably time for me to swallow a bottle Don’t-Be-Irritating pills.
Back to your previously scheduled discussion.
No worries, japerz, I too have been guilty on at least one occasion in the last six months of getting into a mood, posting whilst in that mood, traducing innocent people and subsequently having to apologise for the injustice done.
John Michelmore @103, 118 and 120 – signing or ratifying a treaty does not affect Australia’s sovereignty – the ability to enter into treaties is an aspect of national sovereignty, not an impingement on it. I suggest you read an introductory text on International Law – you seem to have a few misconceptions about it.
John, our 1901 Constitution provides for an Executive, which represents the Crown but the members of which are chosen from members of Parliament and which is answerable to the Parliament, and a judiciary, which under Chapter 3 of the Constitution is independent of the Executive and the Parliament,and which is the final interpreter of the Constitution and of our laws. The powers of the Executive to enter into treaties and for the Parliament to incorpoate them into our laws, subject to the Constitution, existed in the Constitution in 1901. Nothing has changed since then in that regard.
I cannot see the point you trying to make.
Sorry for those whom have been waiting for my response. I believe under the external affairs powers the PM has, he can sign a treaty and it can be enforced under Regulation. This is how environmental controls have established in conjunction with COAG agreements with the States.
An interesting read is “A Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Civil Penalties and Enforcement Powers, December 2007. Appendix A Imaginary Regulatory Act.” You might ask yourself what the title actually means.
In a Republic Civil Law was meant to replace Common Law. Much of the ground work legislation and regulation was complete before the referendum. As a result our Democracy and Constitution was severely weakened.
Well you are wrong. Nothing in our Constitution gives the Prime Minister the power to rule by regulation through entering into foreign treaties. The regulation making power is created by and subject to legislation which, to point out the obvious, has to be passed by Parliament. The regulations are subject to review by the High Court in both terms of the regulations being properly made under the legislation which allows the making of the regulations and the legislation under which it is made being within the Constitutional powers of the Commonwealth Parliament.
Why don’t you just go and read the Constitution before you make uninformed comments about it?
Can you provide us with a single link to a single reputable source which shows this groundwork?
John Michelmore @129 – that is nonsense. The external affairs power gives the Commonwealth Parliament the ability to legislate for matters which are the subject of international treaties to which Australia is a party (as determined by the High Court in Commonwealth v Tasmania and other cases). The environmental matters dealt with through COAG are generally those for which the Commonwealth does not have the power to legislate independently (because there is no relevant treaty to which Australia is a signatory), so it relies on the States to refer their powers to it in accordance with section 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution. This is generally done using a method of parallel legislation, coordinated through COAG. On matters which are the subject of a treaty, the Commonwealth has no need to rely on COAG as it can simply legislate, and that legislation will override any conflicting State law in accordance with section 109 of the Constition (e.g, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, which was enacted as a consequence of Australia being signatory to the 1992 UN Convention on Biodiversity). The Commonwealth authority to legislate only extends as far as the treaty allows, however, which is why, for example, the scope of the Commonwealth environmental impact assessment power under the EPBC Act is quite limited compared with the States’ powers.
Your remark about civil law “replacing” common law makes no sense – it suggests that you don’t understand the meaning of the two terms. You also don’t seem clear on the distinction between a ‘regulatory act’ (i.e. an Act of Parliament which regulates something) and ‘regulations’ (i.e. subordinate legislation made under the authority of an Act of Parliament). Two different things.
Prodders,
US Creationists are anti-AGW because they are Republicans
Various polls by Pew Research found:
27% of Republicans believed in AGW as of April 2008
18% of Republicans believed in AGW as of October 2009
34% of Evangelicals (mostly Creationists) believed in AGW as of April 2009.
73% of Evangelicals vote Republican.
In general terms then: Creationist correlates to Republican correlates to anti-AGW.
Some hard data which supports the above correlative chain comes from Lifeway Research, an arm of the Southern Baptist Convention. They polled 1,002 pastors and found that the more conservative their political beliefs, the more likely they were to reject AGW. The research appears in their article LifeWay Research studies global warming beliefs among Protestant pastors
So, Katz, I think you can largely cut back your thicket of factors to this one. Of course there are outliers including the debased Dominion Theology devised to retrofit anti-AGW onto scripture.
But the link between US Creationism and Climate Change denialism is the Republican Party.
Detailed post here with all sources.
But that presumes that the Republican Party is capable of imposing party policy discipline upon voters.
So far as I am aware there is no Republican Party policy on AGW. It is perfectly possible to be a Republican, and a prominent Republican, and give credence to AGW.
It is not necessary for creationists to filter their opposition to AWG through their adherence to a particular political party. (Although it is probably true to say that in some cases Baraholka’s simple causational pathway is correct.
Let us say that overnight the Republican Party became AGW proponents and the Democratic Party became AGW deniers, I would predict that many creationists would swap their support to the Democrats. However, I believe, that many would not. Therefore the strength of party affiliation as driver of opinion on AGW is likely to be relatively weak.
(An interesting parallel case is the means by which the Republican Party in the Old South became the home of Southern racism after 1968, and became the majority party in many parts of the Old South, after the Democrats embraced efforts to address race issues. Principles and prejudices trumped party affiliation.)
Both creationists’ adherence to the GOP and their disapprobation of AGW should more properly in most cases be attributed to common prior causes.
To end a potentially long story, the thicket is back.
the thicket is back.
..but not as thicket as some.
I believe… the strength of party affiliation as driver of opinion on
AGW is likely to be relatively weak.
You have summarily ignored the research on the issue that shows that the
strength of party affiliation as driver of opinion on AGW is strong.
To repeat Lifeway’s findings:
Do you still hold that Political allegiance is a weak correlating
factor in acceptance of AGW ?
Both creationists’ adherence to the GOP and their disapprobation
of AGW should more properly in most cases be attributed to common
prior causes.
There are undoubtedly some ‘prior causes’ independent of political
affiliation which dispose Creationists to embrace AGW. Some of these were
discussed in the articles I cited.
e.g. Climate Change is seen as an alternative religion and a distraction from missiological activities (pace Pell). Also, the development of a debased
Dominion theology to ‘prove’ AGW cannot be real. This, however, is at least matched
by theological factors which cause acceptance of AGW, namely the traditional
Christian doctrine of Stewardship embraced by younger Evangelicals.
However, such ‘prior causes’ are outliers to the primary determining factor which is allegiance to the Republican Party as the Pew and Lieway survey figures clearly demonstrate.
Remember, The Republican Party perceived to be the party of God as opposed to the
party of the Godless liberals (the Democratic Party) with its acceptance of
Gay Rights and Abortion.
So far as I am aware there is no Republican Party policy on AGW.
Disingenuous. We are all aware of Republican antipathy to AGW.
It is not necessary for creationists to filter their opposition
to AWG through their adherence to a particular political party.
Never said it was necessary. I do say it is the Primary
explanatory factor.
Katz, would you care to nominate what you consider those ‘prior causes’ are that
cause Creationists to reject AGW if not allegiance to the Republican Party ?
Come out from behind your thicket. Don’t be afraid to let your light shine !!
Shorter Baraholka; “I don’t understand the difference between “correlation” and “causation”.
Ho hum, correlation is not causation.
Please point out where I said there was a weak correlation between political allegiance to the GOP and AGW denialism. Clearly, there is a strong correlation between support for the GOP and AGW denialism.
There is no inconsistency in saying that there is a strong correlation between political adherence and attitudes to certain issues and saying that those attitudes to issues are not strongly driven by adherence to a political party.
Next.
Katz,
If Hair-Splitting were an Olympic sport you would be Australia’s greatest sporting hero.
There is no inconsistency in saying that there is a strong correlation between political adherence and attitudes to certain issues and saying that those attitudes to issues are not strongly driven by adherence to a political party.
…except that the attitudes to the issue in question (AGW) are embodied in the ethos of the party in question (the Republican Party).
What causes Creationists to be anti-AGW if not allegiance to the Republican Party ?
Or to re-focus on the trigger for our discussion, what was going through your head when you wrote:
Three out of four Americans think that the world was created a little over 4000 years ago. These are the same folks who dispute the GWH.”
If it was nothing then feel free to say so. If not, then I would be interested if you would expand on your statement a little.
Recognising the difference between correlation and causation is not hair splitting. It is the basis of sound logic.
Let us say you went to an Irish social club in your local Australian town. You notice that there are many red heads in attendance. Would you say that having red hair caused these folks to attend? Of course not! Being a logical sort of chap you’d say. “Well, Ireland is full of red heads. It stands to reason that these sons of the sod who attend this Hibernian knees-up would count among their number many red heads.”
Then again, maybe you wouldn’t. Pity.
Now, can you extend this concept to the issue of Republicans and AGW deniers, or do I have to do it for you?
Please go ahead.
Katz,
Looks like you might have lost interest in the topic, but FWIW I think the data is pretty clear that Creationists are anti-AGW based on their trust and allegiance to the GOP and their corresponding distrust of the Democrats.
Evangelicals have identified with the Republican Party since the 1960′s. Prior to that time they were politically disengaged, but several issues coincided in the 60′s, to make Evangelicals identify with the Republican Party as the party of traditional Christian morality.
These isues were the advent of a the Catholic presendential candidate, John F. Kennedy, fielded by the Democrats, the rise of the 1960′s counter-culture with its ‘progressive’ social views and libertarian sexual morality and Supreme Court decisions legalizing abortion and banning prayer in schools.
This identification solidified during Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign and presidency such that by 1984 the formation of the Evangelicals as a Republican Party constituency was completed in the form we know today.
Evangelicals do not oppose AGW on theological grounds, but they do identify the GOP as their own personal Hezbollah (Party Of God) and they associate the AGW hypothesis with the godless, homosexual, Democrats.
Their distrust of the Democrats makes them amenable to propaganda points cycled through the Rush Limbaughs and Pat Robertson types.
This equation does not hold for younger evangelicals, but it certainly does for the older ones.
I take your point in regard to correlation and causation but I think you’re over-emphasising it. I was never arguing that Evangelicals vote GOP merely becase they’re rusted on. My original point mentioned the ‘rapacious govt-corporate free-market philosophy’ of the GOP, so yeah, I acknowledge ‘prior causes’ as you might put it, or more specifically that Evangelicals vote GOP because they perceive philosphcal/policy harmony with their own beliefs.
With anti-AGW though, the Evangelicals do NOT have a Biblical basis for opposition (as opposed to Creationism or anti-abortion which certainly do have a Biblical basis) so the anti-AGW position of evangelicals is merely a by-product of trust in the GOP and distrust in the Democratic Party.
This will hold as long as GOP=Hezbollah and Dems aren’t.
So to take your example, what would happen if GOP and Dems swapped their AGW platforms? I would expect Evangelicals to embrace AGW because the Party of God says its OK..and they would keep voting GOP.
I have more detail and sources for the above argument here at the end.
Baraholka, I think what you are saying here is correct.
The evangelicals have entered into an alliance with the corporations party, and lately the oil and coal industry. The corporations have found the evangelicals to be useful tools, who will accept anything they are told if packaged correctly.
Creationists and Catholics reject science generally (and evolution in particular), so it an easy step for the corporations to sell them the pseudoscience behind AGW denialism.
When it comes to the solutions to AGW, there is a merging of interest between the creationists and the denialists.
One of the emerging solutions that environmentalists are putting forward is the need for population control, and the best way to bring this about is through birth control and the education of women. On this particular issue, the religious right and the AGW denialists will find more common ground. The corporations do not want to see populations fall, as that means less consumption of their products.
I lost interest because you appear to be impervious to reason and you are ignorant of US political history.
The following is nonsense:
The vast bulk of evangelicals in the US in the early 1960s lived in the South. The vast bulk of those evangelicals identified with the Democratic Party. At that point, Old south States were essentially one-party states — Democratic states.
The following paragraph contains some important information. Read it carefully.
In 1960, despite JFK’s Catholicism, the only Southern state won by Nixon was Florida, and Florida can hardly be said to be a typical Southern state.
Learn some facts and then get back to me.
So the whole premise of your obsessively elaborated argument simply falls to the ground.
Katz, what premise are you referring to?
That would be Bara’s premise that US Evengelicals have thrown their support behind the Republican Party since 1960.
Katz,
You are far too hasty.
I accept that JFK’s Catholicism did not cause an immediate exodus of Southerners to the GOP, but then I never argued that it did. I did nominate it is one factor among many which eventually shifted the Evangelical vote to the GOP, the others of which you have ignored. Specifically contra you, I did not say that Evangelicals have thrown their support behind the GOP since 1960.
What I do argue is that that the GOP is party of the Evangelicals because they see the GOP as the “Party Of God” and the Dems as the party of the godless Liberals and that’s why the older Evangelicals align with the GOP even on non-theological, non-morality issues such as anti-AGW. Feel free to critique.
Now Katz, you’re dragging the chain.
You still haven’t nominated your ‘prior causes’ that cause Evangelicals/Creationists to align with the GOP or advanced any reasons why Evangelicals should be AGW-resistant or explained your original comment that triggered our discussion. You seem to be content to just take pot shots at my arguments. Your choice, but I would be interested in hearing your views.
OK, Bara.
Here are your actual words:
And here is your redacted claim:
Now, “identified” is a very slippery word. Are you asserting here that millions of US evangelicals trooped off to the polls, voted for the Dems but in their heart of hearts “identified” with the GOP? If so, this would appear to be very strange behaviour, even for evangelicals. It makes snake handling seem almost normal. What, exactly, do you mean by “identified” Bara?
Let us go on.
Note please that this sentence is written in the present tense, meaning that it speaks about present conditions, i.e., the allegiance of evangelicals with the GOP today. (An association which I do not deny.)
The facts that you have just learned about the 1960 election have convinced you that as late as 1960 most evangelicals did not see the GOP as the “party of God”.
Therefore, you concede that this change had to occur after 1960.
Therefore, my question:
If evangelicals did not see the GOP as the “party of God” by 1960, when is the earliest time, according to your theory, that they did?
***
And, by the way, your whole line of argument contradicts your central assertion that evangelicals are AWG because of their allegiance to the GOP.
AGW is a debate which is no more than half a decade old as a matter of public controversy.
Evangelicals have been closely associated with the GOP for much longer than that.
Evangelicals were attracted to the GOP for a complex of reasons that long pre-dated AGW as a controversial issue. Surely, Bara, you don’t argue that effects can pre-date causes!
However, it is probably true to say that AGW denialism has strengthened pre-existing bonds between evangeleicals and the GOP
***
So, if evangelicals threw their allegiance behind the GOP after 1960, but before the advent of AGW as an issue of public controversy, then your argument is logical and historical nonsense.
*Applause* Katz.
My recollection is that the southern baptists (etc) started deserting the Democrats around the time that Johnson, particularly, started getting serious about civil rights. (I’m sure you’d recall Gov George Wallace leaving the Democrats around then.) The motivation was initially racist.
Reagan and his campaign managers managed to exploit that racism and the fundies’ antipathy to science (particularly evolution), women’s rights and abortion, and drag them all into the Rethuglican camp. That’s where the modern American obsession with the faith of their politicians started getting traction as well. (Bear in mind that Lincoln, a Republican, was known at the time as a “free-thinker” and no-one cared.)
Yes DI(nr). This was part of Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” of 1968. White fundos were pried loose from the Dems to Wallace in 1968. Thereafter, Nixon appealed to them as part of his “Silent Majority” in the 1972 election. By then, the association was strong, though by no means permanent, as the victories of Carter and Clinton revealed.
Another impetus was the re-emergence of creationism as a political issue in the 1970s. Liberal democrats ridiculed creationism. Ever-opportunistic Republicans became the fundos’ sob-sisters. I was resident at the time in Texas where the struggle over curriculum was particularly nasty. Booksellers were particularly sensitive to the politics of different School Districts. I recall havin a long conversation about it with a book seller.
(Remarkably, this bookseller chappie worked in the Dallas Schoolbook Depository Building, a fact which seemed to carry no special significance in his mind. After all sometimes a Schoolbook Depository is only a Schoolbook Depository.)
Hiya Katz,
OK, Bara.
Here are your actual words:
Looks like you’re getting serious about this discussion. Cool!
I respect your posts, Katz, and look forward to some provoking
counter-points.
And here is your redacted claim:
The claim is not redacted.
You are making a non-sequitir.
Re-read para in 144 starting “I accept that…”
If evangelicals did not see the GOP as the “party of God” by 1960,
when is the earliest time, according to your theory, that they did?
Reagan, 1984.
I pretty much said so @139.
Here it is:
And, by the way, your whole line of argument contradicts your
central assertion that evangelicals are AWG because of their
allegiance to the GOP.
Sorry, can’t agree.
The core evangelical constituency trusts the GOP as the Party Of God
(ceteris paribus), so when the POG (neat anagram there) says AGW is
wrong, the core constituency tends to follow.
Evangelicals were attracted to the GOP for a complex of reasons
that long pre-dated AGW as a controversial issue.
Yes, exactly!
So, they trust the POG, distrust the Dems and therefore toe the
Party Line on AGW.
But enough about me. Let’s talk about you.
You still haven’t nominated your ‘prior causes’ that cause
Evangelicals/Creationists to align with the GOP or advanced any
reasons why Evangelicals should be AGW-resistant or explained your
original comment that triggered our discussion. You seem to be content
to just take pot shots at my arguments. Your choice, but I would be
interested in hearing your views.
…and I would say others would be too.
Baraholka, it’s because they’re bitter, scared, impoverished people, clinging to their guns and their God. (Obama was kinder in his description of them than I would be.) Oh, and they’re racists.