tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post3308833667873422623..comments2024-02-11T19:28:27.997+11:00Comments on Personal Reflections: Carbon pricing & Mr Abbott's end gameJim Belshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-65182377061342593402011-07-16T23:53:20.339+10:002011-07-16T23:53:20.339+10:00And so am I, KVD! It's a wonderful cartoon!And so am I, KVD! It's a wonderful cartoon!Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-69317746120274869682011-07-16T18:25:07.687+10:002011-07-16T18:25:07.687+10:00Ha! All those considered words, with which I very...Ha! All those considered words, with which I very much agree, and I've stolen a copy of the Nicholson cartoon. It's quite brilliant, both as concise comment and stand alone pure art.<br /><br />Envious I am, of such talent.<br /><br />kvdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-42917873029975566872011-07-16T10:55:10.184+10:002011-07-16T10:55:10.184+10:00Feel free to go in whatever direction you like, Ne...Feel free to go in whatever direction you like, Neil. The same applies to KVD!<br /><br />Although I have written some stuff on the science debate including problems with group think, I didn't buy into the discussion between the two of you because I think that we have gone beyond the point where that's productive. I am more interested now in the policy issues. I think that the science will work itself out as more evidence becomes available.Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-19511062633555846722011-07-16T10:40:55.363+10:002011-07-16T10:40:55.363+10:00Hi kvd:
...couldn't begin to put up a conside...Hi kvd:<br /><br /><i>...couldn't begin to put up a considered scientific defense of any of them if pressed...</i><br /><br />Neither could I, but I hope I recognise a considered scientific position when I see it, and that's what I haven't found so much of on the climate sceptic side. Rationality really does seem to favour the "consensus" position. See the link at my name.<br /><br />But I am rudely interrupting you, Jim. Sorry -- especially as I find your analysis of the policy debate so compelling.cousnNeilhttp://neil2decade.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/a-must-see-if-you-treasure-clear-thinking/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-32510741508087370002011-07-16T06:45:18.775+10:002011-07-16T06:45:18.775+10:00Thanks, Thomas. Very interesting. I have brought t...Thanks, Thomas. Very interesting. I have brought the link up in the main post.Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-31885926993950194902011-07-16T06:12:24.039+10:002011-07-16T06:12:24.039+10:00Neil I believe the term you are searching for is &...Neil I believe the term you are searching for is "rational ignorance".<br /><br />I will happily admit to accepting the theories of evolution, and gravity, and tectonic plate activity. But I don't profess to understand them, and couldn't begin to put up a considered scientific defense of any of them if pressed.<br /><br />On the other hand, I'm very uncomfortable with adopting the "fool, thief, liar" response towards anyone who questions my rational ignorance.<br /><br />kvdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-57485412988181442472011-07-15T23:28:46.330+10:002011-07-15T23:28:46.330+10:00That should be Advancement of Science. Working on ...That should be Advancement of Science. Working on a netbook keyboard!Neilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-29385353607723339072011-07-15T23:25:51.189+10:002011-07-15T23:25:51.189+10:00My strident views on climate change are merely ref...My strident views on climate change are merely reflections of <a href="http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/" rel="nofollow">The Royal Society</a> and <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/689.full" rel="nofollow">The American Association for the Advancenebt of Sciencss</a> and every other scientific organisation with any prestige in the entire world -- and I mean every! Obviously I am the victim of a socialist plot involving all these people. Amazing eh!<br /><br />I'm really boringly conventional, I think. For similar reasons I accept tectonic plate theory, evolution, gravity and heaven knows what else.<br /><br />I am so conservative really.<br /><br />Forgive me for being almost terminally impatient about the silliness that has made so many otherwise bright people people idiots on the subject of climate change when the science really is as clear as science ever can be.<br /><br />But as I said above, what constitutes wise policy in dealing with the issue is quite another thing.Neilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-34921791569689876362011-07-15T23:19:24.692+10:002011-07-15T23:19:24.692+10:00Hi Jim. Thought you would be interested in a piece...Hi Jim. Thought you would be interested in a piece by Antony Green from last month. The whole thing can be found here:<br /><br />http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2011/06/what-chance-a-double-dissolution-in-the-next-three-years.html<br /><br />But the bit that your post reminded me of was this part:<br /><br />A full term Gillard government would go to a normal House and Half Senate election between 3 August and 30 November 2013. New Senators elected at the election would begin their terms on 1 July 2014.<br /><br />While it is not explicit in the Constitution, I believe it is implicit in the fixed terms of the Senate that a double dissolution trigger can only apply to legislation first blocked by a Senate in place after 1 July 2014. The Constitution states the Senators take their place on the 1 July after their election. Any double dissolution triggers attempted before new Senators take their seats would not allow the new Senators to vote on the legislation.<br /><br />An attempt to create a double dissolution trigger before the new Senators took their seats would attempt to terminate the terms of 108 Senators rather than the 72 implied by the Constitution.<br /><br />And:<br /><br />If the Gillard government last its three years until the second half of 2013, any new Coalition government would find itself struggling to do anything about a double dissolution election until 2015.Thomashttp://deuslovult.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-12661782781599716882011-07-15T14:38:26.624+10:002011-07-15T14:38:26.624+10:00Hi KVD. I try to be balanced because on a lot of t...Hi KVD. I try to be balanced because on a lot of these things I write to try to increase my own understanding, rather than to try to persuade others. Sure I have my own views, but they actually change sometimes as I write. <br /><br />This happened this time because I was trying to see Mr Abbott's views in a political context, to better understand the tactics.<br /><br />I do understand Neil's position; he has become frustrated!<br /><br />I agree with you re the electorate, even though it sometimes takes a little time ends with positions different from mine!Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-85886314044113478952011-07-15T13:46:08.438+10:002011-07-15T13:46:08.438+10:00Jim, balanced and thoughtful as usual; dunno how y...Jim, balanced and thoughtful as usual; dunno how you keep it up.<br /><br />Just to add my tuppence worth, I think there is a danger in trying to deduce from the noisy ones on both sides just what the majority of Australians think about all this. An observation not a criticism.<br /><br />I accept Neil's fairly strident position as heartfelt, and with more than simple self interest. But I think that also applies equally to the 'other' side. But this still leaves probably 19 million Aussies who have to listen to all this rage and angst, and who probably have no great conviction either way.<br /><br />You might think this off-topic, but I'll repeat some words from one of the GetUp supporters here:<br /><br />“any social mobilisation is going to require rigorous leadership, no matter how democratic its goals. It may be that intelligent political engagement will always be a minority sport”.<br /><br />Apart from being one of the most out-front insultingly elitist comments I've ever read, it has two other features: 1) it's most probably true; 2) it recognises the power of the noisy few in a cold blooded and cynical way.<br /><br />Whatever happens at the next election I take great heart from the history of the Australian electorate in mostly getting their decisions right; in mostly being repelled by the antichrists of both left and right; and in mostly remaining a fairly gentle people - more than all this sound and fury might have an outsider believe to be representative of this country.<br /><br />kvdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-32452499593582852052011-07-15T11:52:26.646+10:002011-07-15T11:52:26.646+10:00Thank's Neil!Thank's Neil!Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-292152854418137912011-07-15T11:28:23.619+10:002011-07-15T11:28:23.619+10:00Not offended! But as one very interested in the sc...Not offended! But as one very interested in the science I get very offended by all the bad science out there that masquerades as "science" or "scepticism" but really is about as compelling as all those nutjobs who argued against HIV having anything to do with AIDS.<br /><br />Really, the mentality that drives them is the same -- and Quadrant took those nutters seriously too.<br /><br />There are many complexities in climate science of course, but for heaven's sake let's focus on the real scientists and not superannuated lords or fly=blown geologist on a political mission.<br /><br />As for the appropriate policy responses -- now there I am with you, Jim. :)Neilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-27306943639832132652011-07-15T11:14:02.436+10:002011-07-15T11:14:02.436+10:00Hi Neil. I wasn't being critical. I understood...Hi Neil. I wasn't being critical. I understood where you were coming from. It can make it difficult, however, if you are interested in the science as opposed to defences of the science.Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-29450438078503551452011-07-15T11:03:12.076+10:002011-07-15T11:03:12.076+10:00Thanks for the mention. I have become more "a...Thanks for the mention. I have become more "adversarial" in my Google Reader simply because there's no point in being namby-pamby when most of the self-designated sceptics are such poor scientists -- when they are not being straight-up dishonest! I also wish they were right, but King Canute didn't succeed either!<br /><br />Alan Jones or the CSIRO? No contest -- one of Julia's better remarks.Neilhttp://neil2decade.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com