Republican win

[Phil Perry]

if things are going cheap that means that demand is weak Phil, that's how markets work

Not in this particular instance.

 

The 'El - Cheapo' reference refers to a personal and long standing family invitation, already taken up by my siblings and their families on several occasions past.

 

The extended Paternal line of my family, all resident in the U.S. are legend with their hospitality. . . .

 

My good Lady however, having a detestation any kind of air travel, has no desire whatsoever to vacation the USA.

 

 

[Marty_d]

He's at it again...

 

Trump signs order sweeping away Obama-era climate policies

 

Once again The Donald successfully shuts out science, logic and common sense in his attempts to go back to 1950.

 

What's his next move going to be? Legislating that cars must achieve fuel economy below 3 MPG in order to support America's oil industry? Sign an executive order that all houses must burn coal in winter? Make it legal for any company to pollute rivers and groundwaters if it's cheaper than correctly disposing of their waste?

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Obama will be remembered as one of the best ever Presidents, especially with this moron trying to piss on his legacies.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Well it is demonstrably true that Trump pays scant regard to scientific facts on a number of fronts. Whether that be climate, or vaccinations, or several other topics.

 

The increasing "anti-science" stance in certain segments of the population puzzles me. A lot.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Democracy spoke… but it would appear there are those among us that will not accept democratic decisions. One has to seriously question not only the rationale behind the situation those knockers advance, but also the questionable morality they use to abide by their bigoted logic

Woah.....back up the bus there.

 

I doubt there's anyone here who doesn't believe "democracy spoke" and I've not met anyone including my Democrat leaning relatives in the USA who has challenged it. Many people are amazed, or confused, or flabbergasted by it and we can argue all day as to why that might be, but no-one I know of has tried to say it's undemocratic. I think he's the most fundamentally obnoxious, arrogant and narcissistic bully to make it to the head of state of a western country for a long time, but he is the President. I don't know that some people necessarily wanted that, but they wanted the alternative much less. Others clearly felt that he would champion the cause of the working class. Why they think that I have no idea. He's 70 and he's spent every minute of his working life looking after only himself and his immediate family and profiting at the expense of others. Why some people believe he will suddenly change - I just don't have a clue. It is way beyond my intelligence level to understand that.

 

What is this "questionable morality" you speak of? What is this "bigoted logic"? Something is either logical or it's not logical.

 

Example: "I will impose a border import tax on Mexican goods which will force Mexico to pay for the wall." That is not logical because that's simply not the way it works.

 

Alternative: "I will impose a border import tax on Mexican goods, in order to fund the wall." That is logical. Fine, the funding will come from the domestic purchasers of the imported goods. Like it or don't like it - doesn't matter. It's still "logical".

 

‘Do you think scientists are always correct’

At no point have scientists or highly qualified people ever pretended that they are always correct. In fact the eminent physicist Professor Lawrence Krauss once stated in an interview I watched that he loved being proven wrong because he found it exciting when someone came up with new and better explanations in physics. However a scientist with a prominent record and specialist expertise in their respective scientific field is far more likely to offer correct or accurate information on that topic than you or I. Then when you get a bunch of them all agreeing even allowing for a very small handful who disagree, you can have reasonable (though not 100%) certainty that the larger group is correct. Unfortunately in the information age, people have trouble accepting that because they believe an hour of Googling is roughly equivalent to 30 years full time research in any given topic at all.

 

Of course some people say a bunch of scientists agreeing on something is just evidence of "group-think" (climate change springs to mind as having this accusation levelled at it regularly). All this shows is that they have no idea what group-think actually is. Group-think occurs when alternative viewpoints are dismissed without being critically evaluated. If they have been evaluated and found to be wanting, or unlikely, or not supported by the evidence, then it isn't group-think. It's just that the dissenters are wrong. It's that simple. This is the case with the majority of sceptical views on the underlying principles of climate change, although there is genuine debate among scientists on the finer details.

 

 

[octave]

What is demonstrably true Dutchroll is Trumps predecessor should have had; as would the incumbent President certainly have; and that is, access to the best advice possible….. it begs the question though ‘Do you think scientists would not be involved within the Presidents circle of advisors’.

If Trumps scientific advisers have data that contradicts NASA and pretty much every other respected scientific organisation then he must surely publish that evidence so it can be analysed by other scientists and interested citizens. By the way do you think that Trumps advice about vaccines and autism trumps (sorry - bad pun) the peer reviewed evidence regarding vaccination? Trump’s vaccine-commission idea is biased and dangerous and Donald Trump Has Long Linked Autism to Vaccines. He Isn’t Stopping Now That He’s President.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Interesting undercurrent, Red.

 

Perhaps not surprising in a nation so well known for its paranoia. (With apologies to the unparanoid section of the population)

 

 

[willedoo]

This is my take on it - it wasn't the Russians, it wasn't the fake news or that bad, bad, Mr. Trump and his looney mates. The whole situation has come to this because the Democrats nominated an unpopular candidate. If they'd had a better candidate, they would have easily won against Trump. They stuffed up.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

but no-one I know of has tried to say it's undemocratic.

Play on words, fact is that many people refuse to accept the decision. They are behaving un-democratically.

 

Brexit pretty much the same, and Hanson.

 

At no point have scientists or highly qualified people ever pretended that they are always correct.

Correct, true science is dynamic, and should always be to advance - but it suits Climate Hysterics as being 100% factual.

 

If Trumps scientific advisers have data that contradicts NASA and pretty much every other respected scientific organisation then he must surely publish that evidence so it can be analysed by other scientists and interested citizens. .

He's trying to but people come along and combat it before the results are announced. That is anti-science.

 

Same as when people in Australia lost their minds because Abbott gave 4 million to anti-climate investigation while a billion was being given out blindly for it - again, that is anti-science.

 

No, I am not-anti Vax, the traditional Vax are obviously proven without question, there is some questions as to a couple of the newer ones, and they should be investigated in a scientific manner.

 

I consider the anti-Vaxxers, of all the Vaccines that is, to be fruit cakes actually.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Rather an all embracing statement Marty.... keeping the options open as well as the bowels it seems.

Not quite sure what you mean by that Mark... if it's an insult, you're going to have to be more direct.

 

as would the incumbent President certainly have; and that is, access to the best advice possible…..

This is the man who appointed, as the head of the EPA, a man who had sued the EPA 14 times. Oh, and who denies that carbon dioxide causes global warming. I really don't think good advice is available to Trump, given that he tends to tweet whatever BS Fox News comes up with the night before, no matter how tenuous its relationship to reality.

 

How Trump wishes to use that information in the best interests of the greatest number is what he will ultimately be judged on. Not; by trial and subsequent condemnation by the media before a circumstance even occurs.

The circumstance has occurred. Trump signed the executive order.

 

questionable morality they use to abide by their bigoted logic

What the hell does that even mean? Logic is logic, and if something is bigoted, it's not logical.

 

‘Do you think scientists are always correct’ if you are still unsure, perhaps you would prefer a 50/50 option… or alternatively you may like to phone a friend.

Dutch has done an excellent job of explaining how science works, and if you're still unsure, I suggest you go read through the 3,000+ posts in "Atheist knowledge" which at several points explains the scientific method. Here's the short version: No, scientists are not always right. But the likelihood is, that someone who has spent their career studying their chosen field, will be right FAR more often than your average punter when it comes to that field of knowledge.

 

It's funny, I don't see people who've never picked up a violin saying that they could easily play first fiddle in the London Philharmonic, or a fat couch potato thinking he could give Usain Bolt a run for his money in the 100m. But when it comes to matters of science they think that "what my mate down the pub" said is of equal value to the considered opinion of someone who's studied the thing in question for years. To that, I say "Bullsh!t."

 

 

[bexrbetter]

An article on TV the other day said that sales of nuclear fallout shelters in the US, equipped with up to two years supply of canned and freeze dried food, have jumped from 2 per month to 6 per week since Trump was elected.

On what basis?

 

Trump is making friends with Russia and will talk to Nth Korea. He has already blasted and threatened the F35 program, and plenty of interview history, over 30 years, indicates he would rather be out of the ME than in it.

 

On what sound premise would I accept this story as being anything but "trumped up" bullsh1te to suit a purpose?

 

 

[Marty_d]

Why would any news service actually make up stuff to make Trump look bad? He doesn't need any help with that!

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Why would any news service actually make up stuff to make Trump look bad? He doesn't need any help with that!

True, eloquence isn't his game, but then he isn't a murdering POS like Obama and Killary were. Sweet mouths don't fool everyone.

 

But anyway, great news just in today ...

 

Brexit has won the battle!

 

 

.. and Farage is one happy dude!

 

 

 

 

 

[dutchroll]

Play on words, fact is that many people refuse to accept the decision. They are behaving un-democratically. Brexit pretty much the same, and Hanson.

Well when Obama was elected, US conservatives embarked on an intensive and unrelenting 8 year campaign to attempt to prove that Obama was an illegitimate President because he wasn't a US citizen. So....you know.....complain about the "left" not accepting political results all you like! Conservatives set an extremely high bar for "refusing to accept a democratic result" in 2008 - so high that I'll genuinely be surprised if the Left ever manage to exceed it. Of course it didn't help at all that he was black. But to be both black and liberal? Well......that demanded severe action!

 

Correct, true science is dynamic, and should always be to advance - but it suits Climate Hysterics as being 100% factual.

That the planet is warming actually is 100% factual. That the only currently plausible explanation, until someone discovers hitherto unknown physics, is rising levels of greenhouse gas is 100% factual (literally there are no other plausible explanations which haven't been considered already, out of a number of possibilities). That there will be inevitable consequences many of which will be detrimental is also 100%, actually let's just call it 98%, factual. The amazing ability of people to compartmentalise this and basically say "well until I personally see the consequences right in my very back yard, I won't believe any consequences are possible" is a little bizarre.

 

It's like smoking.

 

"The scientific evidence shows smoking causes lung cancer."

 

"Well I haven't actually seen that evidence, I smoke, and I don't have lung cancer."

 

Fast forward some years.....

 

"Oh crap I have lung cancer. I'm screwed. I provide for my family and now they're screwed. Wow this is really bad."

 

"Really? Golly whoever would've thought?"

 

He's trying to but people come along and combat it before the results are announced. That is anti-science.

Prediction:

 

Trump will trot out the very small handful of well-known scientific dissenters (there's literally about 4 of them who actually have any directly relevant qualifications) who have been saying the exact same stuff for years, and whose dissenting arguments have already been thoroughly examined by numerous other scientists and been found to be false, misleading, or otherwise not credible. Then Trump in his inevitable style will say "these are the greatest scientists, the best, they do wonderful work, and they've shown global warming is a myth but their opinions are being suppressed by the corrupt media and fake news" and Trump supporters will simply believe the greatest and most evil scientific conspiracy of all time - because that's what they do.

 

The names Trump will trot out to show "evidence" that climate change is all fake news are: Richard Lindzen. Roy Spencer. John Christie. Judith Curry.

 

 

[facthunter]

I like the idea of being able to make up your own mind but are you entitled to make up your own FACTS?. If you need a serous operation would you get an expert surgeon or your friend who is a taxidermist, or meatworker or your best mate, who is a witchdoctor. If you regard SCIENCE as just another opinion to be considered, I feel you don't understand the scientific method. Science needs and accepts scientists who will not just accept anything, but always question it's validity. The fact they do that is used as an argument against something that 97% of them agree on. There has been a concentrated attack by well funded people on scientists generally. Why do you think that is happening? Money is to be made by discrediting and being able to ignore them. Nev

 

 

[bexrbetter]

I like the idea of being able to make up your own mind but are you entitled to make up your own FACTS?.

My Nephew, 5th smartest kid in China while at his University, quit his research job 3 years back in a famous American University in protest because he was being told what results to search for, because that's where the funding was aimed at. That Uni made it's own "FACTS" to suit.

 

I want my 3 Grandkids to grow up with breathable air and water to drink, I want facts about these things and it is clear that they are not available because as soon as you dare say something, you are labeled a "Climate Denier" you are swamped with nonsense.

 

Getting facts and discussion are what science is all about, bias does not achieve that.

 

I am also disgusted by the hypocrisy, if you drive a car, boat or aircraft, worse if you promote any of those for pleasure, then you don't have much of a foundation to accuse others.

 

Next time you go to the toilet, take a moment to realise when you flush it that you don't give a rats azz anymore what happens to it, someone else's problem. Like many Chinese, I don't use toilet paper, and be aware of what happens to the paper and chemicals once it's gone to the waterways. There's a long list of things like that that many do daily and don't even think about it, but happy to get on the 'Climate Hysterics' Bandwagon, the "Likes" is a form of addiction and it makes them feel better. Hypocrites.

 

The fact they do that is used as an argument against something that 97% of them agree on.

Do your own research Nev, the "97%" often quoted is a bullshit figure.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Next time you go to the toilet, take a moment to realise when you flush it that you don't give a rats azz anymore what happens to it, someone else's problem. Like many Chinese, I don't use toilet paper, and be aware of what happens to the paper and chemicals once it's gone to the waterways.

Really? I have a septic system so my sh*t don't leave my land, and I use toilet paper. What do the Chinese use?

 

Do your own research Nev, the "97%" often quoted is a ******** figure.

Sources?

 

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

 

I'd direct your attention to the following passage:

 

"A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[120]"

 

(120: Cook, John; Nuccitelli, Dana; Green, Sarah A.; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Bärbel; Painting, Rob; Way, Robert; Skuce, Andrew (1 January 2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. ISSN 1748-9326.)

 

So that figure of 97% could refer to the proportion of the 4,000 published and peer-reviewed papers that say that global warming is caused by humans.

 

You could argue that doesn't refer to the proportion of scientists who believe climate change exists, and you'd be right, so have a look at the following:

 

"A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:

 

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[115]"

 

(115: Doran, Peter T.; Zimmerman, Maggie Kendall (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". EOS, Transactions American Geophysical Union. 90 (3): 22–23. Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002. ISSN 2324-9250.)

 

In fact it seemed that the only scientific body who didn't agree that climate change was happening was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (big surprise there - guess who they do most of their work for!) - and even that association changed its views in 2007, as their members started threatening to not renew their membership if they didn't change their policy statement.

 

Since 2007 there are no scientific bodies which reject the finding of anthropomorphic climate change.

 

And here's a pretty graph:

 

[ATTACH]48666._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

attribution: File:Climate science opinion2.png - Wikimedia Commons

 

[bexrbetter]

Really? I have a septic system so my sh*t don't leave my land, and I use toilet paper. What do the Chinese use?

Yaw joking, where do you think the paper and poo ends up? Do you feel good when you put rubbish in the "Recycle" bin knowing you've done your part but not knowing or caring what happens to it after that too.

 

Many Chinese use water and clean themselves properly. They don't smear sh1te all over their skin.

 

When we meet Marty be wary of the left hand I extend to you.

 

Sources?

Tomato is the only one. All the rest have names, BBQ, Chile, etc.

 

7 million Scientists in the world, 7,000,000/4000 = Not 97%.

 

Your spiel was a tangent and a half, I say it's not 97% and you try to prove there's Global Warming. Again.

 

As my example with my Nephew, Climate Scientists can either be pro or against. 'Pro' get huge funding, 'Against' get nothing and scorned in the process,

 

So don't sit there and tell me that every one of those 3800 Scientists who drive cars and use toilet paper are in it for the "Purity of Science".

 

In fact it might be the largest move against true science since religion ruled 500 years ago.

 

But lets get to this then, why are none of those "pure and concerned" Scientists and Politicians not tackling this ....

 

 

You can get the full Cowspiracy on Youtube I believe

 

 

[old man emu]

Pan! Pan! Pan!

 

All Stations. This is thread Republican Win. Have drifted off track and an uncertain of my current position. Request vector back to track.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Pan! Pan! Pan!All Stations. This is thread Republican Win. Have drifted off track and an uncertain of my current position. Request vector back to track.

Well just close the thread for the next 4 years, Trump won, deal with it and don't give those who can't accept democracy a platform to whine on.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

I don't have Heroes, I'm just to awesome to accept that position, but Kevin O'Leary ranks up there pretty damn high. The guy is a walking, talking Steven Hawking, brilliance often so subtle many don't notice the details when he talks (business talk).

 

I just noticed he may run for Canadian Prime Minister in 2019, hope he does ..

 

 

[old man emu]

I still contend that, kilo for kilo, using the heat of nuclear decomposition is the least environmentally destructive method for the constant generation of electricity. It can be supplemented by the use of renewable sources - wind; solar and tidal ebb. Even hydro generation causes major environmental damage (vide Warragamba Dam in New South Wales) Dams are a necessary evil for modern conurbations.

 

The problem with nuclear is the fear campaign promoted by those who live to ingest then regurgitate scaremongering propaganda about the possibility of nuclear disaster. That propaganda is sooooo Cold War.

 

OME

 

 

[dutchroll]

Do your own research Nev, the "97%" often quoted is a ******** figure.

Ah the "do your own research" chestnut. I love it when that gets trotted out, but it's most commonly used by anti-vaxers.

 

The 97% refers to scientists actively involved and qualified in climate research and the associated earth sciences. That was very openly stated by the authors of the research which originally quoted that figure. Apparently it is now taken to mean 97% of computational social scientists, synthetic biologists, and metallurgical chemists. And probably plumbers and tilers too.

 

Then when someone finds a group of Western Sydney plumbers and tilers who reckon it's all a con they say "See? Told ya the 97% was BS!"

 

I've met Boeing pilots who reckon Airbus aircraft are unsafe to fly, despite never having actually flown one. Well having flown both I can say those Boeing pilots are talking out of their backsides.

 

It's the difference between having actual real expertise in a topic, and thinking you do.

 

 

[facthunter]

Denigrating the Green thinkers is another tactic used extensively in the arguments. Farmers as a group are at last tending that way. Clean water is at premium world wide. It will be more valuable than oil in the future.

 

Any person who has no concern for the environment is a barbarian. Just making money is not an excuse for gross environmental damage. The profit is usually short term and often all taken out of the country . It's reasonable to expect no harm of a permanent nature be a result as when condoning it you are stealing from a population when you leave a cost for them post the mining or whatever that is not paid for by those who did it.. Risking valuable acquifers (artesian basin) and poisoning with heavy metals in Central Australia (Or any place) is just not on. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

Its not just the miners that are a problem. The latest trick is the buying up of agricultural land by overseas governments and corporations.The way it is going we will soon have Indian owned primary industries, exporting food to India as well as Indian owned miners exporting coal. Of course none of those exporters will make a profit, so they will not pay any tax. The coal miners will pay as little of the royalties as they can get away with. There are no royalties on agricultural land, so that is easy to work out how much we will get out of the deal. Not content with that our government will probably give them all a big loan at very little or no interest rate to build the infrastructure to ease the rape of Australia.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Its not just the miners that are a problem. The latest trick is the buying up of agricultural land by overseas governments and corporations.The way it is going we will soon have Indian owned primary industries, exporting food to India as well as Indian owned miners exporting coal. Of course none of those exporters will make a profit, so they will not pay any tax. The coal miners will pay as little of the royalties as they can get away with. There are no royalties on agricultural land, so that is easy to work out how much we will get out of the deal. Not content with that our government will probably give them all a big loan at very little or no interest rate to build the infrastructure to ease the rape of Australia.

 

Funny thing Yenn, not your post specifically, but many like it, is an analogy of why Chairman Mao Ze Dong came to be.

 

Same situation, Japan and America, with a few other side players, raping China and millions ended up dying of starvation. Capitalism at it's finest, Mao stopped it, fixed it with Communism, and that's why he is so revered by the elderly - even though ultimately he ended up killing at least 60 or 70 million of his own people and held the country back 30 years. It's interesting stuff to study, that's for certain.

 

Chairman Hanson anyone?