The pond rarely pays any attention to valiant Troy, lurking in the reptile swamp, but his opening pars this day were rippers designed to bring out rampaging ancient crocs …
Beyond mad?
Release the croc …or at least the kraken dog botherer ...
Yes, it grieved the pond sorely to have ignored the dog botherer yesterday, especially as he managed to bring together two pet reptile peeves from yesteryear … a fear and loathing of that dreadful Ali person, and climate science …
Well, if the 'beyond mad' Troy will pardon the pond, let's get on with the madness beyond …
Uh huh. "As I have demonstrated time and again..."
There you go Troy, are you ready to go beyond mad, as the pond routinely does when it dips its toe into the stagnant water known to some as the dog botherer's mind?
He really can't give up his denialism, and manages to twist and turn in the wind and rage at anybody who dare threaten his beloved coal, or the heretical theology known as climate change, and of course the easiest form of distraction is to talk of others, rather than note what's happening in our own back yard ...
Scrupulously fair? Now there's a laugh, as on and on the dog botherer ranted, oblivious to the notion that perhaps there were a lot of countries that needed to be doing more, and that to observe another nation not up to scratch didn't excuse Australia's own dismal record … especially as the dog botherer accuses Germany of shamelessly importing coal, which sort of raises the question of why the dog botherer's mob wants to keep shamelessly exporting the stuff, as much as can be dug out of the ground, as fast as possible ...
Just 35%? Shocking stuff? So how are the dinkum little Aussie battlers doing? (pdf here)
Yes, that'll teach those wretched Germans …but perhaps that data looked a little dry. How about a bigger splash, here:
Take that you damned Huns with your 35%, let a real country show you how it's done … and how are we going by other measures, here?
Highly insufficient?
Well played, but hey, it's all the fault of the Germans ...
The dog botherer talking of intellectual depth and integrity?
And yet Troy had the cheek to talk of beyond mad …
The pond had a sudden flashback to an ancient Pope cartoon - how the pond misses the infallible Pope …
What else? Well, the bouffant one was looking forward to a revival of the coal wars … because never mind the planet, let's just win the next election ...
Yes, the glory days could live again …
Talk about a triumph, talk about a boon for the reptiles, talk about warming the cockles of the dog botherer's heart ...
Never mind the planet, never mind the science, never mind the absence of coalition policies, just feel the need to bung on a do …
And so it's back to the old dog botherer angle. Everybody's doing it, so we should keep doing it too, and not just in a lackadaisical manner, but with great energy and spirit …
Yes, the planet might be going to hell in a Barners carry bag, but think of the political advantages …
And so in this reptile fever, the pond turned back to Troy for his thoughts ...
He waxed and he waned? So "climate change is crap" is what we call waning these days?
Never mind, let's look on the bright side …
And after all the both siderism and carry on, as if climate denialism wasn't firmly lodged in reptile hearts in Surry Hills, along with a deep and abiding love of dinkum clean Aussie coal, where does Troy end up?
Bring out the nukes …
It's funny in a way, because actually it turns out that the dog botherer is, as he claims, more intellectually deep and honest. He's a climate science denialist, and any trick of the trade can be turned to his denialism …
And the bouffant one is just as honest. Bring on the climate wars, so we can win again, and never mind the planet?
Troy? He's just a feeble brained limp as lettuce dullard without the first clue about anything much, keen to blame everyone, but refusing to recognise the role that the reptiles, the coalition and especially Nationals of the Barners/Canavan kind have played over the years …
And that bring out the nukes trick is a classic reptile tactic. Get the country arguing over nukes, and meanwhile pure sweet dinkum clean Oz coal can go on being dug up and shipped out, or used to drive a brand new, five year plan coal plant in Queensland …
In his own way, Troy is as fatuous a fop as any of the swamp dwellers wanting to face up to Australia's ongoing failure to meet its targets, or even set a target … because think how a target can be used to club an opposition into submission with a scare campaign, not about the planet, but about sweet coal …
Don't believe the pond, listen to the bouffant one, and his clarion cry ...
And speaking of targets, it just so happens that the immortal Rowe set a target this day, with more target-setting to be found here …
Hi Dorothy,
ReplyDeleteOh goody now the ‘smoke has cleared’ the reptiles are ‘warming up’ for another round of the Climate Wars.
They are evidently pinning their hopes on the Australian electorate having anterograde amnesia like Guy Pearce in Memento.
Still it will be all hands to the denialist pumps and I wonder how long it will be before either the Dog Botherer or Dame Slap take the opportunity to bring in the ‘Anti-Greta’;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/02/23/meet-anti-greta-young-youtuber-campaigning-against-climate-alarmism/
DiddyWrote
Re Greta, this one's an interesting read too:
DeleteGreta Thunberg’s mother reveals teenager’s troubled childhood
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/22/greta-thunberg-mother-she-stopped-talking-and-eating
But I confess after having read Greta's mum's thing that I thought about The Bolter who, in respect of the St Kevin's kid who was "hit on", asked why he went back to the school after the court case that convicted his teacher. Hmmm. My question was: why did it go in for two years ? Didn't anybody at all listen to the kid ? Is that how it is with women all the time ?
Re Greta, I still can't work out why that kind of treatment of vulnerable kids goes on for so long. Greta's parents weren't poor, couldn't they have found a better place for her to be.
Why does it seem that humanity, by and large, is always acquiescing in it's own oppression ? And sometimes very enthusiastically acquiescing.
Hmmm. So Germany produces 27% of its electricity via renewables and Australia is due to provide 23% by this year. T'riific, hey ?
ReplyDeleteBut the population of Germany now is just short of 83 million, so we can count renewables as providing for 0.27*83=22.4 million. In short, Germany already notionally provides electricity from renewables for nearly as many people as the entire population of Australia.
But otherwise, taking the Doggy Bov and the Shannanna, it was really just the usual reptile dose of "too much of nothin'". No sense, no meaning, no content, nothing worth a millisecond's attention. Yawn. So it goes.
But as to the Bramston, he brings up something: considering the "anti-Greta" from DW's link above, Naomi Seibt said this: “I don’t want to get people to stop believing in man-made climate change, not at all,” she said. “Are manmade CO2 emissions having that much impact on the climate? I think that’s ridiculous to believe.”
And there we have it in a nutshell: Greta simply wants people to be aware of what the scientists are saying and to act on the science, not on emotion or simplistic "self-interest". Naomi is a fine representative of wingnutopia: despite their smug ignorance and clearly demonstrated lack of reasoning ability, they want us to believe them instead of the scientists. The Doggy Bov is a fine example of this.
Well, once in a very occasional blue moon, that might even be rational, but it hasn't been even marginally sane in climate science since Svante Arrhenius's pioneering work back in 1896. But hey, you can't stop the irrationals from enthusiastically acquiescing in their own oppression, can you.
Argument from incredulity - a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.
DeleteThe less inquisitive (or well educated) you are, the less you understand, the more likely you are to dismiss disturbing things out of hand. It fits well with system 1 reasoning which will generally rely on oversimplification and some probably unrelated precedent.
Anyway, Fraulein Seibt probably has more important things to attend to like bullying on social media or riding in cars with boys.
Happy as I am to endorse appearances of Kahneman's work I think you have the path of reasoning in reverse, Bef. Naomi isn't trying to derive the process whereby anthropogenic climate change might be happening; what she is doing is that having decided that she doesn't want anthropogenic climate change to have negative consequences, what could most invalidate it. Why, that human generated CO2 isn't affecting the climate much at all. Done and dusted.
DeleteOf course, she might otherwise have thought to check her "reasoning" by considering a related situation: Are human released CFCs having that much impact on the ozone layer ? I think that's ridiculous to believe.
Mrs Thatcher was quite disparaging of the possibility that emissions from UK power stations might make the water in Scandinavian lakes dangerously acid. Her response to any question was of the form 'I'm a chemist and I know about these things.' Which she adhered to, up to the point where she saw advantage in bringing on a barney with the coal miners. Almost instant revision, and, in her zeal, she actually did a lot of good for environmental management in the UK.
DeleteOther Anonymous.
Yair, Thatcher was one of those very annoying types who know just enough about matters in general to be very misleading (to say the least) about matters in particular. Much worse, in her own way, than a complete dvckheaded ignoramus like Canavan though both appear completely immune to any guidance offered by genuinely knowledgeable specialists.
DeleteIt's gotten worse over the years, I reckon, but that just might be my failure to comprehend, and notice, how many politicians seem to believe that they know all that needs to be known just by virtue of being politicians. I instance Frydenberg who knows little or nothing about economics, and especially the economics of modern, prospserous states, yet is Treasurer, and ScottyfromMarketing before him and even back to Keating.
Ignorance is power ! Or something.
My source wanted to send me an item from today’s edition. She noticed it right up there this morning, but got distracted, and did not get back to the site until later this afternoon. In that time, it had drifted from early prominence to - well, my source was determined, and eventually found it. Because the title was ‘Boiled frogs would urge against this incremental land tax’, and she knows that I offer modest contributions to something called ‘ The Pond’, she thought it appropriate.
ReplyDeleteIt is, of course, by the artist formerly known as Honorary Professorial Fellow Sloan. It seems that HPF Sloan has discarded that title (and they do love their titles, don’t they?) and has reverted to being Contributing Economics Editor Sloan. I cannot work out if that is a promotion - everybody in the limited news organisation seems to be an editor of some degree. Anyway, CEE Sloan, to attend to the courtesies.
First up - seems that CEE Sloan is still attracted to the utterly spurious concept that, if you put a frog in a beaker and steadily increase the temperature of the water, the frog will die. Within the bounds of ethics committees, such propositions have been tested by amphibian physiologists (‘scientists’ y’know) and they have found nothing to support the idea - but why should a CEE be troubled by, well - science - when there is a story to be told.
The rest of the article begs the question of why should a CEE be troubled by , well - economics - when there is a story to be told, and we know what the Chairman wants that story to say.
I give you examples. She writes ‘There is a group of economists, particularly associated with public choice school of thought, that sees the world differently. It is keen to see roadblocks to governments spending willy-nilly while seeking to minimise public expenditure waste and cost overruns.’
I understood that monitoring waste and cost overruns was the function of accountants. A worthy, useful group of people, but a group that actual economists prefer not to be confused with.
A little acquaintance with accountancy might have helped the CEE, because lower down she writes ‘economic losses associated with wasteful spending make any losses associated with having a less-than-ideal tax system look like small beer.’ As with the frog - we don’t need no evidence for a statement that will have the regular commentators limbering up their thumbs to praise the CEE’s insight.
There is plenty of, quite disturbing, literature to show how easily political interference with tax systems can skew entire economies. To pluck an example, at random (?) - I give you the tax status of investing in houses in Australia, and this article goes on to a discussion (almost completely devoid of numbers) on a proposal to introduce a land tax in New South Wales. An idea with a long, turbulent, history in development of economics - did someone whisper Henry George?
Oh - one amusing little ‘own goal’ - although the CEE also identifies as ‘a company director’, she damns the Thoday review as ‘another review of the issue headed by an ex-businessman with no understanding of public policy’.
Other Anonymous
That "source" of yours is proving quite useful, OA.
DeleteThe pond regrets not paying enough attention to Dame Groan, but this'll do, this'll do, and the more the merrier, and what an excellent deep throat source you have…if one can use the term without upsetting the Bolter and Polonius, busy hitting on underage children ...
Delete