This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Freedom of speech and protest

Jump to new
rederob said:
Then you repeating the Box Hill flag raising event without realising the Police actions were entirely appropriate.
You are the epitome of racist dog whistlers with a slew of comments specifying race and hoping others join your imagined dots.
Click to expand...

Well there you are.

Why were the actions of raising the Chinese flag to celebrate 70 years of communist rule "appropriate" in a free country ?

And why is objecting to this raising "racist" ?

You have some explaining to do I think.
 
SirRumpole said:
Well there you are.
Why were the actions of raising the Chinese flag to celebrate 70 years of communist rule "appropriate" in a free country ?
And why is objecting to this raising "racist" ?
You have some explaining to do I think.
Click to expand...
Because you do not understand why is part of the reason I regard your comments as racist.
 
rederob said:
Really, as I have never heard that one!
This is the obfuscation argument that denialists use and is a very handy tactic.
Click to expand...
If anyone thought it was fully understood then there would be no point conducting further research into the subject.

Same with anything. There’s no point researching something if you’re confident you already have all the relevant information.

A real scientist would never claim to know all the facts about something as complex as the climate.

At the risk of revealing my real life identity, about 25 years ago I wrote a simple layman’s terms explanation of why droughts occur in south-east Australia. This was all fact checked with the BOM and other credible sources and was published in a News Corp owned newspaper.

Note that I personally claimed no scientific expertise, only that I was explaining the issue based on accepted wisdom at the time.

About 2008 it became apparent that what everyone thought to be true in relation to drought had missed what’s now thought to be the biggest influence of all, the Indian Ocean.

As a result of that, what I wrote at the time and what the professional scientific community understood to be true and upon which serious decisions by governments, farmers and water managers were based is now known to have missed the most important point.

No credible scientist would claim certainty that it’s properly understood now either. Better than previously but I’ve no doubt that the WA Water Corporation and Hydro Tasmania would be quick to point out that their real world observations aren’t fully explained by current understanding of climate change or weather so most likely something is still missing in that understanding.

For anything built by humans there’s generally a full understanding of how it works. There’s no doubt as to how a diesel engine works for example but even there, nobody would sensibly claim that all possible improvements have thus far been thought of.

For a natural system, rarely do humans fully understand it. Humans are still learning about what drives short term weather for example and there’s ongoing research into climate change.

I’ll compare that to the stock market. If someone insists that the price of shares in XYZ is going to double three weeks from now then either they’re an insider with information that isn’t known to most or they’re guessing and don’t really have a clue.

Far more useful analysis cones from those who compile the relevant information and consider plausible scenarios based upon what is known whilst being fully aware that there are uncertainties. They may predict that the price will double but they are fully aware that this is not certain to actually occur.

Back to the climate, real scientists have suggested that changes in albedo may have a disproportionate effect on ice melting and, since the loss of ice of itself brings a further change in albedo, that has a positive feedback.

The IPCC seems to have no issue acknowledging and publishing such research as you’d expect a scientific organisation to do. It’s only those with a political or financial outlook on the subject who insist that humans know all there is to know beyond doubt such that there’s nothing to research.

Same applies to most fields. For example actual solar electricity production in SA today equalled about 70% of all load within the state around 1pm Daylight Savings time.

Go back a decade and not even solar enthusiasts or “green” politicians and activists foresaw that level of output being achieved by now. There are plenty who thought we’d use solar energy but you won’t find anyone, me included, who got the details right.

Same with anything about the future. There’s never absolute certainty.
 
The difference is that back in the 1960’s most people trusted that business wouldn’t knowingly put them in danger, governments would always work for the good of the state or country, unions always sought to protect workers, churches were pillars of integrity and so on.

They’ve now seen more than enough evidence to know that isn’t true hence the loss of trust in anyone seen as some sort of authority.

That doesn’t mean it was true 50 years ago but the difference is that people thought it was whereas now they know it isn’t.
 
Smurf1976 said:
If anyone thought it was fully understood then there would be no point conducting further research into the subject.
Click to expand...
Except that the issue is about how the planet is warming, and that IS understood.
It's the perturbations of the climate system which are not fully understood.
In particular it is about the changing role of clouds or, at least, the possibility that what are now typical cloud patterns could be quite different in future. This, however, is a feedback process and requires that if there is a substantial change, that it remains that way, else it reverts to the norm.
What is possible to know and what is not as a result of the climate system's chaotic nature can be demonstrated by the simple analogy of putting a grain of rice into a pot of water and bringing it to boil. To know exactly where the grain of rice will be at any point in time while boiling would be an almost impossible task. What we do know, however, is that when boiled long enough, it will be cooked.
In other words, we don't need to know too much about ENSOs or PDOs, or droughts or floods, because ultimately their effects will be subsumed by the mechanisms that drive actual energy flows into and out of the planet.
 
Actually I was only mentioning it as a reminder, as to Joe's wishes, if everyone is happy going headlong down this path fine.
If it ends with Joe closing the forum because of it, well IMO, not so fine.
If Joe doesn't mind it, well it is just a timely reminder, that people should be just as active in the stock related threads.
Just my opinion.
 
rederob said:
In other words, we don't need to know too much about ENSOs or PDOs, or droughts or floods, because ultimately their effects will be subsumed by the mechanisms that drive actual energy flows into and out of the planet.
Click to expand...
On that topic I'll simply say that there are real, actual climate researches who've suggested as plausible that a change in the frequency of ENSO cycles, or an imbalance, could well be a primary manifestation of climate change and that idea has been around for quite some years now.

Really though, this is a stock market forum and the thread is about freedom of speech and protest. It is not about climate.

I will simply say that I've been around long enough to observe a few things. In random order:

*There is no subject the basic concepts of which cannot be explained in layman's terms.

*Arguments that "you wouldn't understand" or the use of unnecessarily complex or unusual language are an attempt to mislead others or at best to avoid informing them.

*Those with nothing to hide do not seek to avoid scrutiny.

*The right to free speech is in practice usually the right to agree with whoever afforded you this right. Actual free speech exists but is relatively uncommon in practice.

*Baseless accusations, pedantic arguments, manufactured outrage, frivolous lawsuits and so on are aimed at avoiding discussion or implementation of something by means of wasting time until the other side either runs out of it or gives up and pursues some other opportunity.

I'll leave it at that and go back to discussing stocks and other investments. I'm not opposed to the concept of General Chat existing but this thread seems exceptionally pedantic and thus time wasting.

If you call it a whatever the proper botanical name is, I call it a plant and someone else calls it a tree well then that's not particularly important in most contexts. It's the wooden thing sticking out of the ground with leaves on it yes and for most contexts that will be a sufficient level of detail.
 
Smurf1976 said:
I'll leave it at that and go back to discussing stocks and other investments. I'm not opposed to the concept of General Chat existing but this thread seems exceptionally pedantic and thus time wasting.
Click to expand...
Might be a good idea as I have repeatedly shown your arguments are unsound and your typical avoidance kicks in with an irrelevant diatribe.
 
rederob said:
Might be a good idea as I have repeatedly shown your arguments are unsound and your typical avoidance kicks in with an irrelevant diatribe.
Click to expand...

In your own mind robbie.

I would take Smurfs precise observations over your vague verbosity any time.
 
SirRumpole said:
What's the epistemology of opinion vs belief robbie ?
Click to expand...

Maybe I can clarify some things here,

Opinions are things that are subjective to individuals, eg taste preferences.

Beliefs are simply things that a person believes, and can be true or false.

Knowledge is simply your accumulation of beliefs which are true.

Facts are things that are true regardless of your opinion, beliefs or knowledge.

Something is true, if it conforms to reality as it exists as regardless of your opinion, beliefs, knowledge.
 
SirRumpole said:
In your own mind robbie.

I would take Smurfs precise observations over your vague verbosity any time.
Click to expand...
This is not a competition.
Good posts are built on sound logic.
Presenting a defence to post on a "sense" not in question is a defence of nothing, and this is happening repeatedly here.
As an aside, your post contains two logical fallacies - it might make you happy to say it, but it was not credible.
In terms of facts, the word count of @Smurf1976's last post was 306 while mine was 199. Prior to that his response to my 174 word post (80 of which were quoted from IPCC AR5) contained 598 words. An earlier post to my 518 word post addressing 5 separate issues contained 774 words and addressed only one of my points. So if you want to make claims about verbosity, you should start with a fact check.
 
I was impressed by Obama talk too
I found back the candidate who could write so good speech
The resulting observation is that, if he is still the man behind these reasonable intelligent talks, this means the power of lobbies and deep state in the US was really impressive even earlier on in his presidency as to be honest, his results were abysmal vs the promise
Good for him to challenge his own camp too
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Freedom Property Investors
Replies
5
Views
614
Dona Ferentes
Planning to retire
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
UMike
FCG - Freedom Care Group Holdings
Replies
1
Views
922
Dona Ferentes
Retirement-Semi Retirement, (Tech/a personal study) implementation and discussion
2 3
Replies
52
Views
6K
tech/a
Financial Security ---- Best strategies learned and shared ---- for Financial Freedom
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
tech/a
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...