In a slightly more considered tone I will say this:
This tool (assuming it has some diagnostic benefits), can be just as easily deployed to mislead as to inform. Anybody that's looked at company reports knows they're full of graphs that for the most part tend from lower left to upper right. "That's good isn't it?"
From the article: "First off I believe that visualization of money in/money out could have turned authorities on to the fishy accounting Enron was up to, and caught them earlier. Perhaps better visualization would have revealed Madoffâ(TM)s ponzi scheme as well."
The government has discovered that by enacting legislation like this, they can generate almost limitless energy by sticking magnets on George Orwell's coffin and wrapping the whole thing in a copper coil. (There may be a requirement to immerse the whole apparatus in mineral oil to dissipate the heat generated by the ridiculously high speeds at which Orwell is expected to rotate).
"Abo" is derogatory and you know it (I still note you are posting AC).
A "handful" is what I claim you know, not that there is only a "handful" in the population (I don't claim to know the numbers unlike you).
"PC" I am not. Respectful of people I am. I don't necessarily disagree with your solution however - in fact its one reason that the NT intervention got decent support across party and country/city lines.
Google searches can show you just about anything. Its worth pointing out that super-mammals were killed off in many parts of the world by many cultures. Guess what, human beings can affect the world around them ("take that you AGW skeptics" he says in the nick of time, staving off an "Offtopic" moderation)
Settle down mate, the way that was stated was ambiguous. You said: "there is most definately a human hating element to greenies" and I took that to mean that each greenie has a "human hating" element (as in characteristic).
You meant "an element" (as in a proportion of the population). This still makes your statement a baseless assertion (unless you have evidence proving that this proportion exceeds what can be found in the general public).
I also made a generalisation of my own of course with the "conservative" jibe, however in my experience there is close correlation between conservative, luddite and climate skeptic. Sorry if I offended.
Since I'm pro-all-the-things-you-mentioned please consider my head pulled in.
"In this study, the potential impact of climate change on southeast Australia is estimated. Simulations from two CSIRO climate models using two greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions scenarios are combined with historical weather observations to assess the changes to fire weather expected by 2020 and 2050. In general, fire weather conditions are expected to worsen.... The number of "extreme" fire danger days generally increases 5-25% for the low scenarios and 15-65% for the high scenarios. By 2050, the increases are generally 10-50% in the low scenarios and 100-300% for the high scenarios. The seasons are likely to become longer, starting earlier in the year. These results are placed in the context of the current climate and its tendencies. During the last several years in southeast Australia, including the 2006-07 season, particularly severe fire weather conditions have been observed. In many cases, the conditions far exceed the projections in the high scenarios of 2050. Are the models (or our methodology) too conservative or is some other factor at work?"
Add to this, the fact that the place is tinder dry precisely because of the preceding 12 years of extreme drought AND the cutbacks to brush clearing and back-burning ("green" policies are an excuse for councils and state governments spending less $$$ - just like every other service they've cut), and you've got the "perfect (fire) storm" conditions we had on Black Saturday.
Given that climate change isn't going away, and that all the models indicate SE Australia will get drier and hotter, and given that governments aren't going to be increasing spending in this area any time soon (OK - maybe they'll be shamed into doing something for a couple of years before the new programmes get cut back again), it is HIGHLY LIKELY that this sort of thing will become a frequent occurrence (say every 2-3 years somewhere in SA, VIC, NSW).
> i've lived with them all my life so i know exactly what they get up to
Riiiight. You've "lived with" (where "with" = "in the same town as") a handful of down-and-out (my guess) Aboriginals and this of course qualifies you as an expert on the habits of pre-colonial Aboriginal communities.
BTW, did you post as AC because you used the derogatory "Abo's" or perhaps it is because you ARE trolling AND full of shit (contrary to your claim)?
Do yourself a favour and read some actual science. ACTUAL... SCIENCE!
Don't listen to media interpretations - go to the sources, NASA, NOAA, CSIRO - all their data and papers are available. If its too hard to wade through, excellent summaries can be found at realclimate.org
> wrong, there is most definately a human hating element to greenies.
A few points:
1. Based on what dickhead? Let me guess, Andrew Bolt told you? 2. As opposed to those big wuvvable conservatives who just want to cuddle evewyone. 3. You hate 'em for it doncha?
NOTE TO MODERATORS: Firstly, in Australia, calling someone a "dickhead" does not constitute trolling. Secondly, anybody that makes a completely stupid generalisation automatically qualifies as a dickhead.
A whole bunch of unsubstantiated accusations. Show me the money dude. Where are your references or evidence? Oh, we're supposed to take YOU on faith are we? In fact this post contains so MANY canards that I find it hard to believe you aren't an industry troll. Show me the money and stop bagging scientists who on the whole have more integrity in their little finger than the paid industry shills that pass for "fair and balanced" climate science critics.
Let me ask you this. Is Libya obviously evil? As far as I'm aware, Qadaffi is still running things there. They are not a democracy in the true sence. And they actually did more direct, demonstrable harm to western nations than Iran has ever done. And yet, despite being the middle-eastern bogeyman in the eighties, here we are and there relations are fairly normalised with the west, no-one really considers them a threat (either directly or indirectly through 3rd parties). What changed? I would suggest it was a willingness to engage with them diplomatically on the west's part as well as a recognition of past misdeeds (Lockerbie) on their part. And all that change happened without a massive invasion and without regime change.
Dude, I never insisted that Iran's motives are purely peaceful. I just don't believe that the world is so easily divisible into good vs evil.
The fact that Israel is a democracy does not preclude them from doing bad things (just like it doesn't preclude the US or any other western nation from doing bad things). Democracy does not equal a free pass on the world stage.
To those of you who wrongly modded my post as Flamebait, I will explain the thinking behind my points.
Firstly, the parent was making a point about the "existence of Israel" being a threat. I wanted to clarify that the existence of anything cannot be a threat. On the contrary government actions can. While you may disagree whether those actions do or do not constitute a threat (I obviously think they do), the point that "actions by governments" are what can constitute a threat is a valid one.
Secondly, I made the point that the wholesale tarring of massive segment of the earth's population with a single brush "the Islamic world", is just as bigoted as those for example, look at the Madoff case and make comments about "the Jews". Both are trying to imply guilt by association. Madoff was bad, Madoff is a Jew, therefore Jews are bad. Hamas are bad, Hamas are muslims, therefore muslims are bad.
My last statement about continuous expansion of settlement activity is an undisputed fact.
The fact that my opinions may slant a certain way do not make my post "flamebait" they make it a legitimate contribution to the discussion as where all the parent posters - Zancarius and JWallyR).
> Why is the mere existence of Israel a threat to the Islamic world?
The existence of Israel isn't a threat to anyone. The government of Israel however is certainly a threat to a viable Palestinian state.
> is there any reason to believe that Israel cannot coexist with the "Islamic world" aside from the Islamic world's stated interest in destroying Israel?
Treating "the Islamic world" as a single entity is as wrong as referring to "the Jews" as a single entity. The so-called existential threat posed by the "Islamic world" is as concrete as the "Zionist conquest plans". There is certainly nothing barring Israel's happy co-existence with the Palestinians barring perhaps that country's continual theft of land and expansion of settlements.
> Of course you can't let it slide, because I'm certain you believe everything they do is exclusively for peaceful purposes.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Let me clarify, I don't believe everything they do is for peaceful purposes, just like I don't believe everything WE do is for peaceful purposes.
> I'm not going to enumerate through a healthy list when Google can provide more than enough articles to illustrate my point
I would like you to actually point me to the text of any speech of Ahmadinejad's where he threatens any state with military action. Just one. Most of the articles you speak of are basically recycling the whole "Iran is evil/wipe us off the mat" meme and most of it based not on Ahmadinejad's rhetoric, but on our politician's rhetoric. i.e. no different to the whole "US is evil" meme that pervades most of the rest of the world (and with a similar level of evidence to back it up).
How different are Ahmadinejad's speeches regarding the US from say, Reagan's speech about the "evil empire" (USSR)?
> their statements are indicative of ulterior motives
> Given Iran's recent history of sabre-rattling, I don't see why we can't be skeptical.
I'm sorry but I can't let this slide. Iran's history of sabre-rattling? It seems like every few weeks either the US and/or Israel keep making threats against Iran ("no option is off the table"). And please don't raise the whole "wipe Israel off the map" thing as that has been proven to be a complete beat up (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm).
As for Iran's belligirent attitude towards the US, that is amply explained by the US' sorry history of intervention in that country (overthrowing the democratically elected Mossadegh and installing the tyrant Shah). If that happened to your country, you might feel just slightly miffed towards the country that caused that to happen.
The guy is obviously "touched" in the head. Being crazy however does not preclude a measure of validity to some of his arguments (and I say this as someone who used to LMAO playing Carmaggedon).
For example, I wonder why the US military is so keen to promulgate their war/combat games. I can't image they got into the video game industry as just another income stream. Surely they must be expecting some sort of return other than a purely financial one? Say increased recruits. If this is so (i.e. the military believes it is so), then it begs further study. Why would people originally less inclined to join the military, be more inclined to do so after exposure to such games? Doesn't this imply a psychological effect?
I'm just saying...there may be a subtle effect going on here against individuals fitting certain profiles...
and that's reporting subjects with some real research and analysis, without fear or favour, not beholden to corporate or government interests and without being biased by the prevailing memes.
In my opinion, people are moving away from "traditional" journalism not so much because of the format or media but because they are sick of recycled, verbatimly quoted press-releases and propaganda pieces being constantly repeated with almost no variation by every media outlet. The attractiveness of "alternative" media seems to be the increased variety of opinion available.
Slashdot Mirror
Mr.Coward
Umm...I don't really know how to ask this...but...
do you look at all like Mel Gibson?
I just thought that perhaps...you know, maybe...
> As such, we can now do better.
(Yes!) We can. More often than not however, we don't.
The above post (AC) belongs to me. For some reason I was logged in to one tab but not in another (FF 3.07). Weird.
In a slightly more considered tone I will say this:
This tool (assuming it has some diagnostic benefits), can be just as easily deployed to mislead as to inform. Anybody that's looked at company reports knows they're full of graphs that for the most part tend from lower left to upper right. "That's good isn't it?"
From the article:
"First off I believe that visualization of money in/money out could have turned authorities on to the fishy accounting Enron was up to, and caught them earlier. Perhaps better visualization would have revealed Madoffâ(TM)s ponzi scheme as well."
Hahahahahahaha....hmmm...maybe?...nah!....
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Priceless!
"Night" is 24 hours long. "Day" is merely a subset of "night" during which the Sun is visible above the horizon.
Good night to you Sir.
Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery. Be my guest. Just bear in mind that politicians may actually take you seriously and attempt to do this.
Its not about privacy at all.
The government has discovered that by enacting legislation like this, they can generate almost limitless energy by sticking magnets on George Orwell's coffin and wrapping the whole thing in a copper coil. (There may be a requirement to immerse the whole apparatus in mineral oil to dissipate the heat generated by the ridiculously high speeds at which Orwell is expected to rotate).
Genius! Pure genius!
"Abo" is derogatory and you know it (I still note you are posting AC).
A "handful" is what I claim you know, not that there is only a "handful" in the population (I don't claim to know the numbers unlike you).
"PC" I am not. Respectful of people I am. I don't necessarily disagree with your solution however - in fact its one reason that the NT intervention got decent support across party and country/city lines.
Google searches can show you just about anything. Its worth pointing out that super-mammals were killed off in many parts of the world by many cultures. Guess what, human beings can affect the world around them ("take that you AGW skeptics" he says in the nick of time, staving off an "Offtopic" moderation)
Settle down mate, the way that was stated was ambiguous. You said:
"there is most definately a human hating element to greenies"
and I took that to mean that each greenie has a "human hating" element (as in characteristic).
You meant "an element" (as in a proportion of the population). This still makes your statement a baseless assertion (unless you have evidence proving that this proportion exceeds what can be found in the general public).
I also made a generalisation of my own of course with the "conservative" jibe, however in my experience there is close correlation between conservative, luddite and climate skeptic. Sorry if I offended.
Since I'm pro-all-the-things-you-mentioned please consider my head pulled in.
By the Bushfire CRC and the CSIRO:
http://www.bushfirecrc.com/research/downloads/climate-institute-report-september-2007.pdf
From the concluding remarks:
"In this study, the potential impact of climate change on southeast Australia is estimated. Simulations from two CSIRO climate models using two greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions scenarios are combined with historical weather observations to assess the changes to fire weather expected by 2020 and 2050. In general, fire weather conditions are expected to worsen. ...
The number of "extreme" fire danger days generally increases 5-25% for the low scenarios and 15-65% for the high scenarios. By 2050, the increases are generally 10-50% in the low scenarios and 100-300% for the high scenarios. The seasons are likely to become longer, starting
earlier in the year.
These results are placed in the context of the current climate and its tendencies. During the last several years in southeast Australia, including the 2006-07 season, particularly severe fire weather conditions have been observed. In many cases, the conditions far exceed the projections in the high scenarios of 2050. Are the models (or our methodology) too conservative or is some other factor at work?"
Add to this, the fact that the place is tinder dry precisely because of the preceding 12 years of extreme drought AND the cutbacks to brush clearing and back-burning ("green" policies are an excuse for councils and state governments spending less $$$ - just like every other service they've cut), and you've got the "perfect (fire) storm" conditions we had on Black Saturday.
Given that climate change isn't going away, and that all the models indicate SE Australia will get drier and hotter, and given that governments aren't going to be increasing spending in this area any time soon (OK - maybe they'll be shamed into doing something for a couple of years before the new programmes get cut back again), it is HIGHLY LIKELY that this sort of thing will become a frequent occurrence (say every 2-3 years somewhere in SA, VIC, NSW).
By the way, NASA have a fantastic pic showing how anomalous the heatwave leading up to Black Saturday was against recent summer averages:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36900
Of course, while we were burning down south, the banana benders up north were setting new records for floods.
> i've lived with them all my life so i know exactly what they get up to
Riiiight. You've "lived with" (where "with" = "in the same town as") a handful of down-and-out (my guess) Aboriginals and this of course qualifies you as an expert on the habits of pre-colonial Aboriginal communities.
BTW, did you post as AC because you used the derogatory "Abo's" or perhaps it is because you ARE trolling AND full of shit (contrary to your claim)?
Do yourself a favour and read some actual science. ACTUAL ... SCIENCE!
Don't listen to media interpretations - go to the sources, NASA, NOAA, CSIRO - all their data and papers are available. If its too hard to wade through, excellent summaries can be found at realclimate.org
Honestly...
> wrong, there is most definately a human hating element to greenies.
A few points:
1. Based on what dickhead? Let me guess, Andrew Bolt told you?
2. As opposed to those big wuvvable conservatives who just want to cuddle evewyone.
3. You hate 'em for it doncha?
NOTE TO MODERATORS:
Firstly, in Australia, calling someone a "dickhead" does not constitute trolling.
Secondly, anybody that makes a completely stupid generalisation automatically qualifies as a dickhead.
I'm trying to mod you but I can't find the "WTF?!" modifier.
> For any of you who do not follow politics,...
Can somebody please explain this to me? Its Friday afternoon here. After lunch. My brain is not working.
A whole bunch of unsubstantiated accusations. Show me the money dude. Where are your references or evidence? Oh, we're supposed to take YOU on faith are we?
In fact this post contains so MANY canards that I find it hard to believe you aren't an industry troll.
Show me the money and stop bagging scientists who on the whole have more integrity in their little finger than the paid industry shills that pass for "fair and balanced" climate science critics.
Let me ask you this. Is Libya obviously evil? As far as I'm aware, Qadaffi is still running things there. They are not a democracy in the true sence. And they actually did more direct, demonstrable harm to western nations than Iran has ever done. And yet, despite being the middle-eastern bogeyman in the eighties, here we are and there relations are fairly normalised with the west, no-one really considers them a threat (either directly or indirectly through 3rd parties).
What changed? I would suggest it was a willingness to engage with them diplomatically on the west's part as well as a recognition of past misdeeds (Lockerbie) on their part.
And all that change happened without a massive invasion and without regime change.
Dude, I never insisted that Iran's motives are purely peaceful. I just don't believe that the world is so easily divisible into good vs evil.
The fact that Israel is a democracy does not preclude them from doing bad things (just like it doesn't preclude the US or any other western nation from doing bad things). Democracy does not equal a free pass on the world stage.
To those of you who wrongly modded my post as Flamebait, I will explain the thinking behind my points.
Firstly, the parent was making a point about the "existence of Israel" being a threat. I wanted to clarify that the existence of anything cannot be a threat. On the contrary government actions can. While you may disagree whether those actions do or do not constitute a threat (I obviously think they do), the point that "actions by governments" are what can constitute a threat is a valid one.
Secondly, I made the point that the wholesale tarring of massive segment of the earth's population with a single brush "the Islamic world", is just as bigoted as those for example, look at the Madoff case and make comments about "the Jews". Both are trying to imply guilt by association. Madoff was bad, Madoff is a Jew, therefore Jews are bad. Hamas are bad, Hamas are muslims, therefore muslims are bad.
My last statement about continuous expansion of settlement activity is an undisputed fact.
The fact that my opinions may slant a certain way do not make my post "flamebait" they make it a legitimate contribution to the discussion as where all the parent posters - Zancarius and JWallyR).
> Why is the mere existence of Israel a threat to the Islamic world?
The existence of Israel isn't a threat to anyone.
The government of Israel however is certainly a threat to a viable Palestinian state.
> is there any reason to believe that Israel cannot coexist with the "Islamic world" aside from the Islamic world's stated interest in destroying Israel?
Treating "the Islamic world" as a single entity is as wrong as referring to "the Jews" as a single entity. The so-called existential threat posed by the "Islamic world" is as concrete as the "Zionist conquest plans". There is certainly nothing barring Israel's happy co-existence with the Palestinians barring perhaps that country's continual theft of land and expansion of settlements.
> Of course you can't let it slide, because I'm certain you believe everything they do is exclusively for peaceful purposes.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Let me clarify, I don't believe everything they do is for peaceful purposes, just like I don't believe everything WE do is for peaceful purposes.
> I'm not going to enumerate through a healthy list when Google can provide more than enough articles to illustrate my point
I would like you to actually point me to the text of any speech of Ahmadinejad's where he threatens any state with military action. Just one. Most of the articles you speak of are basically recycling the whole "Iran is evil/wipe us off the mat" meme and most of it based not on Ahmadinejad's rhetoric, but on our politician's rhetoric. i.e. no different to the whole "US is evil" meme that pervades most of the rest of the world (and with a similar level of evidence to back it up).
How different are Ahmadinejad's speeches regarding the US from say, Reagan's speech about the "evil empire" (USSR)?
> their statements are indicative of ulterior motives
Indeed. Same applies to our guys too.
> Given Iran's recent history of sabre-rattling, I don't see why we can't be skeptical.
I'm sorry but I can't let this slide. Iran's history of sabre-rattling? It seems like every few weeks either the US and/or Israel keep making threats against Iran ("no option is off the table"). And please don't raise the whole "wipe Israel off the map" thing as that has been proven to be a complete beat up (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm).
As for Iran's belligirent attitude towards the US, that is amply explained by the US' sorry history of intervention in that country (overthrowing the democratically elected Mossadegh and installing the tyrant Shah). If that happened to your country, you might feel just slightly miffed towards the country that caused that to happen.
The guy is obviously "touched" in the head. Being crazy however does not preclude a measure of validity to some of his arguments (and I say this as someone who used to LMAO playing Carmaggedon).
For example, I wonder why the US military is so keen to promulgate their war/combat games. I can't image they got into the video game industry as just another income stream. Surely they must be expecting some sort of return other than a purely financial one? Say increased recruits. If this is so (i.e. the military believes it is so), then it begs further study. Why would people originally less inclined to join the military, be more inclined to do so after exposure to such games? Doesn't this imply a psychological effect?
I'm just saying...there may be a subtle effect going on here against individuals fitting certain profiles...
Posts like this make me think my last allocation of mod-points was a fucking waste.
MOD PARENT UP PLEASE!
and that's reporting subjects with some real research and analysis, without fear or favour, not beholden to corporate or government interests and without being biased by the prevailing memes.
In my opinion, people are moving away from "traditional" journalism not so much because of the format or media but because they are sick of recycled, verbatimly quoted press-releases and propaganda pieces being constantly repeated with almost no variation by every media outlet.
The attractiveness of "alternative" media seems to be the increased variety of opinion available.