Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Debating Lord Monckton

Debating Lord Monckton

Richard Denniss
If your doctor told you that you had cancer and Lord Christopher Monckton told you to ignore their advice would you listen to him? What if he told you not to immunise your children or drink fluoridated water?
It's interesting how many people are unlikely to trust him for personal advice but who seem willing to trust him for planetary advice.
In preparing to debate the world's most vocal climate change sceptic many of his opponents appear to underestimate his communications ability and overestimate his scientific knowledge. In turn they enter the debate keen to set the scientific record straight when the debate format means the cards are stacked against them.
Let's face it, if the House of Lords can't convince him that he is not a member of that house then what hope does a sincere scientist have of convincing him, or the audience, that the complex science is right and the entertaining guy with some tricky questions is wrong.
The problem for the scientists is that while it only takes a minute to start a bushfire it can take a week to put one out. Monckton's rapid fire crazy questions and his demand for more and more specific details are a simple, but effective, device to ensure that scientists look anything but relaxed and comfortable.
And why, from the conspiracy theorists point of view, don't they look relaxed? Because they have something to hide!
According to NASA, the CSIRO and the international academies of science climate change is already happening, is caused by humans, and is going to get a lot worse. It's possible that they are all wrong and Lord Monckton is right. It is possible that it is all part of some giant conspiracy, but if it is one, it is a far bigger conspiracy than the sceptics usually acknowledge.
John Howard accepts the science of climate change and while he was adamant that he wouldn't ratify the Kyoto protocol he proposed the introduction of an emissions trading scheme in the lead up to the 2007 election. Warmist.
Ralph Hillman, the head of the Coal Association, Mitch Hooke, the head of the Minerals Council accept it and Marius Cloppers, the head of BHP not only supports the science of climate change, he supports the introduction of a carbon tax. Warmists.
The framing of climate change in Australia as a left-wing issue is as unhelpful as it is inexplicable. Around the world conservative governments have accepted both the science of climate change and the need to act. Most of them support the idea that a carbon price is an essential element of an efficient plan to do so.
Conservative governments in Australia have been obsessed with the need to repay public debt, ostensibly in order to leave a better future for our children. In order to repay such debts it is inevitable that societies must make some sacrifices today in order to deliver benefits in the future. But somehow, conservatives in Australia manage to argue that it would be unfair to ask today's taxpayers to pick up the tab for protecting tomorrow's environment.
It gets worse. Conservatives are, as a rule, conservative by nature. They don't like to take big risks. They insure their cars, they insure their homes and they insure their health. When they don't crash their cars or their house doesn't burn down they usually focus on the peace of mind they purchased rather than the money they wasted.
When it comes to national defence the same applies. We spend more than $20 billion per year on defence. We are currently planning to spend $50 billion to buy 12 new submarines. That is more than the cost of the National Broadband Network that the Coalition is so worried about. But where is the debate about our need for 12 new subs?
When it comes to national security, or protecting our homes, most people tend towards the 'better safe than sorry' frame of reference. But unfortunately in Australia it seems we are willing to bet our house that Lord Monckton is right.
Another argument against acting on climate change favoured by Australian conservatives is that we should wait because we can't save the world by ourselves. Lord Monckton, of course, goes so far as to estimate what he says is the tiny impact on the world's temperature associated with Australia reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Such an argument is an obvious nonsense.
When John Howard committed a small number of Australian troops to the war in Iraq he obviously didn't believe that even if we only provided less than 1 per cent of the troops we couldn't really make a difference. Indeed, rather than wait for the sanction of the UN John Howard pursued the course of action that he felt was right. Given the imagined threat of weapons of mass destruction, delay, we were told, was not an option.
As for Lord Monckton's mathematical modelling of the impact of Australia's emissions on the world's temperature, suffice it to say that it falls at the first hurdle of 'garbage in garbage out'. The underlying premise of Lord Monckton's 'modelling' is that if Australia is the only country to act, how much would our actions achieve. Given that his own country has recently announced their intention to reduce emissions by 50 per cent by 2027 his 'results' are obviously irrelevant.
The world's leading scientific bodies tell us that the world is warming, that it is caused by our pollution and that unless we reduce those emissions the world will get a lot hotter in the next century. Just as a cancer patient could shop around until they found a doctor who assured them they were well, so too can we trawl the internet to find the conspiratorial claims of Lord Monckton.
There is of course a chance that Lord Monckton is right. Maybe NASA, CSIRO, BHP and John Howard are wrong. Maybe, as Lord Monckton suggests, scientists are simply motivated by grant funding to find evidence of climate change. Or maybe Lord Monckton is wrong.
The question for us as citizens is do we accept the diagnosis of climate change and the prescription of emission reductions. Or do we trawl the internet for a conspiracy theory and the global equivalent of a herbal remedy for cancer? Do we bet our houses and our children's future that Lord Monckton is right, or do we take out some carbon price insurance in case he is wrong?
Dr Richard Denniss is executive director of The Australia Institute, a Canberra-based think tank.

Debating Lord Moncton

Debating Lord Monckton

Richard Denniss
If your doctor told you that you had cancer and Lord Christopher Monckton told you to ignore their advice would you listen to him? What if he told you not to immunise your children or drink fluoridated water?
It's interesting how many people are unlikely to trust him for personal advice but who seem willing to trust him for planetary advice.
In preparing to debate the world's most vocal climate change sceptic many of his opponents appear to underestimate his communications ability and overestimate his scientific knowledge. In turn they enter the debate keen to set the scientific record straight when the debate format means the cards are stacked against them.
Let's face it, if the House of Lords can't convince him that he is not a member of that house then what hope does a sincere scientist have of convincing him, or the audience, that the complex science is right and the entertaining guy with some tricky questions is wrong.
The problem for the scientists is that while it only takes a minute to start a bushfire it can take a week to put one out. Monckton's rapid fire crazy questions and his demand for more and more specific details are a simple, but effective, device to ensure that scientists look anything but relaxed and comfortable.
And why, from the conspiracy theorists point of view, don't they look relaxed? Because they have something to hide!
According to NASA, the CSIRO and the international academies of science climate change is already happening, is caused by humans, and is going to get a lot worse. It's possible that they are all wrong and Lord Monckton is right. It is possible that it is all part of some giant conspiracy, but if it is one, it is a far bigger conspiracy than the sceptics usually acknowledge.
John Howard accepts the science of climate change and while he was adamant that he wouldn't ratify the Kyoto protocol he proposed the introduction of an emissions trading scheme in the lead up to the 2007 election. Warmist.
Ralph Hillman, the head of the Coal Association, Mitch Hooke, the head of the Minerals Council accept it and Marius Cloppers, the head of BHP not only supports the science of climate change, he supports the introduction of a carbon tax. Warmists.
The framing of climate change in Australia as a left-wing issue is as unhelpful as it is inexplicable. Around the world conservative governments have accepted both the science of climate change and the need to act. Most of them support the idea that a carbon price is an essential element of an efficient plan to do so.
Conservative governments in Australia have been obsessed with the need to repay public debt, ostensibly in order to leave a better future for our children. In order to repay such debts it is inevitable that societies must make some sacrifices today in order to deliver benefits in the future. But somehow, conservatives in Australia manage to argue that it would be unfair to ask today's taxpayers to pick up the tab for protecting tomorrow's environment.
It gets worse. Conservatives are, as a rule, conservative by nature. They don't like to take big risks. They insure their cars, they insure their homes and they insure their health. When they don't crash their cars or their house doesn't burn down they usually focus on the peace of mind they purchased rather than the money they wasted.
When it comes to national defence the same applies. We spend more than $20 billion per year on defence. We are currently planning to spend $50 billion to buy 12 new submarines. That is more than the cost of the National Broadband Network that the Coalition is so worried about. But where is the debate about our need for 12 new subs?
When it comes to national security, or protecting our homes, most people tend towards the 'better safe than sorry' frame of reference. But unfortunately in Australia it seems we are willing to bet our house that Lord Monckton is right.
Another argument against acting on climate change favoured by Australian conservatives is that we should wait because we can't save the world by ourselves. Lord Monckton, of course, goes so far as to estimate what he says is the tiny impact on the world's temperature associated with Australia reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Such an argument is an obvious nonsense.
When John Howard committed a small number of Australian troops to the war in Iraq he obviously didn't believe that even if we only provided less than 1 per cent of the troops we couldn't really make a difference. Indeed, rather than wait for the sanction of the UN John Howard pursued the course of action that he felt was right. Given the imagined threat of weapons of mass destruction, delay, we were told, was not an option.
As for Lord Monckton's mathematical modelling of the impact of Australia's emissions on the world's temperature, suffice it to say that it falls at the first hurdle of 'garbage in garbage out'. The underlying premise of Lord Monckton's 'modelling' is that if Australia is the only country to act, how much would our actions achieve. Given that his own country has recently announced their intention to reduce emissions by 50 per cent by 2027 his 'results' are obviously irrelevant.
The world's leading scientific bodies tell us that the world is warming, that it is caused by our pollution and that unless we reduce those emissions the world will get a lot hotter in the next century. Just as a cancer patient could shop around until they found a doctor who assured them they were well, so too can we trawl the internet to find the conspiratorial claims of Lord Monckton.
There is of course a chance that Lord Monckton is right. Maybe NASA, CSIRO, BHP and John Howard are wrong. Maybe, as Lord Monckton suggests, scientists are simply motivated by grant funding to find evidence of climate change. Or maybe Lord Monckton is wrong.
The question for us as citizens is do we accept the diagnosis of climate change and the prescription of emission reductions. Or do we trawl the internet for a conspiracy theory and the global equivalent of a herbal remedy for cancer? Do we bet our houses and our children's future that Lord Monckton is right, or do we take out some carbon price insurance in case he is wrong?
Dr Richard Denniss is executive director of The Australia Institute, a Canberra-based think tank.

Sunday, July 3, 2011

Abhisit at what price?

Abhisit: at what price?

Abhisit: at what price?

Postby Non Aligned Bangkok on Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:53 am
This man calls himself a democrat!
The English born and Oxford educated Abhisit seems to have no political morals whatsoever. 
I would love to be proved wrong, however, I see him as a spoilt brat who will do anything
to get his own way. 
Mr Abhisit, I suspect will oversee the further weakening of democracy and personal freedoms
in Thailand; all to fulfil his personal ambitions.
At what Price Mr Abhisit did you sell your soul to the devil?
Last edited by Non Aligned Bangkok on Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Non Aligned Bangkok
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:41 pm

Re: Abhisit: at what price?

Postby thong on Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:02 am
He is the proxy of the military and the powerful pooyai. The country has already lost its dignity through this backdoor anti-democracy democrats (wow better change their name). Wait till we see if the 'democrat government will charge the PAD and all those responsible for all the illegal armed assemblies and charges of treason, terrorism. The abuse of public properties for the PAD illegal armed assemblies.

Well, I think it is good for Phuea Thai to remain opposition. These MPs have back-bone and principle for not willing to be bought by money to cross over to a proxy party - a party that will continue to be dictated by the military and powerful pooyai. Expose the dictators and those pooyai and restore the 1997 PEOPLE charter and democracy.
User avatar
thong
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 7:00 am

Re: Abhisit: at what price?

Postby Eric on Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:59 pm
Last week, he was calling for house dissolution. This week, all that was forgotten. He now want to be PM. Just how many faces does Abhisit wear or he's just a facade; taking instructions from men behind. To me, he is not a person who can hold his own and will always be manupulate by people behind the scene. Until he demonstrate that he is the real deal, he simply don't have the strong characteristics to be the next PM.
User avatar
Eric
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 7:00 am

Re: Abhisit: at what price?

Postby davidb98 on Mon Dec 08, 2008 5:46 pm
Minnie....

I am surprised at your depth of feeling for this man.... so good looking too....

I am not impressed with the constitution court and this whole process but

at least the formation of the government now is still working within the democratic rules... if the democrats succeed the government will be composed of all elected MPs.... 
(I dont like all the money flowing but its still elected MPs that are negotiating with each other... even with nefarious help from the military and other influences, just like the PPP talking to Thaksin, etc... )

what we need to watch for is any attempt within the constitution or outside it to introduce any more non-elected people as MPs or into the government 

and the by-elections in january must go ahead... the more elections with all people voting is key to continuing the democratic life of Thailand!
User avatar
davidb98
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 7:00 am

Re: Abhisit: at what price?

Postby Minnie on Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:35 pm
Well David,

It would seem that the Webmaster deleted my reply let's see if he'll do the same again.

Re pretty boys...don't trust them, I prefer my men to be men and only one person in my household needs the salon hairspray !!!

re the rest...which is probably what the WEBMASTER will delete again
read other blogs, Bangkok Pundit, Absolutely Bangkok, Thai crisis or even Bangkok Bugle, in one of them I read about the Demonic-Rats collaborating with the PAD to make the PAD an official party so as to ensure the Demons votes.
I said this geezer is worse than Dorian Grey and he is, my Thai friends deserve better...and YOU webmaster, look into your conscious as one day, you'll realise that you partook in destroying the nascent shoots of democracy in Thailand

Now lets see if this gets deleted too !!!!
User avatar
Minnie
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:37 pm

Re: Abhisit: at what price?

Postby s.i.m.o.n on Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:39 am
I don't think he can solve this country problem.
I believe he won't stand for long.
Red shirt is coming after him.
He just a plain looking handsome men but inside his hearts he don't care what people are suffering. He only care for himself and in front of everyone he is nice.
The country will be worse than before he is to become PM
User avatar
s.i.m.o.n
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:02 am

Re: Abhisit: at what price?

Postby Twilight Zone on Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:43 am
Don't you know they now call him "OBAMARK"? Can anyone tell me how they come up with this comparison?
User avatar
Twilight Zone
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:08 pm

Re: Abhisit: at what price?

Postby Minnie on Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:04 pm
This link pertains to the list of 78 PAD money backers
a little more than 30 pieces of silver...
It's all in Thai am afraid, maybe someone may want to translate

http://thaiinsider.info/space/content/view/12985/59/
User avatar
Minnie
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:37 pm

Re: Abhisit: at what price?

Postby stilljustbrowsing on Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:23 am
OBAMARK, "OkBA Man And Really K(c)are :roll:
User avatar
stilljustbrowsing
 
Posts: 2384
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:47 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: Abhisit: at what price?

Postby SARDINES on Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:03 pm
I think our golden boy has brought the new meaning to the phrase "puppet PM". Let's see... Just to name a few points of interest...

- He's responsible for his minister trying to secretly block 1300 websites

- He's appointed a well established PAD supporter, who has basically told the foreign press that the hi-jacking of Suvanabhum airport was "fun" with "... good music, dancing and good food..." By the way, he now denies saying this and in the same breath, apologizes for saying this... ??? did I miss something here. Oh, and wait... Abhisit then says he won't dismiss him because his comments were made before he was appointed to the post. ... Now I know I am missing something here.

"... I apologize for saying what I didn't say but it's ok because I said what I didn't say before I was officially appointed..."
Confused anyone???

- Also appointed an ex-air hostess whose family are the major shareholders to several infamous Bath houses around the Ratchada red-light district and has vast talents in commerce (that nobody's knows what they are yet) to the position of Ministry of Commerce. A position which is also very important in times of our economy going into depression and sluggish export performance.

Other than help sweeping up government house, I'm still waiting to see if our boy can do anything by his own decision. 

SARDINES
User avatar
SARDINES




More here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=912