The Climate Change Bandwagon - Who's On It?

[Holden Fourth]

I have an online subscription to a news site that I have been using for many years and I'm just about to cancel it. In the last 18 months, it seems to have been taken over by what I would describe as the 'bandwagoners' and their current bandwagon is climate change and they have a whole editorial section on it. What annoys me about it is the lack of balance - they adhere religiously (and I use that term deliberately) to the simple acceptance that climate change is purely down to anthropogenic causes. There is no contrary viewpoint expressed and they don't seem to allow people to comment on what has been written. No room for debate here.

As far as I'm concerned, climate change is real and has been since the earth was first formed. However, for me, the jury is still out on the causes because it hasn't been conclusively proved. What has been proved is that CO2 in the atmosphere is rising and our temperatures in the northern hemisphere are as well. Unfortunately the scientific/political approach is to combine these to make this a syllogism. This has nothing whatsoever to do with empirical evidence which is what the scientific method is based on.

What further complicates matters is that this issue now appears to me to be a political one as opposed to a scientific one and the proof of the pudding is the IPCC. What makes the the IPCC political is the first word in its title - Intergovernmental!

So in desperation I searched the internet for reputable alternative views and struggled to find many at all. Most sites, whether they are pro or con shamelessly cherry pick their facts/data to suit their own argument.

All sorts of predictions have been made regarding the effects of climate change - most of them dire - that don't seem to have any basis in fact. They are simply predictions based on what are possibly flawed computer models. Why are they flawed? Because every specific influence can't be programmed in. There are probably influences that we are not even aware of. However, to go back to the political we need to look at why a panel of scientific experts have put all their eggs in one basket - carbon emissions! What if there are other factors that are just as important and why would we not look for them? The answer is simple - ridicule. At this point in time if you are not on the carbon emissions bandwagon then you are the equivalent of a snake oil salesman.

Finally, I found an article that does what we should be doing - it asks questions about the pglisophy we are espousing. It's not completely flawless but if taken seriously it could get people to do what they seem to unable to at the moment which is to question everything you read or see. Take nothing at face value. This is called skepticism and it's what has driven science in the past. I was brought up to do this by my parents and this approach has served me well all through my life.

Here is the article

What do you think?

https://www.city-journal.org/global-warming

[John F]

the jury is still out on the causes because it hasn't been conclusively proved

What proof would you accept as "conclusive"? As far as I'm concerned, there's scientific evidence enough to justify humanity's trying to do something about it; if we wait and wait until every last doubter has come around, it may be too late. It may be too late already.

this issue now appears to me to be a political one as opposed to a scientific one

I say it's no longer a scientific "issue," meaning an open question with no scientific consensus on the answer. We've gone beyond that. The issue now is whether we do something about it and if so then what. Science can make suggestions but this is essentially a political issue, as whatever measures we may take (including doing nothing) will have economic and social consequences, likely to be painful, and for better or worse, in a democratic society such questions are political.

[Rach3]

Agree with JohnF. When smoke is coming out of the building, time to call the fire dept. even if turns out something harmless is causing the smoke. Interesting,being reported from Guatemala that part of reason for Central American migration to US border is food shortages resulting from climate change in Central America.Trump just cut off all US aid , part of which would have helped to address hunger issues.

[Belle]

Holden Fourth: I fully get where you are coming from. An expert Professor, Peter Ridd, from James Cook University was summarily sacked recently for questioning what he said was bogus science on the condition of the Great Barrier Reef. He won his court appeal of "Unfair Dismissal" and was awarded compensation but the University (unsurprisingly) won't have him back. He claims there is group-think instead of honest peer-reviewing and a recent essay in "The Conversation" said 'we need to weed out research which isn't up to standard and which lacks credibility". I found that an astounding position coming from academia and the cohort which aggressively defends its own positions on climate change. There appeared to be no sense of cognitive dissonance in their comments!!!

The climate is changing; it's hotter for longer now, but we've also had a couple of cooler summers in the past 10 years and with rain. The wine industry is experiencing adverse effect from the increased heat; when we moved to the Hunter area in 1979 vintage was held in late February; now it's just after Christmas!! Talk to the winegrowers and many of them will mention 'climate change'. Now, whether that is man-made is a different question altogether. People use the analogy of the tobacco industry and the links between smoking and cancer saying that 'the science was settled' on that connection years ago; ergo, why do people doubt 'the science is settled' re climate change? And it's a good question, except that cancer and carcinogens is a far less obscure inter-relationship than the complexity of the weather which is influenced by so very many different factors.

Regarding the Pacific Islands. A study done at a New Zealand university quite recently found that there was generally zero sea-level rise in the Pacific Islands and, in fact, the size of the land mass in some areas had actually grown. That study was quickly consigned to the dust-bin because it was contrary to the prevailing hegemony and that all worries me very much. The clearing of mango swamps was seen as a significant reason for any loss of topsoil and land mass. That hasn't prevented those same Pacific Island nations screaming at Australia, telling us to stop mining coal and to hand over (to them) cold hard cash.

There are certainly more skeptics about than there used to be, that's for sure. And if anybody or any group appears skeptical it is quickly demonized as belonging to the 'coal lobby' or similar. We cannot even discuss the option of nuclear power, which would solve the problem of emissions almost immediately. It's my way or the highway, at present, and that's where the politicization problem lies.

A nation like ours heavily dependent upon fossil fuels and natural resources to maintain its standard of living was always going to be riven to the core over this issue. We had a similar (but, by degrees, much smaller) shock to our economy in the 1950s when our sheep fleece trade was thrown into chaos with the new fibre technologies that were appearing. Today wool is once again very popular and much preferred for quality clothing. But our economy suffered a lot, as it has since manufacturing was sent offshore. The economy is every bit as fragile as an eco-system in the natural world and relationships between trade, the cost of energy, the dollar itself and labour have a bearing on outcomes for all of us and these need to be continually balanced to maintain a positive equilibrium. The people who chant 'climate change' never seem to understand any of that and is a major concern to many economists and others. Emissions reduction has to be achieved while maintaining our standard of living and you never hear 'standard of living' in this debate. There's just a scorched earth policy and I'm sure some people would like to return us to the caves. I'm a great believer in the power of human ingenuity and the prospects of technology to solve our problems, and these are longer term (such as nuclear power, but not limited to that). A nation will not be able to affect positive change while on its knees; you need money and resources and ingenuity to solve complex problems. In the 1950s we all lived with the fear of nuclear wipe-out and the anxiety was significant. I guess it still remains a problem. And the elephant in the room, of course, regarding the climate discussion is actually over-population. Nobody wants to discuss it.

[Rach3]

There's just a scorched earth policy and I'm sure some people would like to return us to the caves. I'm a great believer in the power of human ingenuity and the prospects of technology to solve our problems, and these are longer term (such as nuclear power, but not limited to that).

I quite agree with you nuclear has gotten an unfair bad rap.You have also seen the economic studies that new climate-friendly technologies and products will generate new economies and jobs, albeit with some transition hardships. "Solutions" to over-population dont seem to me very reliable,and may already be too little , too late.We will only have one chance to guess right, if it's not already too late to guess. Alive in a cave is arguably preferable to dead if we guess wrong. https://time.com/longform/australia-drought-photos/

[Belle]

There's just a scorched earth policy and I'm sure some people would like to return us to the caves. I'm a great believer in the power of human ingenuity and the prospects of technology to solve our problems, and these are longer term (such as nuclear power, but not limited to that).

I quite agree with you nuclear has gotten an unfair bad rap.You have also seen the economic studies that new climate-friendly technologies and products will generate new economies and jobs, albeit with some transition hardships. "Solutions" to over-population dont seem to me very reliable,and may already be too little , too late.We will only have one chance to guess right, if it's not already too late to guess. Alive in a cave is arguably preferable to dead if we guess wrong. https://time.com/longform/australia-drought-photos/

Alive in a cave; that isn't living!! Besides, I snore. The bear is going to get me first!!

We have had horrendous droughts in Australia forever. The last really serious one I recall was 1966 and when we arrived in this area where we now live (although 25k further away from the coast) it didn't rain for about 3 years, and that was circa 1980. Currently, the last decent rain we had here at our place (which was more than some showers) was May, 2015 when we were in Europe. Meanwhile, it has rained on the east coast (30k from here) during that time. (Ergo, for 23 years we lived 55k from the coast and now it's about 30k - still in 'desert conditions').

In the 1930s my father and his siblings (who lived in the inner south west of NSW on a broad-acre farm) played cricket on the bed of the Murrumbidgee River. My aunt, now 89, still talks about it. I have seen empty river beds in this area myself during my lifetime. I'm sure I've recounted this anecdote before; in 1922 they had a heatwave in that area which was so bad it killed people. One such death was an infant child and the family was living in a farm hut. The child died in the heat and before the father could fashion a coffin from farm timbers the weather had turned so cold that the fuel stove was needed to provide heat!! This is written in the local history magazines and the next child born to that family, in 1923, became my father's best friend.

[Holden Fourth]

Holden Fourth: I fully get where you are coming from. An expert Professor, Peter Ridd, from James Cook University was summarily sacked recently for questioning what he said was bogus science on the condition of the Great Barrier Reef. He won his court appeal of "Unfair Dismissal" and was awarded compensation but the University (unsurprisingly) won't have him back. He claims there is group-think instead of honest peer-reviewing and a recent essay in "The Conversation" said 'we need to weed out research which isn't up to standard and which lacks credibility". I found that an astounding position coming from academia and the cohort which aggressively defends its own positions on climate change. There appeared to be no sense of cognitive dissonance in their comments!!!

I saw Peter Ridd speak on The Bolt Report about this very issue. This is one of the points I am trying to make in that many scientists and commentators are trying to make the facts fit the theory instead of examining the facts to come up with a plausible theory. There is a lot of money to be made from the climate change debate and who is going to kill off the goose that laid the golden eggs.

John said "What proof would you accept as "conclusive"? As far as I'm concerned, there's scientific evidence enough to justify humanity's trying to do something about it; if we wait and wait until every last doubter has come around, it may be too late. It may be too late already."

I'm not going to disagree with this as I simply don't know. All I know is that nothing I have seen or read is conclusive so I don't think that there is enough empirical evidence. The approach that Al Gore took in his movie was to use syllogisms. For example. The planet is heating up, there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, therefore carbon emissions are at fault. This is not proof, it is purely theory and speculation. Now it may be that this theory is correct but what if it isn't? We seem to be only looking at this as the cause and if the underlying causes are not related to this then the scientific community well and truly have their heads buried in the sand.

This also raises the fact that there are two approaches to handling climate change. Currently popular is the mitigation approach where we are trying to reduce carbon emissions. Good luck with that with the world's two biggest emitters (India and China - not to mention the US) not prepared to work with that.

Less well known is the 'adaptive' approach where we work out ways to cope with the change that won't leave even more of the population economically impoverished.

[Belle]

I take all your points. I don't know terribly much about it beyond what I've already said. Our Prime Minister (my son's boss) is in the USA with Trump at the moment and he has not been invited to the Climate summit!! He is persona non grata. Even if we reduce our emissions here we are still selling coal to other parts of the world so that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. A bit like patting your head and rubbing your stomach simultaneously.

There are a lot of people hopping on the renewables bandwagon, so that vested interests are now framing a lot of the climate change issue. Our former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was buying renewable investments while in office and during the election campaign you could tell he was bitter and angry about his investments because of the personal and nasty attacks on the present PM by his son and himself. I felt that gave the game away. In short, Turnbull and his family were not making an argument 'without prejudice' (as they say in the legal profession). They had much to personally gain by getting in on the ground floor with a new energy system that Malcolm Turnbull himself advocated in office. Once upon a time we used to call that kind of thing 'a conflict of interest'!!

[John F]

I'm not going to disagree with this as I simply don't know. All I know is that nothing I have seen or read is conclusive so I don't think that there is enough empirical evidence.

In other words, nothing will persuade you - that's what it amounts to. If a radical reduction in human-made carbon in the atmosphere were to correspond with a measurable reduction in the rate of global warming, you could reject even that by saying that the change is coincidental and can be attributed to natural causes, though you'd have no evidence that this is so. And of course such a reduction in human-made carbon wouldn't happen unless humanity made it happen, having agreed on human responsibility for some of the warming.

As for Peter Ridd, what I've been reading online persuades me that he is wrong.

Great Barrier Reef expert panel says Peter Ridd misrepresenting science
Adam Morton and Ben Smee
Tue 27 Aug 2019 14.00 EDT

An expert panel led by the former chief scientist Ian Chubb has warned ministers that controversial scientist Peter Ridd is misrepresenting robust science about the plight of the Great Barrier Reef, and compared his claims to the strategy used by the tobacco industry to raise doubt about the impact of smoking.

The warning, in a letter to the federal environment minister, Sussan Ley, and the Queensland premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, follows Ridd launching a lecture tour in which he has repeated his claim that farmland pollution does not significantly damage the natural wonder. Ridd’s tour has been supported by rightwing commentators and sugarcane industry managers campaigning against proposed state regulations limiting sediment and chemical runoff on the reef coast.

Signed by Chubb, the head of the independent expert panel advising on plans to protect the reef, the letter says the group did not have a view on the regulations but it had chosen “not to sit by and watch” while the science was disputed and sometimes misrepresented. “This advice to you was triggered by the roadshow of Dr Ridd and the associated industry response to new regulations aimed at improving water quality in the [reef] area,” Chubb says in the letter. “It is our advice to you that the science we have seen and discussed during our 15 meetings has been conducted according to the most rigorous and widely accepted processes employed by professional scientists.”

In an appendix to the letter, headed “for information”, the panel likens the campaign against reef-related science to strategies used by the tobacco industry and others to delay policy responses by claiming doubt existed where there was none. It quotes Alexander Nix, the former chief executive of election-disrupting firm Cambridge Analytica, who said: “It sounds a dreadful thing to say, but these are things that don’t necessarily need to be true as long as they’re believed.”

“We have seen the sowing of doubt play out over the years: tobacco use, lead in petrol, anti-vaccination, climate change are examples. And now possibly the GBR,” the panel says. “In all cases, scientific evidence is, or was, disputed, only sometimes for obvious reasons – usually money. The tactic of sowing doubt works, because there can be reluctance to change policy or regulation in the face of doubt. But absolute certainty is rare. It does not mean that what we know is wrong.”

The panel says science works by steadily accumulating evidence, drawing deductions and modifying them if conclusions are disproven by further work. Consensus occurs when accumulated evidence from independent scientists converges on a conclusion. “It is up to people or scientists with another view to provide evidence established by rigorous application of the same scientific process and have it subjected to the same level of scrutiny by experts,” it says.

The panel says if the sowing of doubt does not work “the next step in the now time-honoured tactic is to invoke the notion of a conspiracy of the world’s scientists all working together to stop the outside getting their results published, or accepted”.

Ridd’s speaking tour has been hosted by regional branches of the sugarcane growers peak body, Canegrowers, and the Australian Environment Foundation, a charity set up by the right wing thinktank the Institute of Public Affairs, with strong links to the agriculture and fossil fuel industries.

The new regulations were announced by the Queensland government in February, partly because farmers were not taking part in voluntary programs that offered incentives to improve practices...

The panel’s letter says the scientific evidence that underpins understanding of the condition of the reef is clear: the northern two-thirds were severely bleached in 2016 and 2017; there had been signs of recovery in some areas but the recruitment of coral spawn into bleached areas had fallen by up to 89%; that coral had a better chance of survival in cleaner water; that global heating was the greatest risk to the reef; that poor water quality due to nutrients, sediments and pesticides was also a major threat.

“We believe that given the direction that quality science points, suitable policy and focussed regulation are both essential if we are to give the GBR a decent chance of survival in anything like its historically recognisable form,” the letter says.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ng-science

As for the court case relating to this, the judgment in Ridd's favor was by a single judge in Australia's circuit court. He said the basis was not about freedom of speech and intellectual freedom but a technical issue concerning the proper interpretation of a clause in an Enterprise Agreement - an agreement made at an enterprise level between Ridd and his employer, James Cook University, about terms and conditions of employment. The university claims that the judgment “does not refer to any case law, nor any authority in Australia to support its position.” If so, then Ridd would appear likely to lose the case on appeal.

https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/04/18/j ... dom-speech

[Belle]

As I've said before, I haven't kept up with the whole climate change debate. However, I would definitely not trust anything I read in "The Guardian". Here are some comments under an item about Dr. Peter Ridd and his research dispute in "The Australian" newspaper a week ago. I think the comments show that the science is far from settled, for whatever reason!! These people below seem to know what they're talking about:

Michael
1 WEEK AGO
One of the key techniques of spin doctoring is to misstate the claims of your opponents. For example, you may say that your opponents are claiming that there is no living coral on the inshore GBR. Then, any coral that you find is a refutation of what you have portrayed as your opponent's position. Here is the abstract of the actual study performed by Clark et. al. See if you can find anything that resembles the position attributed to it.

Long-term data with high-precision chronology are essential to elucidate past ecological changes on coral reefs beyond the period of modern-day monitoring programs. In 2012 we revisited two inshore reefs within the central Great Barrier Reef, where a series of historical photographs document a loss of hard coral cover between c.1890–1994 AD. Here we use an integrated approach that includes high-precision U-Th dating specifically tailored for determining the age of extremely young corals to provide a robust, objective characterisation of ecological transition. The timing of mortality for most of the dead in situ corals sampled from the historical photograph locations was found to coincide with major flood events in 1990–1991 at Bramston Reef and 1970 and 2008 at Stone Island. Evidence of some recovery was found at Bramston Reef with living coral genera similar to what was described in c.1890 present in 2012. In contrast, very little sign of coral re-establishment was found at Stone Island suggesting delayed recovery. These results provide a valuable reference point for managers to continue monitoring the recovery (or lack thereof) of coral communities at these reefs.
Roger
1 WEEK AGO
"In contrast, very little sign of coral re-establishment was found at Stone Island suggesting delayed recovery."

They didn't survey areas about the island which didn't support their position, pre determining the conclusion they wanted to get.

"where a series of historical photographs document a loss of hard coral cover between c.1890–1994 AD".

They don't. The photographs were specifically stated to not be used to make such conclusions. They are also not extensive enough to draw any long term conclusions. Any editor worth his salt should have picked this up, as per the original stated context of the photographs. There are too many studies where the hard data is not checked. There are likely simply regurgitating pre-determined conclusions.

The paper should have been rejected.

Michael

1 WEEK AGO
The paper should not have been rejected as it established the dates of coral loss and associated the losses with floods in the area. The straw man selected by Ridd and Marohasy was, of course, not what Clark et. al. were asserting. “What we saw was not consistent with the proposition that the inshore reefs have been destroyed by farm run-off,” Dr Ridd said. This type of rhetorical trick is used to attack decent science. Roger, your arguments amount to quibbles. Clark et. al. do not say there has been no recovery. You are just arguing the meaning of 'very little recovery'. Clark et. al. appear not to have relied on the photos, either. Instead, they used techniques that can determine the age of very young corals. Once again, this suggests that Clark et. al. did not state that there is no coral there. Another of your quibbles concerns the statement Clark et. al. made about Stone Island. Clearly they were referring to the research area and were looking at the population dynamics of the specified area. The abstract does not suggest Clark et. al. made any statements at all about 'the inshore reef'. Indeed, their approach seemed to be about dating the coral loss events. Ridd and Marohasy do not appear to contest the key statement - the one that is most dangerous to their backers - that the coral losses are associated with flood-caused runoff. They prefer to try to discredit other areas of the research in the hope that it will all be disregarded. That is another tactic of anti-science. Finally, you have impugned the integrity of Clark et.al. by stating that they chose to ignore areas of greater coral coverage for the purpose of advancing their own hypotheses. You have chosen to impute a disreputable motive for the research choices of Clarke et. al., when it is clear that their choices were made for well-explained reasons.
Roger
1 WEEK AGO
"you have impugned the integrity of Clark et.al. by stating that they chose to ignore areas of greater coral coverage"

The fact was, the survey transect ended just before good coral. It is entirely within proper processes of science to point this out, in fact it is the duty of researchers to do such things, something you don't seem to understand. I would suggest another paper which includes broader parts of the island, field-checked-and not relying on remote sensing techniques which have their limitations.

Whether they 'chose' to do this or not, is it bad field science procedures, and misleading, and affects the conclusions that can be drawn. The very fact you claim this kind of thing is 'anti science' shows you don't understand how science actually works. It often takes many reiterations, rebuttals, further papers etc, before research mistakes are found because the researchers involved often have a clear incentive to defend a position. This is one of the issues with the replication crisis affecting all areas of science, of many.

[lennygoran]

Just today I heard the name of greta thurnberg for the first time--I guess I'm just behind on all this---now I've seen several clips featuring her-she seems adorable to me-of course that doesn't make her view correct-there are plenty of clips and news on her. Apparently yesterday NYC drew a tremendous crowd and she was right there.

Protesting Climate Change, Young People Take to Streets in a Global Strike
Video
"In New York City, the mayor’s office estimated that 60,000 people marched through the narrow streets of Lower Manhattan, while organizers put the total at 250,000."
Here's a link to one of the many clips of Greta out there.

https://www.ted.com/talks/greta_thunber ... anguage=en

One other thing on climate change-as Sue and I ride around the countryside here in NJ it's unbelievable to us how many solar plants have sprung up and they're tremendous in size-I haven't stopped the car to take photos but things that look like this. Regards, Len

[John F]

Belle, I don't know or care about the science of the Great Barrier Reef. What I do care about is the validity and integrity of science itself., real science rather than self-proclaimed science You can find credentialed scientists who hold and publicly argue for patently antiscientific views - not a few profess creationism as opposed to evolution. And of course lay people who simply believe the Bible as the revealed word of God also believe that these scientists are talking real science. But they aren't, it isn't science at all, and their talk is not only a betrayal of their discipline but noise that sows doubt and confuses the issue rather than explaining anything.

As in the material I've quoted, the outcome of Ridd's lawsuit has nothing to do with whether his science is any good or with his right to say what he thinks even when it's wrong. It's about the terms of his employment. But as with the climate change deniers, to me it appears rational to accept the consensus of genuine experts, however complex it may be, rather than the denials of a few.

[Belle]

Agree in principle with much of what you've said. But the terms of Ridd's employment have become conflated with the science itself; he was sacked because he dared to question the scientific methodology used at his institution, James Cook University in Townsville. That's what this is about. The stakes are high, John, since the 'findings' of that scientific testing means that they provide an existential threat to both mining and agricultural activity in the state of Queensland and, inter alia, other states of Australia.

There's no question that our advanced standard of living in the developed world has had and is having an impact upon the environment. The question of a solution isn't simply one of banning a mine or removing a cane field (the sugar industry is worth 4 billion dollars to the Australian economy). Without those mines and those industries we will not have the money to pay welfare, hospitals, schools, defense, research and so on. That's my take; the stakes are SO HIGH that they'd absolutely better get it right and if somebody wants to contest the scientific methodology, rather than being sacked, we all need to hear about it. Names and addresses!!

Since I don't know the first thing about science I'm prepared to leave it there.

PS: Len, I didn't comment about your picture of the solar panels. There are a growing number of Australian homes which have these on their rooftops, going as far back as 15 years or so. Sadly, their are many cowboys in the field installing sub-standard panels which don't last. People don't realize these panels require routine CLEANING and maintenance and these are ongoing costs. It's a great idea to use the power of the sun whenever we can, but I'm concerned about the quality of these solar panels. Recently we bought an investment home in Perth and almost half the homes we inspected had these panels installed. Having them would certainly represent a reduction in power costs and it made those houses an attractive proposition. In fact, I wondered if people expected them now when buying a home. But we ended up buying one which didn't have these because other features outweighed that consideration. Anyway, it's something that can be done later when the dust settles on which brand/system is good and which is bad. Our neighbour here has them and he was actually selling electricity back to the grid until the state government stopped that (subsidized) practice.

[Rach3]

At the UN today :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAJsdgTPJpU ( 5 minutes )

[John F]

As I said, " whatever measures we may take (including doing nothing) will have economic and social consequences, likely to be painful." I should think no more painful than rising sea level drowning the coasts and whole islands; droughts turning croplands barren; and the other consequences of global warming. These may well happen no matter what we do, but if we do nothing it's likely to be worse.

[Belle]

As I said, the study at a university in New Zealand found no sea-level rise in Pacific Islands.

And this development is being built as we speak - right on the shores of Sydney Harbour. Somebody obviously knows something we don't!!! I subscribe to the "show me, don't tell me" school of thought.

https://www.buildsydney.com/crown-casin ... l-6-stars/

[Rach3]

And this development is being built as we speak - right on the shores of Sydney Harbour. Somebody obviously knows something we don't!!!

We should put our faith in developers' profit plans ??!! I'm with PT Barnum.
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/sea- ... a-11232702

[Belle]

And this development is being built as we speak - right on the shores of Sydney Harbour. Somebody obviously knows something we don't!!!

We should put our faith in developers' profit plans ??!! I'm with PT Barnum.
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/sea- ... a-11232702

I couldn't read your link; it wouldn't let me. I'm not saying I have 'faith' in developers. Not all all. (With Sydney's dodgy building practices they don't deserve the credibility.) What I'm asking is why would a developer risk hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars on a project destined to be short-term because of rising sea levels? And why did Sydney City Council and state planning authorities approve it knowing all of that? I think we deserve an answer. Perhaps the sea is going to rise in North America and not in the southern hemisphere. Crown Casinos obviously think so!! At the moment the planning authorities are turning down development applications for coal mining on the basis of climate change; ergo, they should have done the same to Crown if they were fair dinkum.

Crown are putting their (considerable) money where their mouths are.

[Rach3]

I couldn't read your link; it wouldn't let me...Crown are putting their (considerable) money where their mouths are.

Sorry about the link ; here is the core ( my PT Barnum reference ),relevant perhaps to the Crown people as well:

“Yet despite growing awareness of climate change and the risk of sea-level rise, development has continued at a breakneck pace in risk zones such as South Miami and Miami Beach.Cheryl Young, a senior economist for Zillow, tells New Times this development is driven by people's high demand for waterfront property, despite the known risks of flooding.’People minimize their understanding of things like floods," Young says. ‘People still think, 'I know I'm in a flood zone but what are the chances?' “

Fww, the Sept.23,2019 “double issue “ of Time Magazine (US) is entirely devoted to climate, with a section at pp.94-97 on Australia and Oceania, including the 2019 record-breaking drought in Australia.Pity,I could not find a copy of those pages, maybe a Time subscriber here can.

Another citing an Australian study :

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ate-change

An ABC story today :

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-24/ ... p/11543940

[John F]

As I said, the study at a university in New Zealand found no sea-level rise in Pacific Islands.

Perhaps the rate of sea level rise varies locally, but overall I would expect it to even out.


February 13, 2018
By Katie Weeman, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences,
and Patrick Lynch, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center

The rate of global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.

This acceleration, driven mainly by increased melting in Greenland and Antarctica, has the potential to double the total sea level rise projected by 2100 when compared to projections that assume a constant rate of sea level rise, according to lead author Steve Nerem. Nerem is a professor of Aerospace Engineering Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder, a fellow at Colorado's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), and a member of NASA's Sea Level Change team.

Global sea level rise is accelerating incrementally over time rather than increasing at a steady rate, as previously thought, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data. Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center/Kathryn Mersmann. Download more visualizations at NASA's Scientific Visualization Studio.

Global sea level rise is accelerating incrementally over time rather than increasing at a steady rate, as previously thought, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data. If the rate of ocean rise continues to change at this pace, sea level will rise 26 inches (65 centimeters) by 2100 — enough to cause significant problems for coastal cities, according to the new assessment by Nerem and colleagues from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland; CU Boulder; the University of South Florida in Tampa; and Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. The team, driven to understand and better predict Earth's response to a warming world, published their work Feb. 12 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"This is almost certainly a conservative estimate," Nerem said. "Our extrapolation assumes that sea level continues to change in the future as it has over the last 25 years. Given the large changes we are seeing in the ice sheets today, that's not likely."

Rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere increase the temperature of air and water, which causes sea level to rise in two ways. First, warmer water expands, and this "thermal expansion" of the ocean has contributed about half of the 2.8 inches (7 centimeters) of global mean sea level rise we've seen over the last 25 years, Nerem said. Second, melting land ice flows into the ocean, also increasing sea level across the globe.

These increases were measured using satellite altimeter measurements since 1992, including the Topex/Poseidon, Jason-1, Jason-2 and Jason-3 satellite missions, which have been jointly managed by multiple agencies, including NASA, Centre national d'etudes spatiales (CNES), European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, manages the U.S. portion of these missions for NASA's Science Mission Directorate. The rate of sea level rise in the satellite era has risen from about 0.1 inch (2.5 millimeters) per year in the 1990s to about 0.13 inches (3.4 millimeters) per year today.

"The Topex/Poseidon/Jason altimetry missions have been essentially providing the equivalent of a global network of nearly half a million accurate tide gauges, providing sea surface height information every 10 days for over 25 years," said Brian Beckley, of NASA Goddard, second author on the new paper and lead of a team that processes altimetry observations into a global sea level data record. "As this climate data record approaches three decades, the fingerprints of Greenland and Antarctic land-based ice loss are now being revealed in the global and regional mean sea level estimates."

Even with a 25-year data record, detecting acceleration is challenging. Episodes like volcanic eruptions can create variability: the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 decreased global mean sea level just before the Topex/Poseidon satellite launch, for example. In addition, global sea level can fluctuate due to climate patterns such as El Ninos and La Ninos (the opposing phases of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation), which influence ocean temperature and global precipitation patterns. Nerem and his team used climate models to account for the volcanic effects and other datasets to determine the El Nino/La Nina effects, ultimately uncovering the underlying rate and acceleration of sea level rise over the last quarter century.

The team also used tide gauge data to assess potential errors in the altimeter estimate. "The tide gauge measurements are essential for determining the uncertainty in the global mean sea level acceleration estimate," said co-author Gary Mitchum, University of South Florida College of Marine Science. "They provide the only assessments of the satellite instruments from the ground." Others have used tide gauge data to measure sea level acceleration, but scientists have struggled to pull out other important details from tide-gauge data, such as changes in the last couple of decades due to more active ice sheet melt.

In addition to NASA's involvement in missions that make direct sea level observations from space, the agency's Earth science work includes a wide-ranging portfolio of missions, field campaigns and research that contribute to improved understanding of how global sea level is changing. Airborne campaigns such as Operation IceBridge and JPL's Oceans Melting Greenland gather measurements of ice sheets and glaciers, while computer modeling research improves our understanding of how Antarctica and Greenland will respond in a warming climate...

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new- ... elerating/

[Belle]

Developers are still going ahead spending mega millions on waterside projects. And these are being passed by the relevant authorities. At the same time gas and coal developments are increasingly prohibited in this country - the source of our energy. There's hypocrisy here. Councils and authorities should reject outright those development applications if they feel the areas are untenable, but they do not. Coal and gas OUT, high rise on the edge of the water IN. They cannot have it both ways: somebody is trying to kid somebody else (but me). These developments are a visual representation of ambiguity and hypocrisy: let somebody else's jurisdiction cop the flak for vetoing development - but not on my patch, thank you.

I don't buy into hysteria, so I don't read "The Guardian" or watch the ABC. Hysteria terrifies me because it leads people to make bad choices. The German people, as one example. Remember those frenzied addresses, those calls to arms, that hysteria? And then there was the Hitler Youth; children recruited to promulgate propaganda in the ultimate cradle-to-grave 'marketing' campaign.

We can all PERSONALLY do more about the environment; my husband and I have long believed that from the days of our farming when we planted 2,500 trees and shrubs right up to today and the 1,000 trees we've planted on our acre here (and which cost us a fortune in water). We run minimal energy during winter and always run our washing machine and dishwasher in the 'low' period after 10pm and before 7am. We have a 'smart meter' on our power box, which many homes do not have, and which levies your account based upon the hour of usage. We have one car (many retirees still maintain two!!) and use public transport (rail) whenever we can. For the longest time I've looked at human behaviour and said to myself "this is unsustainable". That's how I feel. And yet these same people will put hand on heart and declare they 'believe in climate change' (whatever that means). No, put your actions where your beliefs are and use FAR less energy. Case in point: people over the road. House the size of a primary school, underfloor heating, gas for heating and a separate bank of air-conditioning, four kids (all with cars) and one car each for mum and dad, a huge swimming pool (a big drain on energy and WATER) plus a well-equipped gymnasium in a separate building on the property!! You can look across any night and see lights burning right until the morning; large, cavernous rooms which require heating, cooling and lighting. He owns a couple of pharmacies and she regularly travels to Canada to ski. I say again, this is unsustainable. People cannot continue to live like emperors in Australia and think they can get away with it. Project (book) homes are being built without any consideration as to the placement of windows, house aspect, ventilation - which would all reduce energy costs by a significant factor. We are considering building again next year and will put in double-glazed, tinted windows and thermo-acoustic insulation in all exterior and interior walls as well as blanket insulation under roof, with more sitting on ceiling. We are undecided yet about solar panels, but the move to a much smaller parcel of land will cause us to use far less water. Our Prime Minister needs to develop the chops to say to the Australian people, "you can do much to protect the environment; this is everybody's responsibility". I suspect this is the case in most developed nations, but I cannot speak for them - only what I know.

My late father said before he died, "the rest of the world is not going to continue to subsidize the Australian standard of living". If all this sounds evangelical put it down to the zeitgeist.

Sure, look to government but there is so much individual households can do, the world over. Then there's the issue of over-population....

The sea level rise in the south Pacific has been monitored by Auckland University in New Zealand. Clearing of mangrove swaps (which holds topsoil in place) is a major villain with any loss of land. Satellite pictures are available now which show that the land isn't disappearing; quite the contrary. There's a big tourism trade in many of those island nations and they've tidied them up for 'tourist consumption'!! And many of these same nations are building tourist havens right on the water's edge. Let their actions tell the story!!

Meanwhile, if the Barrangaroo Casino Development (which I included in my original post) falls into the sea the owners will say to themselves "we earned money for a while; now we can use the capital right-offs from this to offset income from our next venture and avoid paying income tax for the next decade"!!!! That's how it works; they can kick the losses can down the road for quite a while.

[Belle]

This is really en pointe. The people didn't even behave like this when Europe was aflame from 1939 to 1945!!

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/09/24/save-greta/

My sister, a retired Clinical Psychologist, has described the activist Thunberg to me this morning, thus:

"..she has a range of psychological and other health problems - spectrum, clinical depression, and she looks underdeveloped for age 16 years."

[jserraglio]

"..she has a range of psychological and other health problems - spectrum, clinical depression, and she looks underdeveloped for age 16 years."

In my view, Thunberg should not be diagnosed at a distance or condescended to. If she is wrong, as she may very well be, she should be shown to be wrong on the merits and not because of her health problems.

[Belle]

"..she has a range of psychological and other health problems - spectrum, clinical depression, and she looks underdeveloped for age 16 years."

In my view, this person should not be analyzed from a distance or condescended to. If she is wrong, as she may very well be, she should be shown to be wrong on the merits and not because of her health problems.

The health problems are the reason she needs to be given tender loving care instead of exploitation and put in the full glare of international scrutiny. There must be a better way to make an argument than using a disabled child. A pox on their houses.

[jserraglio]

I disagree. Child or not, disabled or not, she has, in my opinion, the right to be heard, to be taken seriously, and to use whatever means are at her disposal, including emotional appeals, to make her case without having personal comments leveled at her and without being condescended to by being diagnosed from a distance.

[Belle]

I disagree. Child or not, disabled or not, she has, in my opinion, the right to be heard, to be taken seriously, and to use whatever means are at her disposal, including emotional appeals, to make her case without having personal comments leveled at her and without being condescended to by diagnosis at a distance.

I did not diagnose the autism spectrum disorder; that is in the public domain. And you can see for yourself she inhabits the body of a 12year old. That isn't rocket science. If you choose such a guru then that's your business; I'm speaking as a mother and the last thing I'd do is subject my child to that.

[jserraglio]

Of course it's in the PD. But to make a point if it and use it on her is, I think, irrelevant to the validity or invalidity of what she purports to say. She may indeed inhabit the body of a 12-year-old, she may even suffer from mental infirmities and still be able to make a compelling case for taking action on the issue she is concerned about. If she can do that, all the more power to her.

On the ground of what one's own mother should or should not allow her own daughter to do, I would venture only reluctantly.

[Belle]

Oh, I don't know; I think society has some universally agreed notions about child protection and these would include the avoidance of exploitation and protection of the child from any kind of bullying, maligning and gossip - particularly of global proportions. I understand the mother is a noisy activist, so this explains a lot. Poor Greta; I expect we'll be hearing more of her troubles in the coming years.

[jserraglio]

Whatever "universally agreed notions about child protection" actually exist (and I bet they are largely chimerical), should not be employed to quash a young person's right to have her voice heard and taken seriously.

The more her diminutive presence is likened to that of a 12-year-old, the more her moral stature increases.

Furthermore, whether Thunberg has "troubles" or not, her mother maligned as "noisy" (unforgivable trait in a woman?) or denigrated as an "activist" or what not, young Thunberg's assertions cannot be undone by condescending expressions of pity ("Poor Greta") from adults.

Same goes for the kids from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who in effect called out Florida's gun-toting adults with a rousing "UP YOURS!"

O tempora! O mores! Little wonder that the younger generation's respect for the towering wisdom of their elders has gone up in smoke.

[barney]

O tempora! O mores! Little wonder that the younger generation's respect for the towering wisdom of their elders has gone up in smoke.

Which generation had this towering respect? I was never aware of it, as a younger or elder!

But, like you, I am amazed at the torrent of criticism Greta has received. She seems to me a victim of the culture wars - she's got a leftist cause (though it shouldn't belong to either side) so the right pile on. And the left are certainly no better. I have to admit Greta has caused disagreement in my house, where my wife is inclined to agree with Sue and I with jserraglio.

Here's an interesting opinion piece from the Sydney Morning Herald a day or two ago, by Julia Baird:

This fortnight, one powerful bloke insulted the religion of more than two billion people on the planet, effectively calling the Virgin Mary a lying slut. And one small teenager sat in front of a crowd in New York, wrought with grief and anger, and called for immediate, expansive action on climate change to protect the earth for her, and future, generations.

So guess which one was mercilessly trolled, denigrated and abused by our most prominent commentators? Yes, the teenager, Greta Thunberg. Meanwhile, when it came to lewd broadcaster Kyle Sandilands … crickets. So much so that you may not have even heard about what he said on air.

“I thought Mary was his girlfriend but apparently it was the mother," he said, seemingly confusing Mary Magdalene with Mary, the mother of God. “And the mother lied obviously and told everyone, 'Nah I got pregnant by a magical ghost'. bull crap.”

More likely, he said, “someone chock-a-blocked her behind the camel shed." The definition of chock-a-block, by the way, appears to be “crammed full of people or things”. He continued: "You might believe everything that was written down 2000 years ago to be absolutely accurate. Good on you, you’re dumb. Dumb as dog excrement.”

Right then. Can you imagine if Thunberg had said this? Or, say, a young Muslim woman? An ABC journalist? An Indigenous footballer? Hordes would be demanding heads on plates. Sandilands now says it was a joke: “I never meant to hurt anyone.”

There has been some backlash, but it’s been lightly reported on. Objections to Sandilands have not been driven by media megaphones, or furious commentators, but by people of faith. Crowds of Christians and Muslims have been protesting outside Sandilands' home and sending complaints to the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

Yet, curiously, we have not heard a peep from those who posit themselves as the most public, prominent defenders of Christianity: like Andrew Bolt, Lyle Shelton and Mark Latham, who recently told the NSW Parliament in his maiden speech that “four of the most glorious words of our civilisation” were “I am a Christian”.

Nothing to say about the fact that one of Australia’s most prominent radio hosts called Mother Mary a mendacious hussy and opined that Christians possess the IQs of canine faeces. Zip. Instead, the week was dominated by mass bullying of an earnest schoolgirl. To remind you, in a speech that will be long remembered, in which her determined, serious face twisted with pain, Thunberg accused world leaders of stealing her "dreams and childhood" with their empty words.

“People are suffering,” she said. “People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money, and fairytales of eternal economic growth. How dare you?”

In response, Thunberg was called mentally ill and miserable and accused of being manipulated by older activists for sinister ends. Former AFL player Sam Newman called her a “excrement”. “This annoying little brat addressed the UN on the so-called climate crisis. Who lets this excrement have a platform?”

Bolt, who has previously mocked her Aspergers diagnosis, calling her “deeply disturbed” and “strange”, again labelled her “an extremely anxious girl”. Lyle Shelton dismissed her as “hysterical”.

Even former Today Show host Karl Stefanovic hit his new radio show to call her “fired up”, declared she was being managed and making kids “very distressed” about the climate.

The President of the United States also mocked her, tweeting: “She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!” Yeah, smile more Greta!

In the US, a conservative, Michael Knowles, called her a “mentally ill Swedish child” on Fox News, Breitbart’s John Nolte said she needed a “spanking” and has dubbed her followers “Gretards”.

Women like Ann Coulter have attacked her too, but Thunberg mostly provokes an intense, irrational reaction in some blokes. As The Irish Times put it, “Why is Greta Thunberg so triggering for certain men?”

It was so weird that satirist Mark Humphries produced a skit for ABC TV’s 730 featuring the Greta Thunberg helpline “for adults angry at a child”. It begins with a man talking to the camera: “Hi. I’m a middle-aged man with an embarrassing problem. I get irrationally angry at a Swedish girl who wants to save the planet. Luckily there’s now a number I can call.”

But back to Sandilands. I am not calling for him to be sacked. But his lame and gross comments provide the perfect illustration of how destructive, irrational and inconsistent the selective outrage of cultural warriors can be.

This week it was the right, but the left is capable of it too. Greta wanted to save the planet. Kyle wanted to mock people of faith. No one is flawless, so the choice is ours: who we shame, who we hound, who we forgive and who we slyly wink to.

[Belle]

Whatever "universally agreed notions about child protection" actually exist (and I bet they are largely chimerical), should not be employed to quash a young person's right to have her voice heard and taken seriously.

The more her diminutive presence is likened to that of a 12-year-old, the more her moral stature increases.

Furthermore, whether Thunberg has "troubles" or not, her mother maligned as "noisy" (unforgivable trait in a woman?) or denigrated as an "activist" or what not, young Thunberg's assertions cannot be undone by condescending expressions of pity ("Poor Greta") from adults.

Same goes for the kids from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who in effect called out Florida's gun-toting adults with a rousing "UP YOURS!"

O tempora! O mores! Little wonder that the younger generation's respect for the towering wisdom of their elders has gone up in smoke.

I think you'll find it's the UN itself which is patronizing Greta Thunberg for the most cynical reasons imaginable. Pulling at the heartstrings and emotional manipulation of the worst kind. And the younger generation's 'respect for the towering wisdom of their elders"? Would this be the same generation which has more freedom, rights and a greater standard of living and health than at any other time in human history? More education, gizmos, consumer goods and access to everything? The generation of a long history of democracy and freedoms. Too bad if that isn't good enough for them, I say.

Barney, I've formulated opinions on my own. I think as the mother of 4 (actually additionally raised my husband's daughter too in that mix) and know that I couldn't subject any child (particularly a handicapped one) to that amount of international scrutiny. Sorry Barney; the Left has just gone too far on this one. I draw the line at children. Is there no articulate younger adult who could have fulfilled this role? One with life experience, wisdom and intelligence.

Julia Baird; she lost my vote entirely when she criticized the inquiry into Family Law on "The Drum", suggesting that women don't lie and that another inquiry wasn't needed because men are the drivers of all the world's misery. I have a far different story to tell about vicious females and half a dozen friends and relatives with the same story. I'm afraid this inquiry is going to shock feminists because of the mountains of evidence which will come up about systematic bias against men in the Family Court. Last week I watched "Kramer versus Kramer" again and I note that in 1979 men were getting the same access to their children as they do now. One weekend every fortnight and a night in between. 'Ergo, men's rights have gone backward, not forward. This is a fight many of us are ready to have.

I want a firm answer to the same question as that posed by the Dustin Hoffman character in the 1979 film, "what gives women the right to think they're better parents than men merely because of their gender"?

[jserraglio]

I think you'll find it's the UN itself which is patronizing Greta Thunberg for the most cynical reasons imaginable. Pulling at the heartstrings and emotional manipulation of the worst kind.

Actually, I find that to be both untrue of and unfair to the UN (cf. the UN's Melissa Fleming's inspiring book about a terrorized Syrian teenage girl which, as a call to action, represents pulling at the heartstrings and emotional manipulation of the best kind). Nor (since we seem to be in full-throated homiletic mode this Sunday morning) should the UN's motives be impugned by being labeled as assuredly "cynical".

[Belle]

I think you'll find it's the UN itself which is patronizing Greta Thunberg for the most cynical reasons imaginable. Pulling at the heartstrings and emotional manipulation of the worst kind.

Actually, I find that to be both untrue of and unfair to the UN (cf. the UN's Melissa Fleming's inspiring book about a terrorized Syrian teenage girl which, as a call to action, represents pulling at the heartstrings and emotional manipulation of the best kind). Nor (since we seem to be in full-throated homiletic mode this Sunday morning) should the UN's motives be impugned by being labeled as assuredly "cynical".

A huge number of us are wary and cynical about a vast, supranational and unelected authority which behaves in such a dictatorial way to individual nations. And one which puts Saudi Arabia on the commitee for womens' rights!!!

One thing is for sure; I don't want to continue this discussion until it becomes acrimonious. I'm a firm believer that you can like and respect decent people who have very different political opinions from your own.

[barney]

One thing is for sure; I don't want to continue this discussion until it becomes acrimonious. I'm a firm believer that you can like and respect decent people who have very different political opinions from your own.

I entirely agree in theory. I just find in practice that those who have very different political opinions are not decent people!

[barney]

I think you'll find it's the UN itself which is patronizing Greta Thunberg for the most cynical reasons imaginable. Pulling at the heartstrings and emotional manipulation of the worst kind.

Actually, I find that to be both untrue of and unfair to the UN (cf. the UN's Melissa Fleming's inspiring book about a terrorized Syrian teenage girl which, as a call to action, represents pulling at the heartstrings and emotional manipulation of the best kind). Nor (since we seem to be in full-throated homiletic mode this Sunday morning) should the UN's motives be impugned by being labeled as assuredly "cynical".

A huge number of us are wary and cynical about a vast, supranational and unelected authority which behaves in such a dictatorial way to individual nations. And one which puts Saudi Arabia on the commitee for womens' rights!!!

One thing is for sure; I don't want to continue this discussion until it becomes acrimonious. I'm a firm believer that you can like and respect decent people who have very different political opinions from your own.

Definitely on your side here, Sue. There is no problem but that the UN makes it worse. Filled with hypocrisy, especially on human rights. Apparently there is only one abuser in the world, according to the UN: Israel. China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey etc - no problem. The only thing worse than the ultra-corrupt UN would be no UN. Don't know where we go from here.

[Belle]

One thing is for sure; I don't want to continue this discussion until it becomes acrimonious. I'm a firm believer that you can like and respect decent people who have very different political opinions from your own.

I entirely agree in theory. I just find in practice that those who have very different political opinions are not decent people!

Next thing you'll be telling me; you'd never want to belong to any club that would have somebody like you as a member!!

BTW, your comment about Rockpool Restaurant; I'm pretty sure Neil Perry has sold it. But then there's this! If anything is calculated to make my blood boil it is worker exploitation:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-14/ ... y/10374894

Two decades ago my daughter did casual work at Video Ezy (remember videos?). She was underpaid because she had to attend weekend 'team' meetings (some lasting all day) without pay. I marched into that shop and gave the owner/manager a serve saying that "my daughter is not subsidizing your business with her free time". He soon enough got the message and never asked her to do anything for nothing again. And she wasn't sacked either!! We operated a huge agricultural enterprise at the time and we paid low-wage workers. My husband and I agreed that the potential for exploitation and abuse was huge; that these people were exposed and vulnerable. And they were all decent, willing workers who just couldn't find full time employment. My husband still sometimes talks fondly about "Jarrod" and his brother.

[jserraglio]

One can legitimately criticize the UN for a lot of "stuff", several particulars having been listed above.

But I object to folks calling into question the motives of the UN in the Greta matter. I am disputing the notion that the UN's reasons were "cynical", as was clearly stated here.

What evidence is there that the reasons behind its actions were any more sinister than simply misguided?

[Belle]

Oh, so you want to continue with this?

The UN is calling for international income redistribution; vast amounts from the first world to the developing world. And they are/were demanding extortionate amounts from Australia for their 'climate emergency' when we 'contribute' 1.3% of the world's carbon emissions. And they've recruited a child - and an extremely vulnerable one - to do the work of an adult. 1992:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJJGuIZVfLM

And thank goodness we have a Prime Minister who isn't having a bar of the UN's demands and who knows what a great many of us do - that there are too many corrupt despots in the developing (third) world who personally gobble up aid and just about every other money that is sent their way.

[jserraglio]

Whatever the UN does is fair game for criticism, although I suspect they believe that it is for the greater good and that they are acting out of beneficence. But UN officials can be criticized severely without being demonized by having their "reasons" characterized as "cynical", as they have been here.

And they do some good things in my view, E.G., the UNHCR's advocacy for refugees. Case in point: the Syrian girl Doaa al Zamel, only 16 when she fled Syria with her family and later the most broken and vulnerable young person imaginable, nonetheless decided to tell her story and allow herself to be used in the UNHCR's campaign on behalf of refugees. Teens, even when hurting, can act effectively as independent moral agents, regardless of the opinion to the contrary expressed here.

[Belle]

We'll have to agree to disagree. A great many Australians, myself included, see the UN as a body of autocratic oligarchs, unelected and in the coziest sinecure the world has ever known. Far removed from the lives of ordinary people, save the odd token gesture. And I mean 'odd', because it's almost always accompanied by a tongue-lashing for nations that don't do what it wants. Oh, except Saudi Arabia - which is now on the 'womens' rights' committee. You couldn't make this stuff up!!! Where are Gilbert and Sullivan when you need them?

The UN does do very good peace-keeping work; but let us not confuse the people on the ground, in dangerous and hostile territory, with the bureaucrats in that New York high-rise.

[jserraglio]

I can think of nothing worse than internationalism — except nationalism.

Speaking of Manhattan high-rises, while living in one I held down three jobs — I regarded New Yorkers, including those working at the UN just down the street from me, as among the hardest workers on the planet and was proud to toil daily in this Earthly Paradise.

Dubious generalizations about its Manhattan bureaucrats notwithstanding, the UN does a lot of good work. All told, we are better off with it than without it.

[barney]

I think you are both right. The UN's agencies do some great work, although other aid agencies generally criticise them (I have heard) for various things, including living too well in developing countries or in emergency situations.
And even with the posturing which so irritates many people, often including me, the UN serves as a safety valve. Without that, violence might flare more often.
And even despots seem to want to appear legitimate in terms of the UN, so it can sometimes act as a check on bad behaviour.
It could be a heck of a lot better, but we are still much better off with it than without - as I acknowledged in my original, highly critical remark.

[Belle]

My own thinking is pretty much in accord with this!

PM’s powerful rhetoric has global ramifications
GREG SHERIDAN

Prime Minister Scott Morrison delivers the 2019 Lowy Institute Lecture at the Sydney Town Hall.

6:43AM OCTOBER 4, 2019
In a striking departure from orthodox Australian rhetoric, Scott Morrison has defined the type of globalisation he does not like.

The Prime Minister remains an advocate of free trade, low tariff barriers, a rules-based international order and all the rest, but in a powerful address to the Lowy Institute he has set out his conviction that effective international action on big global issues comes from nation states co-operating freely.

As he puts it, “individual, like-minded sovereign nations acting together with enlightened self-interest”.

As opposed to this, he rejects the arrogance of a “new variant of globalism that seeks to elevate global institutions above the authority of nation states to direct national policies”.

This kind of globalism, Morrison rightly argues, leads to “elite opinion and attitudes” that “become disconnected from the mainstream” in their societies.

This in turn produces an alienating era of “insiders and outsiders”.

This is powerful and novel rhetoric from the Prime Minister.

It would be absurd to equate Morrison with US President Donald Trump, but these ideas have some resonance with Trump’s recent speech to the UN and with the proud but moderate nationalism that Boris Johnson is championing in Britain.

It is worth remembering Trump won the US election and Johnson is more than 10 per cent ahead of the Labour opposition in Britain.

Morrison is not championing a heedless beggar-thy-neighbour nationalism. Rather, with admirable realism, he is sketching the only kind of international co-operation that ever really works, that of strong nations pursuing enlightened self-interest and co-operating on shared projects arising from shared interests and shared values. If Morrison had been making this speech in Britain, it would sound like a pro-Brexit speech.

In Australia’s context, the criticism he makes is more directed at the plethora of UN agencies, most of which have no public profile in Australia, which criticise Canberra policy on secure borders, refugee flows, climate change, aid budgets and the many weird contortions and inversions of human rights that UN agencies and their dependent NGOs promote.

The UN agencies take special delight in criticising nations such as Australia while avoiding criticism of the nations that routinely commit crimes against humanity.

Morrison will be criticised for this speech by those who will see it as embracing the road of populism. The Economist magazine, representing much elite, but not popular, European opinion has ­already labelled the Morrison government populist because of its support for the Adani coalmine in Queensland.

Morrison has effectively armed himself against such criticism by channelling the Liberal Party’s modern hero, John Howard, to the effect we will determine this nation’s interests and how they are pursued.

This important speech contains other serious matters.

Morrison again rightly rejects the binary that suggests Australia must in most if not all things choose between the US and China. He deftly summarises our relations with both.

He also draws attention to an important development in recent days that went mostly unnoticed, the elevation of the Quadrilateral Dialogue to ministerial level, which took place on the sidelines of the UN.

Morrison also announced he would visit India in January. If he can take the India relationship to its potential, he will have made a massive contribution to our economic, strategic and cultural future.

[jserraglio]

Yes, nationalism without any really effective checks on the power of the nation-state has worked about as well as might be expected in the past, resulting in just two world-wide conflicts in the last century and a perpetual state of only intermittent warfare since. No reason then not to cling to it like a baby's lovie.

[Belle]

Australia is the least nationalistic nation on the planet and likely to continue to be. We cannot form our political stances from *paranoia but from what has worked so well for us in the past; a strong-minded, reasonably free (when we're not being de-platformed), open and fair society. We are patriotic and independently-minded people. But we dislike intensely being told what to do by others, especially when they want to make a cash grab and then hand it over to some tinpot dictator in the third world. Ain't goooona happen.

And if you think problem-solving is occurring when UN unelected bureaucrats tell us we have to take the world's displaced people and like it - that has more potential for conflict than just about any other single thing in the modern world. Australians are generous and they'll continue their generosity if they have faith in the integrity of our immigration system and that it's working in our interests and not in those of somebody else. And they don't like criminal syndicates dictating our immigration policy.

(*We have had no civil war.)

[jserraglio]

If you wish to take offense at remarks I made about nationalism, not to be confused with patriotism, then so be it.

[Belle]

If you wish to take offense at remarks I made about nationalism, not to be confused with patriotism, then so be it.

They were just silly. I am not one to put my absolute faith in big government and supranational powers. This will never stop wars and conflict, and you can take that to the bank!!

[jserraglio]

you can take that to the bank!!

In the end, it all comes down to who's got da CASH, dont it?

[Belle]

you can take that to the bank!!

In the end, it all comes down to who's got da CASH, dont it?

And also who wants to grab that cash from those who have it!!

Brexit is about the resistance to big, unelected, unaccountable government (EU) and globalist thinking by half the people of the UK. The political class has lost touch with the people, particularly the working class - which has endured the most out of their governments' neglect. The Left became rich and they forgot their own people. We're trying to turn that around in Australia and, ironically, it's the conservative forces which now represent the ordinary people!! And good and decent people they are too, with families and mortgages and kids at school. They don't care about non-gendered toilets, safe spaces, trigger warnings, #metoo, glass ceilings, affirmative action - the whole culture wars catastrophe. And I'll give you a heads-up; it's for precisely this reason and because of those groups doing the advocating that they're skeptical about climate change!! It's the messengers which are the problem, not the problem itself. And they know they have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Whenever I go to the shops I make a point of speaking to the check-out 'chicks', the men who bring in the trolleys and staff who stack the shelves and who work behind the counter. They're the 'forgotten people' and they have families, loved ones and lives just as important as the so-called 'elites'. They're not deplorable people who are stupid, uneducated and ignorant; they have opinions and they're entitled to these.

[jserraglio]

Both the UK and the USA have experienced not just Civil War but violent Revolution. And arguably have emerged better for them.