Jump to content

Australian Current Affairs Thread (not a Politics Thread) lol

wendybr

By wendybr
in Off Topic Forum

Recommended Posts

Unlimited

Unlimited

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, lloydy136 said:

I'm not sure if this is just me getting old but it seems that NOTHING is a sackable/resignable offense these days for politicians. even when blatantly caught like this ****wit, they just ride out the short term news cycle and pretend like it never happened.

I know for sure that if I did what this clown did in my job I'd be at centrelink 9am the next day.

Remember when we lost a Premier due to a wine bottle?

Seems so long ago 

Link to comment
lloydy136

lloydy136

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Unlimited said:

Remember when we lost a Premier due to a wine bottle?

Seems so long ago 

exactly.

Cash & the AFP raids

Taylor & his dodgy documents

Parakeelia

Dutton's au pairs

Liu's China connections

Dodgy Chinese language voting info

Barnaby east australia water scandal

Barnaby's gwabegar farm land

Barnaby getting his unqualified side-girl a taxpayer funded gig

Branaby spitting on the ashes of those deceased in a fire

Just barnaby generally really

These are just off the top of my head - all probably would be resignations in times gone by. now we are so jaded by it we just shrug, a couple of people on twitter blow up and everyone just moves on. the standard we walk past etc tetc

Link to comment
StringerBellend

StringerBellend

Posted
Posted

Conference on adapting to climate change not allowed to talk about climate change and bushfires

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/13/nsw-public-servants-at-climate-conference-told-not-to-discuss-link-with-bushfires

Link to comment
lloydy136

lloydy136

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Legionista said:

The shock doctrine. 

Under the cover of bushfires the climate change evangelists tried to advance the football. 
 

The results have been embarrassing. 

The argument about climate change has actually worked the other way imo. It has provided a convenient smoke screen for the brazen dereliction of duty our elected leaders have displayed in slashing budgets and refusing to meet with experts. The cost has been lives and homes - resignations should follow but won't because the debate has been side-tracked into 'greenies vs loco-nationals'.

Link to comment
Cynth

Cynth

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Legionista said:

The shock doctrine. 

Under the cover of bushfires the climate change evangelists tried to advance the football. 
 

The results have been embarrassing. 

“Under the cover of bushfires”???

Soooooo.......when the predictions of climate change models become a reality....then the climate change “evangelists” are using the event as cover? That’s the dumbest argument I ever heard. Basically you are saying if they point to evidence it’s a conspiracy. :rofl:

Your losing your touch Legia. 

Link to comment
Cynth

Cynth

Posted
Posted
On 12/11/2019 at 7:26 PM, StringerBellend said:

Long as young people don't listen to your mate on twitter then?

Or your other mate

 

Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate change. Peterson has said he is “very skeptical of the models that are used to predict climate change”, He has also said, “You can’t trust the data because too much ideology is involved”.  In a 2018 Cambridge Union address, Peterson said that climate change will not unite anyone, that focusing on climate change is “low-resolution thinking”, and there are other more important issues in the world.

 

 

Can I just say that I had no idea JP was this far gone. As a psychologist and a scientist-practitioner, he should have more respect for the science, for scientists, for the scientific method. 
 

Low resolution thinking”? Lol. But getting men to “clean their room” is high resolution? See ya JP, your move away from psychology is complete. 

Link to comment
StringerBellend

StringerBellend

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Cynth said:

Can I just say that I had no idea JP was this far gone. As a psychologist and a scientist-practitioner, he should have more respect for the science, for scientists, for the scientific method. 
 

Low resolution thinking”? Lol. But getting men to “clean their room” is high resolution? See ya JP, your move away from psychology is complete. 

He’s a proper RWNJ not as unhinged as Rubin but given he claims to be evidence based, he is just bad, he gives the bellends an air of credibility 

I had no idea until Wendy (and my slightly obsessive nature) took me down this spiral of reading his tweets and watching some of his bullshit, who Rubin was. I advise against following the same path though. It’s totally depressing and frustrating and only seems to get worse. No wonder we are screwed. They are basically a more sophisticated Andrew Bolt

Im not going to research Peterson anymore for my own sanity sake but I’ve done enough to confirm (ok yes confirmation bias) that he’s a total nob.

A short cut is to look at who he stands with and for.

 

Edited by StringerBellend
Link to comment
wendybr

wendybr

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 12/11/2019 at 7:26 PM, StringerBellend said:

Long as young people don't listen to your mate on twitter then?

Or your other mate

 

Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate change. Peterson has said he is “very skeptical of the models that are used to predict climate change”, He has also said, “You can’t trust the data because too much ideology is involved”.  

In a 2018 Cambridge Union address, Peterson said that climate change will not unite anyone, that focusing on climate change is “low-resolution thinking”, and there are other more important issues in the world.

 

I did decide some time ago not to respond to your taunts about either of these guys - neither of whom I have listened to or watched since well before whatever I first posted that encouraged you to become obsessive about them. lol.

Re the 2018 Cambridge Union address of 12 months ago...which I have seen some time in the past...

I'm not entirely  sure that a Wikipedia entry sums up what JP  was on about.

There ARE things in that clip that I would totally take exception to, in what he says  about the status of CC as a global threat. Absolutely I disagree!

But he was actually answering a question about whether humanity is likely to rally around,  in response to the ravages of climate change, and unite to find solutions.

"PFFFFFFT!" would actually be my reaction to that same question... on the basis of the global "rallying/unifying" on offer for the past 50 years. I'd be with him, unfortunately, in answering "No" :(

NOT "No, we shouldn't be unifying", but "No - are you kidding?  It's highly unlikely that enough will be done to avert the worst of it"- the beginnings of which are already upon us, it would seem.

His response in that interview was rambling and, in my opinion, marked by the pessimism and depression that he says he has lived with all his life.

I don't really know what else he's said about Climate Change, and basically, who cares? 

He's a psychologist who suffers from depression, not a climate scientist. He's being asked about human psychology, and its response to a global challenge, more than about whether Climate Change is real.

Anyway - this clip  isn't at all inspiring, quite the opposite. But he gives an honest, off the cuff  and sadly realistic answer to the question of humanity's RESPONSE to Climate Change...and then rambles off topic, and does say some dubious stuff.

I wouldn't say it's evidence that he's up there with Alan Jones as a Climate Change denier, tho.

And to be honest, I'm far more disturbed by our political leaders' attitudes towards action on Climate Change, and mitigation strategies for dealing with it, than I am about his.

 

 

Link to comment
wendybr

wendybr

Posted
  • Author
Posted
42 minutes ago, Cynth said:

Except Wendy if he really said “you can’t trust the data because there is ideology involved”, that’s a real sell out to the science models he subscribes to in his (and my) profession. That’s the part that got me. 

There is ideology involved on both sides.

Pure idiocy plus self- interest along with ideology on one side... and data and ideology... on the other. 

I don't know whether he said anything of that nature, but he doesn't dispute the mess that is climate change, as far as I heard in that clip.

He challenges the idea that humanity will unite to fight it (exactly what the evidence suggests) and he states that no one really knows how to stop it, with  agreed upon practical measures...and that may well also be true.

 

Not that we shouldn't try - OF COURSE we should.

Link to comment
StringerBellend

StringerBellend

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, wendybr said:

There is ideology involved on both sides.

Pure idiocy plus self- interest along with ideology on one side... and data and ideology... on the other. 

I don't know whether he said anything of that nature, but he doesn't dispute the mess that is climate change, as far as I heard in that clip.

He challenges the idea that humanity will unite to fight it (exactly what the evidence suggests) and he states that no one really knows how to stop it, with  agreed upon practical measures...and that may well also be true.

 

Not that we shouldn't try - OF COURSE we should.

Another one of the "fine people on both sides' arguments

 

He also likes a bit of it's Wokeness gone mad..

If he isn't a denier (which he is), at best he is arguing against climate change, by throwing in that it is some sort of lefty "ideology". 

He's a RWNJ (admittedly more subtle than the other nobhead) and I can't understand how you continue to defend them both despite evidence (in the form of their own twitter accounts). Is it "ideology"?

 

Edited by StringerBellend
Link to comment
  • mack locked this topic
  • mack unlocked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...