There is "human error" - type bias, and then there is deliberate bias.
True, but it's largely irrelevant whether the bias is in error or deliberate since bias is not the problem when exhibited by a scientists as it would be if exhibited by a jurist. 'Bias,' that is, as in Einstein was biased in favour of relativity, Galileo was biased in favour of a heliocentric solar system. On the whole climate scientists, of course, are similarly biased, which is the say that overwhelmingly they really do believe the model is supported by their data.
More pertinent is the fact whether talking points are properly founded upon the reported science. skepticalscience.com provides citations for all the arguments that are put in favour of the orthodox position. That is something that few sites on either side of the political debate surrounding climate science do. Perhaps this highest quality sceptical site was Roger Pielke Sr's now sadly missed Climate Science blog which was similarly founded in science rather than invective.
Reference to the actual (published) science allows for a truly scientific debate. Which is to say, one that involves investigating the original work, its methodology, maths etc and comparison with other work. Everything else, such as the discussion we are having here, is just so much hot air.
Denigrating an obviously high-quality site such as skepticalscience.com as a "propaganda machine" fails to rise up to the level of debate expected from intelligent people.
As far as the "skeptical" moniker: the site's prominently displayed byline "Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism" gives the lie to the notion that it is attempting to "infiltrate the actual skeptics." Actual sceptics, for course, being very far and few between. Rejecting orthodox science while unquestioningly swallowing anything that confirms one's pre-conceived ideological position does not qualify as scepticism. And that is what the name skepticalscience.com highlights.
Delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. - --DSM-5
Delusions are further sub-classified, one species of which are called bizarre delusions.
Delusions are deemed bizarre if they are clearly implausible and not understandable to same-culture peers and do not derive from ordinary life experiences. --DSM-5
OPs definition of delusions is a the definition for bizarre delusion not for delusion in general.
I wonder if you could provide a definition of folie a deux for us?
A delusion is simply a fixed belief that is "not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence." It is not an aetiology. Whether a delusion arises from an organic brain disorder, or whether it arises from education it is remains a delusion.
Learned beliefs are every bit as capable of being delusional as any other kind of beliefs.
Now be fair. I wrote of "you [sic] criteria of 'car[ing] and informed'", based on your statement "since they cared and were informed, they would have checked where their chosen party's preference flows would have gone." I'm was entitled to believe that you require more "being motivated enough to trundle your backside up to the polling place and make a mark on paper" to satisfy caring and being informed. There was no question of "who should be allowed to vote," which is, after all, a duty.
But at the one in Kentlyn, which I used to work at occasionally...
Oh good. Your style of arguing left me wondering if I knew you personally. Unlikely then.
Uh, did you mean least offends your sensibilities?
No, I meant what I wrote. (Refer back to me quoting myself above). I'm not sure that there is a practical solution to this problem which doesn't offend against that theoretical position.
I meant that this was another independent instance of foxes guarding henhouses
I got that, and in fact agreed. The disagreement is simply that I find both independent instances irksome.
The only criteria I propose putting in place is being motivated enough to trundle your backside up to the polling place and make a mark on paper
You led me to believe you had stricter standards when you wrote: "since they cared and were informed, they would have checked where their chosen party's preference flows would have gone."
No; as long as people can cast their preferences it is the geese guarding the geese.
Seems to be a species of the formal vs practical freedom problem. In practice voting below the line has become too arduous (added to the fact that the votes of those of us who do take up undue time in to booth to do so are counted last, if at all), and practically no-one can understand the actual effect of their above the line vote.
Maybe you just like lamingtons.
Lamingtons? You get lamingtons at your polling station... damn... where do you live?
If you don't want them to be the party they nominate, who would you delegate to distribute those preferences? Any option I can see is a more egregious case of vulpine poultry guardianship than the current setup.
The most obvious solution, and the one which most offends my philosophical sensibilities, is simply to exhaust the vote after it has reached its last stated preference. So if you had to make a minimum of 3 votes and voted 1. One Nation 2. Socialist Alliance and 3. Liberal/National your vote could never be used to elect anyone not in those three groupings. And BTW, with preferential above-the-line, there is a problem, though perhaps not an insurmountable one, of what to do about ungrouped independents.
Or we allocate the remaining preferences based on a knowledge base using statistical analysis of what other voters who had the same early preferences selected further down on their ballots.;)
And this is due entirely to your aforementioned fox-henhouse scenario
I thought it was all geese/geese. Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too, or did I simply confuse my animal analogy... I was trying to avoid wolves and sheep. But sure, the majors would be motivated to do that, and yes it's time to squawk.
Both majors don't want anyone not aligned to them in power.
Clearly. There's an article in the Guardian about this today and an interesting comment put by one iMurray, who thinks, "the biggest problem is not the fringe candidates like the Motoring Enthusiasts guy who sneak in - it's the prevalence of the major parties and the way they operate in the Senate."
It reflects the fact that they didn't even bother to lookup how their party's preferences would be distributed - that is, they were apathetic about their vote. That's what happens when you compel a few million people to vote.
Sorry we'll have to agree to differ on that one. I think having the vote of 100% of the electorate, even if the lack the wherewithall or motivation to discover the registered preferences, is preferable to relying on the putative 5% of voters who meet you criteria of "car[ing] and informed." If anyone was so motivated as to look up the registered preferences they almost certainly are motivated enough to vote below the line. Practically no-one "would have checked where their chosen party's preference flows," but you know that.
My point is that it is precisely because people don't know whom the are voting for, or if you prefer because people are apathetic, that we can't leave it to political parties to make these kinds of decisions. That would be setting the fox to guard the geese.
As far as compelling a few million people to vote, IMHO the evils we suffer because of compulsory voting, I submit, are outweighed by the evils suffered where voting is not compulsory. But, practical considerations aside, people have strong philosophical objections compulsion in the exercise of democratic duties. I understand that. I simply disagree.
[I]f there's a move for senate reform, you know what we're actually going to get is something that makes it more difficult for minor parties to register, or win an election.
It's certainly on the cards, but there's no need to be fatalistic about it. The is the real discussion to be had at the moment.
It's not like doing dodgy preference deals is anything new; the major parties have been doing it forever
Well voting above the line was only (umm showing my age here) introduced in the late 80s. Before that preference deal meant a negotiation between parties of how how-to-vote cards were to be set out (as it still does for the lower house). And it's arguable that the cynicism of the registered lists actually has grown over time.
This blow-up isn't about dodgy preference deals, it's about the "wrong people" being elected, where "wrong" means "not aligned to one of the major parties".
It's about both. The former was foregrounded by the implosion of the Wikileaks party and the later by Abbott's wish to have a Senate free of minor parties (PUP & Greens included). I guess there's an irony of fate here inasmuch as the cynicism of the majors has somewhat blown up in their face.
Uh, no. A vote above the line means "I endorse this party's preference list".
Obviously that's what it means. However unless the voter has actually read the registered party list [I'd put money on any random voter not having done, heck I'll even give you 3:1... not very fair to you I know:)] this "endorsement" does not reflect the actual preferences of the voter, it reflects a hope that the party will treat their vote with respect. And in fact it can, and in some cases does, express the exact opposite of the voters actual preferences.
Just because it's an ill-thought-out, apathetic vote doesn't mean it's not valid.
You are talking, what, >95% of votes cast?
No one I know who voted above the line, and that includes our prof (Law), is apathetic nor was their vote necessarily "ill-thought-out." They wanted to ensure that their vote was valid. Voting below the line in a 110 numbered ballot runs a very real risk of informality. And anyway, you know those ballots just get filed away in the to-hard-to-count pile.;)
And if you need to remove ill-thought-out, apathetic votes from the system...
What we need is a system that allows voters to express their preferences. Our (federal) voting system no longer achieves this objective. The option to vote preferentially above the line, possibly non-exhaustively, would go some way to repairing this.
Or perhaps selecting the winner of a karaoke competition should be done in a similar manner to choosing national policy? It doesn't sound as bad when you write it that way.
On the contrary. It sounds like a terrible way to select the winner of a karaoke competition.
We have a preferential system for a reason, and that's because first-past-the-post is unrepresentative
Preaching to the choir mate. My position put elsewhere in response to a call for optional preferential (as well as non-compulsary voting):
Now I have philosophical objections to optional preferential voting: With exhaustive preferential voting each elected representative carries with them a majority of formal votes in that seat. Laws passed by a parliament so comprised crystallise the will of the majority of voters (in a majority of seats). And this is a claim the laws of most other democratic countries (ie where voting is not compulsory), cannot make.
However, as a matter of sheer practicality, --in the face of massive ballots (110 candidates for on the NSW Senate ballot), and especially in the Senate election, where preference flows are not always intuitive and where most voters elect to vote above the line, --I think it is pretty clear that optional preferential voting (esp above the line) has become a necessity.
Certainly the practice of political parties devising and registering lists of preferences, which then determine the flow of most votes actually cast, makes a mockery of the idea of preferential voting. I can see no argument for continuing it. Optional preferential voting above the line, my misgivings notwithstanding, would much more accurately reflect the will of voters.
The problem with a senator winging it in on 0.25% of primaries is this. Only a tiny proportion of people allocate their preferences. I was speaking to an electoral worker who told me that of roughly 1,400 ballots they had 50 voted below the line (anecdotal I know, but go to the AEC for the real figures). That means that we will have a senator elected not on the will of the people (or any significant portion thereof), but as a result of ballot orderings made by political parties and preference exchange deals made between parties.
Candidates with far higher primary votes, or running mates thereof will miss out because of the registered preference lists of political parties. Consider the situation in SA where Xenophon received ca. 1.8 quotas in primary votes alone. But the major parties preferenced him or his running mate lowly. The Greens in fact preferenced Xenophon's running mate Stirling Griff below the No Carbon Tax Climate Skeptics party. Now Xenophon and Griff are centrists who are strong advocates for a market based approach to carbon abatement. The real possibility existed that someone voting for The Greens could have their vote electing a Climate "Skeptic" to parliament, hardly what they would want one imagines, because of the sillyness in the Greens preference list. As it happens the spill over from the Greens, ALP, LNP, and indeed the 80% quota from Xenophon looks like it will go to elect a Family First member who received, I think (haven't re-checked) somewhere about 0.4 of a quota on primary vote.
Now go to belowtheline.org.au and see which parties they preference (AEC has now disabled their "below the line preferences" data?!) Does this affect how you would classify them on a rough political spectrum?
Now try to search news stories to understand how those preferences came to be. Now how would you classify them?
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of voters will not take the 10-15mins it takes to vote below the line, let alone the hours of studying the policies AND the registered preferences of the 45 odd parties vying for election. I think perhaps the most egregious outcome is the probable election of a WA Senator who received less the 0.25% of the primary vote!
As much as I like exhaustive preferential voting on principle, the time has come to give voters the right to vote optionally preferentially above the line (if not also below it), so that votes are not cast against the voters actual preferences.
35 years of satellite data...[is] our sole high quality data
If you discount the 150 year instrumental record, and all the various proxies, then sure the evidence isn't overwhelming. The question here is what the motivation (as opposed to the rationalisations) for ignoring evidence is.
Uncertainty is hardly an argument against risk management.
And the story you tell about CRU is laughable.
[T]hey were heavily biased in favor of the AGW theory, even to the point of breaking UK law in order to deny data to critics.
A few decades should be enough time to provide the evidence it'll need.
The issue isn't the paucity of evidence. The issue is how people are able to ignore the overwhelming evidence available.
It'll also be enough time for your emotions to cool and you to get some perspective on this debate.
My emotions are ice cold. I'm an analytical type (I've been described as an android... and that's my friends!). As far as perspective, mine is clear: In a field where I lack the expertise to form an opinion, I accept the best available science as it changes from day to day. BUT... to re-iterate this discussion is not about climate science.
So when are these psychologists going to study your preference for a good story over science?
Since I don't, I guess never. A nice example of projection though.
When such research gimmicks are blatantly biased against one side of a crucial debate such as this, something is going on other than scientific research.
Sides? Debate? Something other going on? Now that's the "good story" version of science.
It's amusing, this tendency of yours to indulge in the very behaviours you criticise even as you are criticising them. I guess you honestly can't see it though.
And I was admonishing the IPCC for being so slow to correct an unambiguous error.
When Arrhenius posited AGW in 1896 it was surely still in the realm of conjecture. But the indictment was ready by Hansen to congress in 1988. The reasonable objections that were made have all been met (and the science is the stronger for these objection, scepticism being a necessary ingredient of good science). And we have a clear finding from the expert scientific community at least about the basic science and the direction of change.
We've had your "several decades."
We'll just have wait for independent confirmation of the IPCC's projections
We've had that too, at least with regard to the basic science. As far as projections per se are concerned the only time can confirm them --by which time, of course, we shall have failed to have acted. No one can inerrantly project into to the future. But you can act in accordance with what is currently the best available science. Or you can choose to deny it, like Steve Jobs did.
But this isn't a discussion about climate science. This is a discussion about whether it is appropriate to deploy psychology to explain the surprising level of inaction in the face of very clear science pointing to the danger of such inaction, or whether this is merely an attempt at medicalising dissent. And as the example of Jobs illustrates, this tendency to reject reality for wishful thinking is hardly confined to climate change.
Given there are people out there who have expressed an intention wilfully to maintain in incorrect position "for several decades," who prefer to substitute their own opinion for the facts of science and at the same time display so stunning a lack of self-awareness as to pontificate "part of the problem being people who confuse their own opinion with fact," I think it very clearly falls within the purview of psychology.
... is your opinion. And let's not forget that "the problem [is that] people... confuse their own opinion with fact."
[J]ust as "scientific"
No, its is plainly at odds with the orthodox scientific position. It is either heterodox, or outright anti-scientific.
I'm sorry, but nothing you have ever written here convinces me that you are any more entitled to an opinion (a fortiori a heterodox opinion) on this matter than I am. Perhaps I'm wrong, can you explain to me where your sense of entitlement comes from?
Let us keep in mind that the IPCC has long shown various unscientific biases in favor of presenting AGW in a more alarming light.
This is but an example of your malady: When that science doesn't agree with your opinion level unsubstantiated or grossly exaggerated attacks on the science itself.
If you are referring to WG2's (and I was citing WG1) incorrect assessment of Himalayan melts, yes that was a serious error, and one based on a grey source (which by the IPCCs own protocol should clearly have been highlighted as such). Objection to it were received from expert glaciologists (most of whom were also contributors to the WG1 report). IMHO it took way too long for the IPCC to correct it, but correct it they did. How long will it take you to correct your position?
Far from the WG1 "long" showing "various" (I challenge you to cite a single one from WG1, not WG2 or 3) "unscientific biases," it has been accused systematic bias in underestimating the danger because it represents a consensus position of a large number of scientists, and what they all can agree to will inevitably be more conservative than the opinion a number of them may hold. But these accusations similarly misunderstand the inherently conservative nature of mainstream science.
Where you and I are entitled to an opinion is as citizens of democratic polities on the political question of what (if anything) is to be done in response to the best available science of the day. I would suggest that rather than tilting at windmills denying reality, your efforts would be better spent there.
As a psych grad, I'd add, it's probably a lot healthier too.
I see part of the problem being people who confuse their own opinion with fact.
Part of the problem? That is the problem.
I do not have my own opinion on the AGW. My science qual is a mere unqualified BSc and a Pharm/Psych major at that. I defer to the orthodox scientific position in fields other than my own. As any good conservative scientist is expected to do.
Although 'fact' is a loaded word here, the closest we have to facts, as opposed to opinions, is the body of published science in any discipline. Bearing in mind that such "facts" are always subject to modification. Establishing what the orthodox position in any other field is, usually requires reading (especially review-) papers and sussing out where the lines of disagreement may be and how widely supported any position is. It's not always easy nor unambiguous.
As regards climate science, however, establishing orthodoxy is trivial. We have a review paper on steroids: the WG1 report issued from time to time by the IPCC.
There is no ambiguity or difficulty here as to what the "facts" (for want of a better word) are. Whether these "facts" will eventually be found wanting is a completely different question, to which an answer is, "not be me or by you."
You however, choose to substitute your own opinions for the summary of the published science presented in these reports. You continue to do so, even thought you realise there is a problem with "people who confus[ing] their own opinion with fact." That you are able to maintain so untenable a position requires a psychological explanation.
[I]t could not be, I don't know, that you have not made a strong argument for the position you are taking.
While that is generally true in this specific case an overwhelming scientific case has been made and there is no serious alternative model. It's clear that climate denialism will not be cured by any amount of evidence. Psychology and sociology, not climate science, are the pertinent disciplines here.
If by "strong argument" you mean persuasive, but scientifically invalid, argument, then you absolutely comovement to deceive srrect. Science is difficult to communicate, but it's difficult for rational people simply to discard the facts and embark on a cynical propaganda campaign. The so-called "skeptical" (it's the polar opposite of skepticism, of course) position OTOH has thrived precisely because of the strength and cynicism of its propaganda. I doubt there has been any more massively successful deception carried out at any time in history (though atheists may disagree).
I wouldn't put it exactly like that, but that's basically what I'm getting at, yes. But is should NOT foster fear, it should foster outrage!
Manning and Snowden exposed to the public activities, for which there was generally little excuse to invoke state secrecy, (which must in a democratic polity be an exception and not the norm). For instance, it may be that meta-data collection is a necessary protection of the population against terrorism. And the contents of such collected data would necessarily be confidential. However it is entirely inexcusable not to consult the people on the vexed question of how much privacy, if any, ought be sacrificed for the sake of security. In other words, the implementation may justifiably be a matter of secrecy, but the principle of whether to implement it cannot be allowed to remain secret.
Here in Australia the government proposed doing exactly this kind of meta-data collection, the public voiced their displeasure and the government backed down (eventually).
The problem being terrified by one's government is that the expectation becomes self-fulfilling. Americans need to remember their history: They have a right to expect "government of the people, by the people, for the people."
Unless, of coure, the majority of the public doesn't like the minority to which you belong.
Well yes, that's a problem with majoritarian democracy per se, hopefully counterbalanced by a powerful and independent judiciary. We hope to overcome this by the observation that each of us is, in some way, in a minority; and that laws protecting the rights of minorities qua minorities protect us all. Unfortunately, I'm not sure a majority of people see it that way yet.
My intention was actually to highlight how important it is to a functioning democracy what Snowden, Manning, Assange and others have done for us.
The other, imho more pertinent, consideration is an informed majority's willingness to act upon the information. OP asked "How do we fight this nonsense?" Well so long as most of us are locked into party tribalism, and can't consider voting against our tribe and for the tribe we hate even though they may be offering to end this stuff... not fucking much. But being informed of what is being done in our name is the necessary precondition for any action.
[Y]ou still can become a criminal for ingesting a substance that the majority doesn't approve of.
Well that's not really a minority issue. That's because you are foolish enough to ingest a substance that is dangerous to you and that we have to intervene for your own good. Which is obviously best achieved by relieving you of your freedom and locking you in a confined space with HiV infested serial rapists... no wait.
Slashdot Mirror
There is "human error" - type bias, and then there is deliberate bias.
True, but it's largely irrelevant whether the bias is in error or deliberate since bias is not the problem when exhibited by a scientists as it would be if exhibited by a jurist. 'Bias,' that is, as in Einstein was biased in favour of relativity, Galileo was biased in favour of a heliocentric solar system. On the whole climate scientists, of course, are similarly biased, which is the say that overwhelmingly they really do believe the model is supported by their data.
More pertinent is the fact whether talking points are properly founded upon the reported science. skepticalscience.com provides citations for all the arguments that are put in favour of the orthodox position. That is something that few sites on either side of the political debate surrounding climate science do. Perhaps this highest quality sceptical site was Roger Pielke Sr's now sadly missed Climate Science blog which was similarly founded in science rather than invective.
Reference to the actual (published) science allows for a truly scientific debate. Which is to say, one that involves investigating the original work, its methodology, maths etc and comparison with other work. Everything else, such as the discussion we are having here, is just so much hot air.
Denigrating an obviously high-quality site such as skepticalscience.com as a "propaganda machine" fails to rise up to the level of debate expected from intelligent people.
As far as the "skeptical" moniker: the site's prominently displayed byline "Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism" gives the lie to the notion that it is attempting to "infiltrate the actual skeptics." Actual sceptics, for course, being very far and few between. Rejecting orthodox science while unquestioningly swallowing anything that confirms one's pre-conceived ideological position does not qualify as scepticism. And that is what the name skepticalscience.com highlights.
The DSM definition is idiotic.
Delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. -
--DSM-5
Delusions are further sub-classified, one species of which are called bizarre delusions.
Delusions are deemed bizarre if they are clearly implausible and not understandable to same-culture peers and do not derive from ordinary life experiences. --DSM-5
OPs definition of delusions is a the definition for bizarre delusion not for delusion in general.
Yes, it ceases to be a delusion for that child.
I wonder if you could provide a definition of folie a deux for us?
A delusion is simply a fixed belief that is "not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence." It is not an aetiology. Whether a delusion arises from an organic brain disorder, or whether it arises from education it is remains a delusion.
Learned beliefs are every bit as capable of being delusional as any other kind of beliefs.
That comment was in reply to ...
Now be fair. I wrote of "you [sic] criteria of 'car[ing] and informed'", based on your statement "since they cared and were informed, they would have checked where their chosen party's preference flows would have gone." I'm was entitled to believe that you require more "being motivated enough to trundle your backside up to the polling place and make a mark on paper" to satisfy caring and being informed. There was no question of "who should be allowed to vote," which is, after all, a duty.
But at the one in Kentlyn, which I used to work at occasionally ...
Oh good. Your style of arguing left me wondering if I knew you personally. Unlikely then.
Uh, did you mean least offends your sensibilities?
No, I meant what I wrote. (Refer back to me quoting myself above). I'm not sure that there is a practical solution to this problem which doesn't offend against that theoretical position.
I meant that this was another independent instance of foxes guarding henhouses
I got that, and in fact agreed. The disagreement is simply that I find both independent instances irksome.
The only criteria I propose putting in place is being motivated enough to trundle your backside up to the polling place and make a mark on paper
You led me to believe you had stricter standards when you wrote: "since they cared and were informed, they would have checked where their chosen party's preference flows would have gone."
No; as long as people can cast their preferences it is the geese guarding the geese.
Seems to be a species of the formal vs practical freedom problem. In practice voting below the line has become too arduous (added to the fact that the votes of those of us who do take up undue time in to booth to do so are counted last, if at all), and practically no-one can understand the actual effect of their above the line vote.
Maybe you just like lamingtons.
Lamingtons? You get lamingtons at your polling station ... damn ... where do you live?
If you don't want them to be the party they nominate, who would you delegate to distribute those preferences? Any option I can see is a more egregious case of vulpine poultry guardianship than the current setup.
The most obvious solution, and the one which most offends my philosophical sensibilities, is simply to exhaust the vote after it has reached its last stated preference. So if you had to make a minimum of 3 votes and voted 1. One Nation 2. Socialist Alliance and 3. Liberal/National your vote could never be used to elect anyone not in those three groupings. And BTW, with preferential above-the-line, there is a problem, though perhaps not an insurmountable one, of what to do about ungrouped independents.
Or we allocate the remaining preferences based on a knowledge base using statistical analysis of what other voters who had the same early preferences selected further down on their ballots. ;)
And this is due entirely to your aforementioned fox-henhouse scenario
I thought it was all geese/geese. Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too, or did I simply confuse my animal analogy ... I was trying to avoid wolves and sheep. But sure, the majors would be motivated to do that, and yes it's time to squawk.
Both majors don't want anyone not aligned to them in power.
Clearly. There's an article in the Guardian about this today and an interesting comment put by one iMurray, who thinks, "the biggest problem is not the fringe candidates like the Motoring Enthusiasts guy who sneak in - it's the prevalence of the major parties and the way they operate in the Senate."
It reflects the fact that they didn't even bother to lookup how their party's preferences would be distributed - that is, they were apathetic about their vote. That's what happens when you compel a few million people to vote.
Sorry we'll have to agree to differ on that one. I think having the vote of 100% of the electorate, even if the lack the wherewithall or motivation to discover the registered preferences, is preferable to relying on the putative 5% of voters who meet you criteria of "car[ing] and informed." If anyone was so motivated as to look up the registered preferences they almost certainly are motivated enough to vote below the line. Practically no-one "would have checked where their chosen party's preference flows," but you know that.
My point is that it is precisely because people don't know whom the are voting for, or if you prefer because people are apathetic, that we can't leave it to political parties to make these kinds of decisions. That would be setting the fox to guard the geese.
As far as compelling a few million people to vote, IMHO the evils we suffer because of compulsory voting, I submit, are outweighed by the evils suffered where voting is not compulsory. But, practical considerations aside, people have strong philosophical objections compulsion in the exercise of democratic duties. I understand that. I simply disagree.
[I]f there's a move for senate reform, you know what we're actually going to get is something that makes it more difficult for minor parties to register, or win an election.
It's certainly on the cards, but there's no need to be fatalistic about it. The is the real discussion to be had at the moment.
It's not like doing dodgy preference deals is anything new; the major parties have been doing it forever
Well voting above the line was only (umm showing my age here) introduced in the late 80s. Before that preference deal meant a negotiation between parties of how how-to-vote cards were to be set out (as it still does for the lower house). And it's arguable that the cynicism of the registered lists actually has grown over time.
This blow-up isn't about dodgy preference deals, it's about the "wrong people" being elected, where "wrong" means "not aligned to one of the major parties".
It's about both. The former was foregrounded by the implosion of the Wikileaks party and the later by Abbott's wish to have a Senate free of minor parties (PUP & Greens included). I guess there's an irony of fate here inasmuch as the cynicism of the majors has somewhat blown up in their face.
Uh, no. A vote above the line means "I endorse this party's preference list".
Obviously that's what it means. However unless the voter has actually read the registered party list [I'd put money on any random voter not having done, heck I'll even give you 3:1 ... not very fair to you I know :)] this "endorsement" does not reflect the actual preferences of the voter, it reflects a hope that the party will treat their vote with respect. And in fact it can, and in some cases does, express the exact opposite of the voters actual preferences.
Just because it's an ill-thought-out, apathetic vote doesn't mean it's not valid.
You are talking, what, >95% of votes cast?
No one I know who voted above the line, and that includes our prof (Law), is apathetic nor was their vote necessarily "ill-thought-out." They wanted to ensure that their vote was valid. Voting below the line in a 110 numbered ballot runs a very real risk of informality. And anyway, you know those ballots just get filed away in the to-hard-to-count pile. ;)
And if you need to remove ill-thought-out, apathetic votes from the system ...
What we need is a system that allows voters to express their preferences. Our (federal) voting system no longer achieves this objective. The option to vote preferentially above the line, possibly non-exhaustively, would go some way to repairing this.
Or perhaps selecting the winner of a karaoke competition should be done in a similar manner to choosing national policy? It doesn't sound as bad when you write it that way.
On the contrary. It sounds like a terrible way to select the winner of a karaoke competition.
I actually think the time has come for the idea of true democracy - where everyone gets to vote in parliament on every thing
I could not disagree more. Talk about the lunatics taking over the asylum!
If the time hasn't come already for this style of democracy, it will soon...
Hopefully I will be dead before the time arrives.
Re-checked:
Xenophon got >25% of the primary vote. Family First got 4.03%. Both look set to get equal representation.
We have a preferential system for a reason, and that's because first-past-the-post is unrepresentative
Preaching to the choir mate. My position put elsewhere in response to a call for optional preferential (as well as non-compulsary voting):
Now I have philosophical objections to optional preferential voting: With exhaustive preferential voting each elected representative carries with them a majority of formal votes in that seat. Laws passed by a parliament so comprised crystallise the will of the majority of voters (in a majority of seats). And this is a claim the laws of most other democratic countries (ie where voting is not compulsory), cannot make.
However, as a matter of sheer practicality, --in the face of massive ballots (110 candidates for on the NSW Senate ballot), and especially in the Senate election, where preference flows are not always intuitive and where most voters elect to vote above the line, --I think it is pretty clear that optional preferential voting (esp above the line) has become a necessity.
Certainly the practice of political parties devising and registering lists of preferences, which then determine the flow of most votes actually cast, makes a mockery of the idea of preferential voting. I can see no argument for continuing it. Optional preferential voting above the line, my misgivings notwithstanding, would much more accurately reflect the will of voters.
The problem with a senator winging it in on 0.25% of primaries is this. Only a tiny proportion of people allocate their preferences. I was speaking to an electoral worker who told me that of roughly 1,400 ballots they had 50 voted below the line (anecdotal I know, but go to the AEC for the real figures). That means that we will have a senator elected not on the will of the people (or any significant portion thereof), but as a result of ballot orderings made by political parties and preference exchange deals made between parties.
Candidates with far higher primary votes, or running mates thereof will miss out because of the registered preference lists of political parties. Consider the situation in SA where Xenophon received ca. 1.8 quotas in primary votes alone. But the major parties preferenced him or his running mate lowly. The Greens in fact preferenced Xenophon's running mate Stirling Griff below the No Carbon Tax Climate Skeptics party. Now Xenophon and Griff are centrists who are strong advocates for a market based approach to carbon abatement. The real possibility existed that someone voting for The Greens could have their vote electing a Climate "Skeptic" to parliament, hardly what they would want one imagines, because of the sillyness in the Greens preference list. As it happens the spill over from the Greens, ALP, LNP, and indeed the 80% quota from Xenophon looks like it will go to elect a Family First member who received, I think (haven't re-checked) somewhere about 0.4 of a quota on primary vote.
See the problem?
It took me about ten minutes to classify all of the minor parties on a rough political spectrum
Check out the policies of the Australian Independents Party. How would you classify them on a rough political spectrum?
Now go to belowtheline.org.au and see which parties they preference (AEC has now disabled their "below the line preferences" data?!) Does this affect how you would classify them on a rough political spectrum?
Now try to search news stories to understand how those preferences came to be. Now how would you classify them?
Repeat 45 times.
Did you use senate.io? Really great tool.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of voters will not take the 10-15mins it takes to vote below the line, let alone the hours of studying the policies AND the registered preferences of the 45 odd parties vying for election. I think perhaps the most egregious outcome is the probable election of a WA Senator who received less the 0.25% of the primary vote!
As much as I like exhaustive preferential voting on principle, the time has come to give voters the right to vote optionally preferentially above the line (if not also below it), so that votes are not cast against the voters actual preferences.
35 years of satellite data ...[is] our sole high quality data
If you discount the 150 year instrumental record, and all the various proxies, then sure the evidence isn't overwhelming. The question here is what the motivation (as opposed to the rationalisations) for ignoring evidence is.
Uncertainty is hardly an argument against risk management.
And the story you tell about CRU is laughable.
[T]hey were heavily biased in favor of the AGW theory, even to the point of breaking UK law in order to deny data to critics.
Oh please!
A few decades should be enough time to provide the evidence it'll need.
The issue isn't the paucity of evidence. The issue is how people are able to ignore the overwhelming evidence available.
It'll also be enough time for your emotions to cool and you to get some perspective on this debate.
My emotions are ice cold. I'm an analytical type (I've been described as an android ... and that's my friends!). As far as perspective, mine is clear: In a field where I lack the expertise to form an opinion, I accept the best available science as it changes from day to day. BUT ... to re-iterate this discussion is not about climate science.
So when are these psychologists going to study your preference for a good story over science?
Since I don't, I guess never. A nice example of projection though.
When such research gimmicks are blatantly biased against one side of a crucial debate such as this, something is going on other than scientific research.
Sides? Debate? Something other going on? Now that's the "good story" version of science.
It's amusing, this tendency of yours to indulge in the very behaviours you criticise even as you are criticising them. I guess you honestly can't see it though.
Several decades
And I was admonishing the IPCC for being so slow to correct an unambiguous error.
When Arrhenius posited AGW in 1896 it was surely still in the realm of conjecture. But the indictment was ready by Hansen to congress in 1988. The reasonable objections that were made have all been met (and the science is the stronger for these objection, scepticism being a necessary ingredient of good science). And we have a clear finding from the expert scientific community at least about the basic science and the direction of change.
We've had your "several decades."
We'll just have wait for independent confirmation of the IPCC's projections
We've had that too, at least with regard to the basic science. As far as projections per se are concerned the only time can confirm them --by which time, of course, we shall have failed to have acted. No one can inerrantly project into to the future. But you can act in accordance with what is currently the best available science. Or you can choose to deny it, like Steve Jobs did.
But this isn't a discussion about climate science. This is a discussion about whether it is appropriate to deploy psychology to explain the surprising level of inaction in the face of very clear science pointing to the danger of such inaction, or whether this is merely an attempt at medicalising dissent. And as the example of Jobs illustrates, this tendency to reject reality for wishful thinking is hardly confined to climate change.
Given there are people out there who have expressed an intention wilfully to maintain in incorrect position "for several decades," who prefer to substitute their own opinion for the facts of science and at the same time display so stunning a lack of self-awareness as to pontificate "part of the problem being people who confuse their own opinion with fact," I think it very clearly falls within the purview of psychology.
My opinion ...
[J]ust as "scientific"
No, its is plainly at odds with the orthodox scientific position. It is either heterodox, or outright anti-scientific.
I'm sorry, but nothing you have ever written here convinces me that you are any more entitled to an opinion (a fortiori a heterodox opinion) on this matter than I am. Perhaps I'm wrong, can you explain to me where your sense of entitlement comes from?
Let us keep in mind that the IPCC has long shown various unscientific biases in favor of presenting AGW in a more alarming light.
This is but an example of your malady: When that science doesn't agree with your opinion level unsubstantiated or grossly exaggerated attacks on the science itself.
If you are referring to WG2's (and I was citing WG1) incorrect assessment of Himalayan melts, yes that was a serious error, and one based on a grey source (which by the IPCCs own protocol should clearly have been highlighted as such). Objection to it were received from expert glaciologists (most of whom were also contributors to the WG1 report). IMHO it took way too long for the IPCC to correct it, but correct it they did. How long will it take you to correct your position?
Far from the WG1 "long" showing "various" (I challenge you to cite a single one from WG1, not WG2 or 3) "unscientific biases," it has been accused systematic bias in underestimating the danger because it represents a consensus position of a large number of scientists, and what they all can agree to will inevitably be more conservative than the opinion a number of them may hold. But these accusations similarly misunderstand the inherently conservative nature of mainstream science.
Where you and I are entitled to an opinion is as citizens of democratic polities on the political question of what (if anything) is to be done in response to the best available science of the day. I would suggest that rather than tilting at windmills denying reality, your efforts would be better spent there.
As a psych grad, I'd add, it's probably a lot healthier too.
I see part of the problem being people who confuse their own opinion with fact.
Part of the problem? That is the problem.
I do not have my own opinion on the AGW. My science qual is a mere unqualified BSc and a Pharm/Psych major at that. I defer to the orthodox scientific position in fields other than my own. As any good conservative scientist is expected to do.
Although 'fact' is a loaded word here, the closest we have to facts, as opposed to opinions, is the body of published science in any discipline. Bearing in mind that such "facts" are always subject to modification. Establishing what the orthodox position in any other field is, usually requires reading (especially review-) papers and sussing out where the lines of disagreement may be and how widely supported any position is. It's not always easy nor unambiguous.
As regards climate science, however, establishing orthodoxy is trivial. We have a review paper on steroids: the WG1 report issued from time to time by the IPCC.
There is no ambiguity or difficulty here as to what the "facts" (for want of a better word) are. Whether these "facts" will eventually be found wanting is a completely different question, to which an answer is, "not be me or by you."
You however, choose to substitute your own opinions for the summary of the published science presented in these reports. You continue to do so, even thought you realise there is a problem with "people who confus[ing] their own opinion with fact." That you are able to maintain so untenable a position requires a psychological explanation.
[I]t could not be, I don't know, that you have not made a strong argument for the position you are taking.
While that is generally true in this specific case an overwhelming scientific case has been made and there is no serious alternative model. It's clear that climate denialism will not be cured by any amount of evidence. Psychology and sociology, not climate science, are the pertinent disciplines here.
If by "strong argument" you mean persuasive, but scientifically invalid, argument, then you absolutely comovement to deceive srrect. Science is difficult to communicate, but it's difficult for rational people simply to discard the facts and embark on a cynical propaganda campaign. The so-called "skeptical" (it's the polar opposite of skepticism, of course) position OTOH has thrived precisely because of the strength and cynicism of its propaganda. I doubt there has been any more massively successful deception carried out at any time in history (though atheists may disagree).
I wouldn't put it exactly like that, but that's basically what I'm getting at, yes. But is should NOT foster fear, it should foster outrage!
Manning and Snowden exposed to the public activities, for which there was generally little excuse to invoke state secrecy, (which must in a democratic polity be an exception and not the norm). For instance, it may be that meta-data collection is a necessary protection of the population against terrorism. And the contents of such collected data would necessarily be confidential. However it is entirely inexcusable not to consult the people on the vexed question of how much privacy, if any, ought be sacrificed for the sake of security. In other words, the implementation may justifiably be a matter of secrecy, but the principle of whether to implement it cannot be allowed to remain secret.
Here in Australia the government proposed doing exactly this kind of meta-data collection, the public voiced their displeasure and the government backed down (eventually).
The problem being terrified by one's government is that the expectation becomes self-fulfilling. Americans need to remember their history: They have a right to expect "government of the people, by the people, for the people."
Don't be afraid, be ANGRY!
Unless, of coure, the majority of the public doesn't like the minority to which you belong.
Well yes, that's a problem with majoritarian democracy per se, hopefully counterbalanced by a powerful and independent judiciary. We hope to overcome this by the observation that each of us is, in some way, in a minority; and that laws protecting the rights of minorities qua minorities protect us all. Unfortunately, I'm not sure a majority of people see it that way yet.
My intention was actually to highlight how important it is to a functioning democracy what Snowden, Manning, Assange and others have done for us.
The other, imho more pertinent, consideration is an informed majority's willingness to act upon the information. OP asked "How do we fight this nonsense?" Well so long as most of us are locked into party tribalism, and can't consider voting against our tribe and for the tribe we hate even though they may be offering to end this stuff ... not fucking much. But being informed of what is being done in our name is the necessary precondition for any action.
[Y]ou still can become a criminal for ingesting a substance that the majority doesn't approve of.
Well that's not really a minority issue. That's because you are foolish enough to ingest a substance that is dangerous to you and that we have to intervene for your own good. Which is obviously best achieved by relieving you of your freedom and locking you in a confined space with HiV infested serial rapists ... no wait.
Well then you won't mind if we bring your mom in for questioning, will you?
Quite.
I hate to say it but ... This!
Don't be ridiculous! Picking your nose is unsightly, but hardly terrorism. OTOH, what the HELL, do you want that PRESSURE COOKER FOR! HUH?!