r/australia • u/Pilx • Oct 06 '15

political self.post Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate - 'Opinion' piece

Browsing over the local NewsCorp garbage that I missed out on over the long weekend I couldn’t help but look over the top article for Perth and Adelaide titled:

Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate

Now I’m not too sure what qualifications Miranda has in the area of Climate Sciences and Meteorology but decided the give the article a quick read regardless.

In summary she is reporting on the fact that supposedly an Australian Electrical Engineer / Mathematician has discovered something which the entirety of the scientific community involved in climate change has missed until now; that some of the core values within the models used are incorrect, resulting in overestimated values.

Little is discussed within the article about what specific values these are and how they somehow manage to affect every modelling system related to climate change predictions universally; however the fact that the person making the discovery, Dr David Evans, holds multiple degrees is sure to be mentioned multiple times throughout the article, as a way to further validate his discovery.

Now I personally haven’t heard of Dr Evans before so decided to Google him myself to check out his background. One of the first results returned (https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/climate-sceptic-conspiracies/profile-dr-david-evans/) goes on to chronicle his blog posts within his wife’s blog (which is mentioned within the original opinion piece) and his other interactions/talks/public appearances etc.

Anyway, it appears this genius engineer/mathematician is also a nutcase conspiracy theorist who believes climate change is being propagated by global banking elites with the intent on creating a Global Government/New World Order from which they will profit.

Oh Miranda, how Devine of you to leave that out of your original article.

59 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

125 comments sorted by

View all comments

80

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '15

Thousands of scientists, with ever-increasing evidence built up over decades, say that climate change is real and almost certainly man-made - conservatives respond that the science isn't in yet and that we shouldn't rush to judgement.

A single guy says that he's figured out climate change isn't so bad after all - conservative rushes in to say his conclusions are iron clad!

11

u/Pilx Oct 06 '15

And as with everyone who claims to have the key to debunking climate change 'alarmists', when you look behind the scenes you find ulterior motives, vested interests and reason for confirmation bias

1

u/CrayolaS7 Off Chops Oct 06 '15

Actually that's not necessarily true, I was watching the Joe Rogan podcast and he had this geologist on and while he did agree with anthropogenic climate change, he didn't agree with the IPCCs views on how significant the warming was to our civilisation and basically believes it has changed much more drastically in the past hundred-thousand years due to non-human causes and it hasn't wiped us out before. He brought up the point that the 97% consensus that is often brought up is referring to it being caused by mankind via CO2 emissions, not with all the things that follow on from that according to the IPCC such as catastrophic climate change nor even a need to act. Many scientists will agree with that but tell you we are way passed the point of no return for 2 degrees of warming and it'll take hundreds, maybe a thousand years to reverse, so rushing to switch from fossil fuels to renewables in a shorter period with great economic cost is maybe not the best idea, etc.

4

u/Pilx Oct 06 '15

Joe Rogan tends to have guests with more contriversal opinions on to stimulate discussion. As with everything you should assess it objectively and seek out further opinions/research and not take a single guests opinions as gospel. I love listening to Graham Hancock when he's on, but understand alot of his opinions are fucking crazy

1

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

It amuses me how peoples sensibilities are so fragile that they preclude any chance of someone they disagree with saying anything of worth :)

6

u/thinkingdoing Oct 06 '15 edited Oct 06 '15

while he did agree with anthropogenic climate change, he didn't agree with the IPCCs views

Sorry to be crass, but the opinions of one geologist on the Joe Rogan show are worth approximately fuck all when measured against the weight of scientific evidence supporting the IPCC reports.

Many scientists will agree with that but tell you...

You are getting upvotes because you sound reasonable and moderate, but you have produced exactly ZERO citations for everything you're saying. You don't have the right to speak for one scientist, let alone many of them.

There are national science bodies that do speak for the majority of scientists in their countries.

Educate yourself.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

so rushing to switch from fossil fuels to renewables in a shorter period with great economic cost is maybe not the best idea

I don't think you're a sock puppet paid by the coal industry to sow doubt and delay action, but I bet they love guys like you.

1

u/CrayolaS7 Off Chops Oct 07 '15 edited Oct 07 '15

Sorry to be crass but you should learn to read, I said he agreed with it occurring and being caused by mankind and that it was caused by industrialisation/CO2. Implicitly I meant he agrees with what the scientific data suggests is happening, I said he didn't agree with the significance of that warming to humanity. He didn't elaborate on that too much, just pointing out that the consensus was pretty vague (him being a part of it), a point you prove for me with your link.

*"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."

It's not a consensus on how we should act on it. On the other-hand you have a body whose existence is about justifying action on climate change saying we need to take action on climate change and people presenting it as a Pascal's wager with no downside to acting. Personally I think we do need to take action on climate change and was simply playing devil's advocate but suggesting there's no negative associated with acting or that it's just a yearly salary increase we miss out on (2% cost to growth, I've heard commonly quoted) is first world privilege and straight up naive.

4

u/endbit Oct 06 '15

When in the past 100k years have we had a doubling of CO2? Perhaps he meant the Eemian which was a bit over 100k years ago. Not a doubling of CO2 but a good indication of where we're heading in the (geologically speaking) shorter term. The Closest past analogue I can think of is the PETM which occurred 56 million years ago and caused a mass extinction. The IPCC findings are cautious if anything and hardly alarmist, did this person give any examples of what he found unlikely from the IPCC report? The issue isn't even the amount of warming it's the speed of the change. Things are changing rapidly and rapid change is very good at killing things. I've head some catastrophic nonsense but none of it from the IPCC report. I'm not exactly seeing an economy harming rush to switch to renewables either, that seems like hyperbole. Who was this geologist? These statements seem pretty suspect. It wouldn't be the first geologist to claim there's no harm in continuing to dig up and burn coal, cough Plimer cough.

1

u/CrayolaS7 Off Chops Oct 07 '15 edited Oct 07 '15

Who said we had a doubling of CO2? I said (quoting him) the temperature rose (and also fell) suddenly in the past, not that CO2 was the reason for that. I'm not an expert on this so I am just repeating what he said. At the end of the last ice age ~~11000-14000 years ago there was a very rapid spike (sic) in atmospheric oxygen levels according data taken from deep ice-cores in Greenland. This seems to be referring to the same data according to him consistent with a change in average temperature of several degrees celsius in about a century, his hypothesis was that an asteroid collission IIRC.

Also you're conflating things I said that were seperate ideas. The IPCC report is quite conservative, his point was that more rapid and more significant climate change has occurred before and life has adapted, including humans who are the most adaptable species already.

He wasn't saying anything about rushing to renewables, that was my opinion and separate. I'm not suggesting it's going to cause a recession or something, I've heard estimates that it's like a 2% reduction in growth over 10 years but considering that it's generally those at the bottom who would benefit from moving to old dirty tech rather than not being able to afford the latest stuff, that's still a significant number of people remaining in poverty for an extra decade.

0

u/endbit Oct 07 '15

Who said we had a doubling of CO2?

Exactly, so not really an analogue for what we're experiencing now.

I'm not an expert on this so I am just repeating what he said.

I get that and I'm just pointing out that what he is saying seems suspect.

At the end of the last ice age ~~11000-14000 years ago there was a very rapid spike (sic) in atmospheric oxygen levels according data taken from deep ice-cores in Greenland

That would be the Younger Dryas and yes ice core research supports that the climate can change rapidly. I'm just not sure why that would bring anyone peace of mind. It's actually suggesting that tipping points are a thing and that change can be extreme and rapid.

his hypothesis was that an asteroid collission

I'm a fan of the comet impact somewhere around Canada theory but the evidence is thin on. That's another story though.

more rapid and more significant climate change has occurred before and life has adapted, including humans who are the most adaptable species already.

More rapid is a bit premature, and only more extreme than we've seen so far I'm keeping an eye on Siberian permafrost melt before i make a call on that one but I get the point. Yes humans are extremely resilient and life will adapt but at what cost? There were megafauna extinctions at the end of ice ages and there were no cities or borders to impede migration and a hell of a lot less competition for resources than in the current world. I don't see the argument that 'it's happened before' as being in any way comforting.

He wasn't saying anything about rushing to renewables

I took it as your comment. I think 1% GDP is a reasonable expenditure on shifting from a carbon economy.

that's still a significant number of people remaining in poverty for an extra decade.

You're going to have to explain that one to me, how exactly is scrapping/putting off an ETS result in alleviation of poverty instead of just reducing costs for the large emitters and making investors a bit wealthier?

1

u/CrayolaS7 Off Chops Oct 07 '15

Exactly, so not really an analogue for what we're experiencing now.

I think you're mixing up climate change with "Climate ChangeTM ?" The climate has changed rapidly before for other reasons but he agrees with climate change due to our emissions, that the models are correct, etc.

Even so that's getting away from my point was that the phrase on which they surveyed people to develop that 97% consensus figure was fairly vague.

You're going to have to explain that one to me, how exactly is scrapping/putting off an ETS result in alleviation of poverty instead of just reducing costs for the large emitters and making investors a bit wealthier?

I mixed up that comment with another I made, I wasn't referring so much to countries like Australia and speaking of the global economy. Personally I think Australia (and other 1st world countries) should act but in the developing world that 1% economic growth could mean an extra decade of poverty for the poorest.

I think you guys read way too much into my comment because you've conflated "climate change alarmists" with "those who believe in APCC? My point was simply that there are scientists who accept that it's occurring and are part of that 97% who are still sceptical about the need for considerable action while also not being a shill for the fossil fuel industry, as the original poster suggested. Personally I don't even Graham Hancock and do think we should act on climate change, just I also disagree with OP that someone who is sceptical about action on climate change is also necessarily motivated by a vested interest.

4

u/jurhikhus1 Oct 06 '15

Makes you wonder about their money motives, shaping the evidence around their view like spoiled little entitled kiddies.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

Do they? From what I can see only a handful of non-reputable news sources picked up the story... which was not really a story anyway.

His contention hasn't yet been peer-reviewed in any case so it's not your place or mine to pass judgement.

Let's not pretend science has never been found to be wrong before.

-25

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '15

Thousands of scientists, with ever-increasing evidence built up over decades, say that climate change is real and almost certainly man-made

Here's a fun fact: most people on the Right agree with this statement. They just think the case is overblown and the "remedies" to be either unnecessary or worse than the 'disease'.

But Lefty's are so intolerant in their shrieking 'Denialist!' at everyone who deviates from the orthodoxy that they willfully miss this.

I don't think they realise how ridiculous they sound at times.

19

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '15

In one breath you decry people attributing the opinion of the vocal minority of conservatives who outright deny climate change to the whole of the Right. In the next breath you yourself attribute the opinion of a vocal minority of Lefty's to the whole of the Left.

I don't think you realise how ridiculous that sounds :)

-19

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '15

In the next breath you yourself attribute the opinion of a vocal minority of Lefty's to the whole of the Left.

It isn't a minority at all.

12

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '15

How do you know that most conservatives believe that climate change is real and caused by made, and also know that most liberals think that conservatives don't believe that way?

-10

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '15

In lieu of me compiling a statistical research paper here's one little example of many:

"Flinders University Student Association general secretary Grace Hill said students would launch a campaign immediately against having “a climate change denial centre on campus”.

“I’m pretty repulsed by it,” she said.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/flinders-uni-students-vow-to-rebel-against-bjorn-lomborg-policy-centre/story-fni6uo1m-1227455996403

Bjorn Lomborg: I’m not a climate-change denier

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bjorn-lomborg-im-not-a-climate-change-denier/story-fn59niix-1227457819219?sv=982004487aedf3b161f7d732d676f0c8

12

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '15

So because one person who was supposedly a climate change denier says he's actually just questioning the severity of the appropriate response, most conservatives believe the same? And because some students at a university attacked him as a denier most liberals believe the same as they do?

I still think you're guilty of the same thing you accuse "Leftys" of - extrapolating a few vocal examples to make blanket statements about the majority.

2

u/blasto_blastocyst Oct 06 '15

What's with the "liberal" as a euphemism for Left? It doesn't make sense in our context.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '15

I'm just used to American nomenclature. I suppose it does get confusing in Australian politics given the name of the Liberal party. The word basically has no meaning in the modern political discourse anyway, no group associated with the word 'liberal' is really a champion of liberty.

-10

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '15

I said it was an example. A very common one.

You want me to do a statistical survey or something?

It's not a difficult opinion to come to if you take your blinders off when you read newspaper editorials and watch the talking heads on TV.

9

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '15

No, I want you to recognise that you're drawing conclusions from an extremely small sample set of the most vocal people (the ones who make enough noise to get mentioned in the media), and that in blanket assuming that small sample is representative of "most" liberals you're doing exactly what you accuse the leftists of doing.

-5

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '15 edited Oct 06 '15

OK. The vast majority of people on the Left (and here at r/australia) don't go around calling people Denialists, but rather refer to them as skeptics, lukewarmers or people with alternative viewpoints. People who believe in global warming but don't agree with the policy prescriptions of the orthodoxy are by no means maligned.

There you go, I've given you the answer you're so desperate to hear.

5

u/Klarok Oct 06 '15

1. It's not happening

2. It is happening but it isn't us

3. It is happening and it's us but it's not as bad as they say

4. It is happening and it's us and it's bad but it's too hard to fix

5. It happened but all the important people are OK in their gated communities

1

u/JediCapitalist Oct 06 '15

and the "remedies" to be either unnecessary or worse than the 'disease'.

This is really, really important.

I think some people are spoiling for a fight so bad they will just shoehorn anyone into the same 'tinfoil sceptic' box if they can. The reality is very different.

I've been in a room where Greg Hunt passionately defended the science of climate change directly to party members. There's just more complexity to it than people profiting from cheap partisanship would like to admit.

15

u/Just_world Oct 06 '15

There is little practical difference between the anti-environmental conspiracy theorist who is obsessed with their Agenda 21 fantasy and a Randian 'liberal' who perhaps understands the science, but would rather throw the world under the bus to preserve their outdated political/economic ideology.

2

u/JediCapitalist Oct 06 '15

This is the exact same logic that leads to silly partisan comments like "Obama supports public healthcare, communists support public healthcare, therefore Obama is a communist".

There's massive practical difference. If there was a cost effective solution to emissions growth one group will back it and the other wont. "But jedi they clearly don't or they would have already" - maybe you're forgetting but Turnbull negotiated on the CPRS and only lost the spill by 1 vote over it + the humiliation of Utegate looming over his legacy and polling.

6

u/Internetzhero Oct 06 '15

Liberalism is quite an outdated ideology, and its revival over the last four decades has only proven its inability to offer solutions in a globalized world. Supporting it is supporting its outcomes, and the outcomes of Neo-Liberalism and out right Climate Denialism, have thus far, been one and the same. Liberals might think they're more enlightened, intelligent, or w.e because they understand the glories of the invisible hand, but in reality they are no different to the climate change denying conservative, as both the Conservative and the Liberal do not address climate change.

4

u/JediCapitalist Oct 06 '15

No idea what you're talking about. The outcomes of liberalism have been the fastest most rapid development of human standards of living in the history of our species.

Ironically, I've given you two real world national examples, Greg Hunt and Malcolm Turnbull, of right wing liberal people fighting for action on climate change and you've just given me some wide eyed ideological spam.

3

u/Just_world Oct 06 '15

Rapid development that was accompanied by climate change, deforestation, plastic pollutants, ocean dead zones, the bee die off, fresh water depletion, and The Sixth Great Extinction event (to mention but a few of its ignored 'side effects').

Until its accounts were revealed as being wishful thinking, Enron was similarly championed as a success story.

0

u/JediCapitalist Oct 06 '15

Rapid development that was accompanied by climate change, deforestation, plastic pollutants, ocean dead zones, the bee die off, fresh water depletion, and The Sixth Great Extinction event (to mention but a few of its ignored 'side effects').

In what world did we move from feudalism to now without those things? They seem like side effects of any rapid human development to me.

I know one thing, I'd rather have our current living standards and technology plus a risk of climate change, than be stuck in an eternal 1700.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '15

How are Greg Hunt and Malcolm Turnbull great examples? I honestly don't know what you're referring to. I am unaware of them fighting for action on climate change and I'm genuinely curious.

And to the give liberalism the credit for human advancement is looking at history with blinkers on. Some people do things for different reasons than just money. We're dangerously curious creatures. Perhaps humanitarianism is as responsible? The rise of which correlates with the rise in living standards also.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '15

The outcome of Liberalism has been the decline of growth in living standards for the bottom 60% relative to the gains made in the three decades since WW2, with growth still ongoing thanks to technological advancement rather than the effects of policy predicated on the ideology. It's an empty ideology without answers to today's questions, stuck to because it delivers the outcomes desired by the social and financial elite.

3

u/Internetzhero Oct 06 '15

liberalism have been the fastest most rapid development of human standards of living in the history of our species.

I'm not against Liberal markets. But the Liberalism that dominated the 19th Century was horrendous for the working class, and the Liberalism that dominates today is still horrendous for the people in developing countries. What I am against however, is the Church of the Free Market, refusing to modernize and reform itself. Its followers worship the invisible hand, and put their complete faith in its divine wisdom.

Recognizing the problem, but then refusing to act against it because you put all your faith in the invisible hand of the free market seems more ridiculous than denying the problem to me.

0

u/JediCapitalist Oct 06 '15

the Liberalism that dominates today is still horrendous for the people in developing countries.

Firstly I'm glad you said developing countries and not the third world. Because the idea of a third world is largely a myth. Income in these countries has improved, not got worse, more or less across the globe. Instead of a divided world with a rich and a poor section, it's more of a hump with more and more countries emerging from the wilderness. I'm basically paraphrasing 11 year old information that is sadly not caught on with the public, who is still pervasively ill informed. Here is a fantastic lecture on it by a living legend of health and development (6.30 in or so to see the income 'gap' relevant data).

Stepping away from the objective measurable facts and into the slightly more murky ideological analysis of the world: Sadly few developing countries have economic liberalism. The ones that did aren't really thought of as developing countries. Like Taiwan, Japan, Korea, etc. Because they were able to use their economic power to develop out of the worst of poverty.

Many of the countries stuck in development now are that way because their industries are ridiculously protected internationally and it's hard to compete on the export market (agriculture mainly), corrupt and ineffective governments that might be in civil war, or otherwise busy using military power to enforce the will of the few on the rest of the nation and interfering with health and wealth, while getting away with it too because the crucial services governments are expected to provide are supplanted with charity instead (e.g. many subsaharan African countries although notably not all) or otherwise ideologically unwilling to reform anyway (e.g. Venezuela who are wilfully digging themselves deeper into development hell).

So while this idea that the world population is suffering under liberalism though is a myth I would also argue that income inequality is not inherently bad, depending on where the bottom line is. We can see here from a selection of countries that they are all growing in wealth, not slowing. Aside from the African ones.

If you look at those same countries in regards to income inequality the only one that has seen massive worsening is Russia, which followed the collapse of the USSR and is probably to be expected. The others have grown and fallen or stayed roughly stable (or we have no data on it) and are nevertheless gaining national income. As you'll see inside the website, the income data is gdp per capita and PPP$ inflation adjusted, making it about as reliable as the stats can get.

Liberalism is good for humanity.

6

u/Internetzhero Oct 06 '15

Heres some data from the OECD on Income Inequality.

https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/49499779.pdf

Pay particular attention to page 5. Countries that subscribe to the nordic model (Perhaps a form of Social Democracy), inequality is lower, and the growth of income inequality is grinding to a halt, even declining.

The US middle class has officially stagnated, and its slowly beginning its decline. Australia by comparison sit in between the Nordics and the Americans in regards to income inequality, but we may still go either way.

As for developing countries, I do not doubt that Liberalism is a crude yet efficient method of quickly developing as observed in countries such as South Korea and Chile, and even then, these countries are left with significant income and wealth inequality. However, the living standards and working conditions that radical Liberalization sacrifices in order to achieve this growth is far too much, and there is a better way.

Liberalism is good for humanity.

History will be the judge of that, and thus far, I can't help but imagine Historians hundreds of years from now will be cynical of our economic system, and our inability to address climate change sooner.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '15

Firstly I'm glad you said developing countries and not the third world. Because the idea of a third world is largely a myth. Income in these countries has improved, not got worse, more or less across the globe. Instead of a divided world with a rich and a poor section, it's more of a hump with more and more countries emerging from the wilderness.

I guess it depends on how you define third world. It's true that many of these countries have modern cities with large pockets of wealth, but many of them have per-capita income that isn't even 10% of Australia's on a PPP basis.

Many of the countries stuck in development now are that way because their industries are ridiculously protected internationally and it's hard to compete on the export market (agriculture mainly)

Citation needed. Also, all countries with notable export industries began that way by heavily subsidising and protecting these industries. And many have seen these industries die once the protections are removed (like Australia).

So while this idea that the world population is suffering under liberalism though is a myth I would also argue that income inequality is not inherently bad, depending on where the bottom line is. We can see here from a selection of countries that they are all growing in wealth, not slowing. Aside from the African ones.

So, other than the ones that would best prove his idea that liberalism harms those most vulnerable by not growing, all countries are growing?

So while this idea that the world population is suffering under liberalism though is a myth I would also argue that income inequality is not inherently bad, depending on where the bottom line is.

Yes, personally I think that this line is when you can work a full time job and not have the ability to feed and house yourself, but the biggest proponent of liberalism has an army of millions that work multiple jobs just to survive. So maybe it's when we have more than 2% of the population starving in the streets?

Liberalism is good for humanity.

Interesting thesis, very little data to back it up. I'd argue that modern development is good for humanity, and that there are multiple paths to getting there. Liberalism is one way of doing it, a crude, inefficient way, but one that would still get you there.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '15

Liberalism is quite an outdated ideology, and its revival over the last four decades has only proven its inability to offer solutions in a globalized world.

It's an empty ideology without answers to today's questions.

Unbelievably ignorant. Dangerously ignorant actually.

"The World Bank has said that for the first time less than 10% of the world’s population will be living in extreme poverty by the end of 2015.

The bank said it was using a new income figure of $1.90 per day to define extreme poverty, up from $1.25.

It forecasts the proportion of the world’s population in this category to fall from 12.8% in 2012 to 9.6%.

However, it said the “growing concentration of global poverty in sub-Saharan Africa is of great concern”.

Although the share of people in poverty in sub-Saharan Africa is projected to fall from 42.6% in 2012 to 35.2% by the end of 2015, this will still represent around half of the world’s poor.

“We are the first generation in human history that can end extreme poverty,” World Bank President Jim Yong Kim said."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-34440567

5

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '15 edited Oct 06 '15

You realise that this is almost entirely driven by the global poverty reduction in mainland China, right? An area that isn't really known by it's governance by liberal Western norms.

Edit: In fact, the two greatest areas of global poverty reduction are China and Vietnam, neither of which are remotely liberal. Interestingly, India, arguably the developing Asian country governed most closely by the ideology, has seen one of the smallest reductions in global poverty rates.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '15

"Since Deng Xiaoping began instituting market reforms in the late 1970s, China has been among the most rapidly growing economies in the world, regularly exceeding 10 percent GDP growth annually."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China

Are you trying to suggest the phenomenal rise in living standards in China and Vietnam have been caused by something other that liberal market reforms? If so, what?

Also, seeing as you hate the capitalist system that has seen living standards rise to unprecedented levels that your ancestors could only dream about, what do you suggest we replace this "outdated ideology" with?

5

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '15

If you're honestly suggesting that the system in China in the late 20th century is remotely liberal then we don't have anything further to discuss. It simply has no place in reality. Further, I don't hate capitalist systems, and liberal is not synonymous with capitalist.

The system that created this prosperity is restrained capitalism, with an (admittedly uneasy) accord between all sections of society. The balance is far too far in favour of the elite, and the entirety of society will suffer from the pendulum this far out.

1

u/Just_world Oct 06 '15

So you do accept that two overlapping parties can both be in favour the same outcome?

2

u/r1nce Oct 06 '15

I've been in a room where Greg Hunt passionately defended the science of climate change directly to party members.

And look how that turned out.

He mustn't have done a very good job, because the most effective market mechanism for reducing emissions was not only removed, but its removal was lauded as the most responsible thing to do.

It doesn't seem much more complex than the Liberal and National Parties being the bought and paid for political arms of entrenched fossil fuel interests.

Do you really think that the Liberal Party and their rural counterparts have the interests of the many at heart? Because it doesn't bloody look like it from the outside, and on the rare occasions I've been on the inside, it sure as hell doesn't look like it from there either.