上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 221

[–]chessc 150ポイント151ポイント  (4子コメント)

This is like something straight out of the Simpsons. After a comet nearly hit the Earth:

Moe: Let's go burn down the observatory, so this'll never happen again!

[–]TzakShrike 27ポイント28ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's not just this either, I remember them being ecstatic that they 'protected' the barrier reef from being listed as endangered after millions of dollars of lobbying, as though it was the classification itself that was the problem.

[–]v_maet -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

The classification was the problem.

The green activist groups went to UNESCO spouting lies about how the reef was being destroyed and the government was literally dumping dredge waste on coral atolls.

UNESCO believed them and the Government had to spend more than 400k to prove the green lobby lies were just that, lies.

[–]oopoo64 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The reef was and still is under pressure from many factors and adding further strain because of dredge spoils from the Abbott Point expansion was not a good idea.

Good coral reef research and marine science gets labelled as "political green activistism" by the zealous deniers and the public bel.

[–]y2jeffAll hail; Prime Minister Kang 63ポイント64ポイント  (6子コメント)

The Australian newspaper published reports questioning the Bureau of Meteorology's (BoM) methodology for analysing temperatures, reporting claims BoM was "wilfully ignoring evidence that contradicts its own propaganda".....just weeks after the articles were published, Mr Abbott's own department canvassed using a taskforce to carry out "due diligence" on the BoM's climate records.

Manipulating the masses 101.

  1. Have a newspaper make up and publish ridiculous claims

  2. Declare an official investigation into the matter

  3. For the next few months print headlines like 'shock investigation into fraudulent climate change data!'

It doesn't matter what the results of the investigation are, or even if the claims were eventually completely debunked, because months worth of bullshit headlines and pseudo-intellectual conversations on 2GB have taken their toll - the public consciousness has been manipulated.

[–]dilbot2now under two years to go, hang in there! 22ポイント23ポイント  (3子コメント)

Please understand that 'The Australian" is a vanity rag, self-published by Murdoch and so little read that it loses $20M per year and has never turned a profit. It even recycles Doonesbury.

Boycott that bullshit.

[–]vteckickedin 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

Back at uni cause I had so much time on my hands I'd read through every news website possible almost daily.

The Australian was constantly running at climate change articles, followed by anti-solar then anti-wind.

Of all the propaganda I read through, it's was the most obvious.

[–]UrsaDropsus 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Its influential among the political elite, however (or so I've been told by various lecturers who once served within those circles). I think that's why a financial loss is a relatively small price for Murdoch to pay.

[–]nath1234 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Work always has a big pile of The Australians sitting aroundf that no one wants to read except because it's the only thing there and the lonely few SMHs are either vanished or tattered from overuse by lunchtime.

[–]lollerkeetleftest 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Except the media acted first. It's not News Ltd following the Coalition's lead, it's the opposite.

[–]L1ttl3J1m 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Unfortunately, it's worked on some people around here...

[–]darkbetero 111ポイント112ポイント  (99子コメント)

Somehow this sort of paranoia isn't even a surprise. Interesting that Hunt was the voice of sanity

[–]johnsmithopoulos 36ポイント37ポイント  (77子コメント)

I am very interested to see if hunt was pretending under Abbott to deny climate action and will now spring into action

[–]Frito_Pendejo 102ポイント103ポイント  (74子コメント)

Hunts thesis was literally on why a carbon tax is the most effective and economically sensible way of reducing carbon emissions.

He was 100% denying climate action under Abbott to keep his own job, so I think it's a likely bet we'll see more of the real Hunt over the coming months.

[–]redditrasberry 56ポイント57ポイント  (12子コメント)

Good: just possibly, he's sane and rational and not a complete idiot about climate change

Bad: if you accept the Good, then it is only more damning regarding his willingness to compromise his own integrity, his own beliefs and the good of the nation and the planet for political purposes.

[–]Frito_Pendejo 29ポイント30ポイント  (1子コメント)

Bad: if you accept the Good, then it is only more damning regarding his willingness to compromise his own integrity, his own beliefs and the good of the nation and the planet for political purposes.

Welcome to career politicians, unfortunately. Given the change in leadership to a more moderate focus, I've got some hopes at least.

[–]Slightly_Lions 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

To some extent, it's understandable - to implement your favoured policies, you need to stay in power until the political landscape shifts in your favour, which can require some patience and biding your time for the right opportunity. As we have seen, this can happen fairly suddenly. If you resign at the first sign of having to compromise your values, you may maintain your integrity while forfeiting your influence.

This is giving him the benefit of the doubt, though. We'll see how things turn out.

[–]isawaterfall 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

Under our Westminster system, if 51% of the party votes to support X, the other 49% are expected to toe the line. The 49% still hold their views internally, but they've accepted the democratic process.

It goes both ways, if you manage to get a 2% swing in opinions, then the entire party swings and the entire party is expected to toe the opposite view.

It's a weird system alright, especially as you get politicians championing views they don't personally hold, but it does stop entire parties being a group of yes-men as every policy would probably have at least one devils advocate.

[–]buyingthething 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

uuueeerrgghh it's debatable if that's an inherent part of the Westminster system. Different party's typically have wildly varying abilities to dissent with their party's official line. I see the Liberal party's complete inability to handle internal dissent as more of a Liberal-party-thing than a Westminster thing. Same with Labor, which is TBH one of the major reasons i don't vote for either of them. Their viciously authoritarian internal politics have starved both parties of innovation. Other parties seem to tolerate internal dissent better.

Meh i dunno maybe it's more of a function of how much power that party has, smaller parties simply have less to lose from problems with dissent, but maybe they'd change their tune too if they actually had some power to protect.

[–]screenbeard 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

Which completely negates the point of voting in an electorate if your elected representative is expected to toe the line instead of voting in the interests of the people who elected them

[–]isawaterfall 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

True, constituents usually vote for the party not specifically the member.

If you want to choose the member you can get involved in preselection, if you have issues concerning your local area the member would bring it up in parliament (even if your member is part of the opposition).

[–]recycled_ideas 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not really. Your representative still represents you they just do so at an earlier stage.

The Westminster system is not a direct democracy.

[–]morgazmo99 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Totally this. I reckon any MP that hasn't crossed the floor to vote on an important issue, should be fucken fired.

[–]blazinblu 12ポイント13ポイント  (2子コメント)

compromise his own integrity

If he opposed the party line, he'd get kicked out as fast as Abbott. And he would simply be replaced by someone worse who actually believes their BS. Without people like Hunt in the party, Abbott would still be PM.

[–]TSPhoenix 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The question is when push comes to shove and it is time to act will he stick to his convictions or just fold again.

If you are always giving in what's the point in keeping yourself around so you can make a difference one day.

[–]buyingthething 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

But on the other hand, Abbott's denialism could well have been just a symptom of his overall incompetence. Remember that it was this overall incompetence which lead to his eventual downfall.

If Hunt was replaced by a denier who actually believed their BS, it would suggest that they too were incompetent, and this added incompetence may well have accelerated the demise of Abbott's cabinet.

Basically the more HONESTLY boneheaded people Abbott surrounded himself with, the faster he would have been kicked out. We could have put all of this behind us years ago, if only :(

[–]damiendonnelly 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Maybe the rational part accounts for realpolitik....

[–]MrSenorSan 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

So, how is this any good at all.
We need to get people like him out of government.
He was knowingly selling shit to the Australian public because of his own interests. That is not why we have politicians.
They are supposed to be in their jobs to do their jobs for the benefit of the public.

[–]wholemealbread 9ポイント10ポイント  (3子コメント)

Hunt believes in nothing he will do what ever he can to suck up to people in power so he can keep his power.

[–]johnsmithopoulos 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think Hunt believes something. I think Sco mo believes nothing and will do whatever it takes, but now he has hit a brick wall because the suck up game wont help him in the spotlight of treasurer. Time will tell

[–]buyingthething 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

maybe Hunt believes in Hunt. You havn't heard of Huntology? he has pamphlets.

The cult of Huntology used to be called Hashshashin, it's where we get the word "Assasins" from today. In the year 2000 they changed their name to HUNTology so that it was more descriptive of their trade of people-hunting and assassination. There was a prophesy that an appropriately named messiah would be born who would lead the cult into the next age. Hunt presented himself as this messiah and was accepted. The rest is history.

"Nothing is forbidden everything is permitted" - famous Huntology declaration.

[–]Leadback 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

It was much better than have Hunt in the role and try and steer back the government's insane policies than to have a full-on climate denier like Andrew Robb in the role.

[–]The_Beer_Engineer 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Reading some of the policies shows that they have built effective levers which can be pulled to force positive change. The previous team declined to pull any of them. Thankfully the new teams can just reset some baseline figures without changing any wording to achieve results. Not the best, and not as good as cap and trade, but better than nothing.

[–]johnsmithopoulos 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think turn ill wants to leapfrog cap and trade and will pull renewable investment in

[–]Leadback 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hunt tried multiple times to introduce pro-renewable policies, only for Abbott to contradict him.

[–]the_mooseman 29ポイント30ポイント  (4子コメント)

Abbott really put a lot of effort into being a cunt. Imagine, just for a second, that he put all that energy into not being a total cunt. A small amount of progress might have been made.

[–]SomeOzDude 21ポイント22ポイント  (3子コメント)

No, he really didn't put a lot of effort into it. It's a natural talent.

[–]the_mooseman 13ポイント14ポイント  (2子コメント)

So a cunt savant if you will?

[–]SomeOzDude 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

LOL.. Tony Abbott was a super hero, with a special power ;)

[–]-lumpinator-c***inator 23ポイント24ポイント  (4子コメント)

That is just batshit crazy

[–]chessc 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

You couldn't make this shit up.

[–]aido727 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

We'll see about that after an investigation!

[–]1III1I1II1III1I1II -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The whole climate paranoia is overstated, but it will take the herd a decade or two to realize it, and a decade after that to admit it.

[–]TheGoldilocksZone 39ポイント40ポイント  (11子コメント)

So the public service officials in the department of Prime Minister and Cabinet who tried to suppress science for political reasons are, presumably, still in their jobs?

Why?

[–]wotmate 36ポイント37ポイント  (6子コメント)

Because they are public service officials that were doing their job.

If you work in the public service and you don't like the policies of the government of the day, you either suck it up and do your job, or you quit and become unemployed.

[–]reijin64cannedberryian 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

There's a lot of blurred lines between "implement policies of government in an impartial manner"

and the requirement to do this apolitically and provide honest advice.

Because like in any place, telling your boss what they don't want to hear isn't conducive to long-term employment.

[–]wotmate 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

Public servants tell ministers that they can't do things all the time, because that is part of their jobs. Everything has to be done within the relevant legislation, so ministers and public servants have no choice but to follow it. The only way around it is changing the legislation.

Source: My partner has worked for the QLD government for 20 years in the same department.

[–]reijin64cannedberryian 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Public servants tell ministers that they can't do things all the time

Your partner will never want to work for PM&C

Everything has to be done within the relevant legislation, so ministers and public servants have no choice but to follow it. The only way around it is changing the legislation.

Yes, this is correct.

Here's a really good example of how "Public Policy implementation" and "Apolitical, honest advice" conflict:

Direct Action

[–]TheGoldilocksZone 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Or you give frank and fearless advice.

[–]Kropotki 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

If you work in the public service and you don't like the policies of the government of the day, you either suck it up and do your job, or you quit and become unemployed.

Still don't like this and why there needs to be serious whistleblower protections. Its the same excuse many, many Nazis used to protect themselves after WW2.

[–]wotmate 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm guessing that you don't have a great employment history if you've quit every single job you've had because you didn't agree with what your boss wanted you to do.

[–]Mahhrat 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

We are required to carry out the orders of the government of the day without fear or favour.

There are certain balances to that. For example, we are also supposed to provide advice TO the government in the same way.

Of course, career politicians aren't always those who go up for election. Almost to a man, this is why you end up with massive public services that do everything they can to ensure no individual can be held personally responsible - the politicians do it, the senior bureaucrats do it, and that filters through an organisations.

[–]flukus 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

So what happens when you get told the sky is green and you should base departmental decisions on that?

[–]Mahhrat 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

In theory, we would attempt to tell the politicians that the sky is, in fact, blue - however we would enact their requirements, or we would leave.

(I should point out that even though I work in a very different area, I'm actively seeking new work because of directions my current employment has taken that I vehemently disagree with).

Take the current example. The BOM has been saying for over a decade that we are contributing significantly to climate change as a species and we need to do something about it.

Because that's not politically convenient however, it got to the point where Tony was going to get his cronies into a 'review' of the BOM to ensure 'everything is being done right'.

I mean fuck me, you and I both know what that really means. The instillation of fear into those people.

"Without fear or favour" has to go both ways or it doesn't work.

[–]twigboy 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is exactly why one of the first things he did as pm was introduce anti whistle blower laws

[–]Dmaharg 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

"wilfully ignoring evidence that contradicts its own propaganda".

Now what group of people does that most apply to?

[–]InnocentBistander 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

Shoot the messenger.

[–]JimmyCookIsLost 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Nevertheless, the public need confidence information on Australia and the world's climate is reliable and based on the best available science."

Science which T-Bot quickly ignored.

[–]privatly 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

Tony Abbott must've been delusional.

[–]sennan 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

He thinks an invisible giant man created the world 6,000 years ago.

[–]InactiveUser 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

But he loves you.

[–]sennan 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Praise be unto him, our lord and saviour the flying sketti monster.

[–]isawaterfall 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

They actually believe their own lies...

[–]RavingTimTam 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

This government is a joke, it is blatantly corrupt.

[–]Uluwatu100 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Trust the Abbott government to trust a BOM led conspiracy rather than climate change scientists!

[–]bfisher91 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Thank fuck he's gone, hopefully won't happen under turnbull

[–]-lumpinator-c***inator 22ポイント23ポイント  (1子コメント)

Turnbull might have a right wing agenda, but he is not fucking crazy as the mad monk.

[–]poopymcfuckoff 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

If anyone can try and make the right wing fight climate change, its Turnbull. I kind of hope he brings some decent environmental policies to the table with some right wing buzz words thrown in so they nod away and pass it through.

I do find it amusing that the more conservative Libs and Nats hate CSG but love open cut mines.

[–]gccmelb 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is what happens when the Adults are in charge.

[–]Muzorra 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

What's hilarious is all this seems to be stirred up by Jennifer Marohasy (late of the IPA) and kicked along by Abbott's BAC chair Maurice Newman, essentially quoting himself from a follow up opinion piece.

Your mates and/or their mates get into The Australian... and that's how policy is born boys and girls.

[–]certifiablenutcase 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So paranoid the Prime Minister ignored the Environment Minister HE FREAKING CHOSE.

(EDIT: "After the 2013 election, Hunt was appointed Minister for the Environment under Prime Minister Tony Abbott on 18 September 2013." [WIKI] )

TONY ABBOTT ladies and gentlemen!

(May we never see his like AGAIN.)

[–]Mezza1992 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fucking stupid cunt. So happy he got what he deserved.

[–]rad_surfie 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

In Late March, 2015 it was published that the Earth Is Getting Greener Despite Decades Of Deforestation.

While the news coming out of forests is often dominated by deforestation and habitat loss, research published in Nature Climate Change, shows that the world has actually got greener over the past decade! Wow.

Despite ongoing deforestation in South America and South-east Asia, they found that the decline in these regions has been offset by recovering forests outside the tropics, and new growth in the drier savannas and shrublands of Africa and, of course mates - Australia!!

Now, get this.... Plants absorb around a quarter of the carbon dioxide that people release into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.

With a greening globe, more plants may mean more absorption of carbon dioxide. If so, this will slow but not stop climate change.

However, questions remain over how long plants can keep pace with our increasing emissions in a warmer climate.

Not only studying Cabron In Plants, scientists have also been studying how plants and vegetation are (faring) by determining the amount of carbon stored in living plant mass (or “biomass”) above the ground.

So they've developed a new technique to map changes in vegetation biomass using satellite measurements of changes in the radio-frequency radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface, ok, that's a technique called passive microwave remote sensing. The radiation varies with temperature, soil moisture, and the shielding of water in vegetation biomass above the ground.

They extracted this vegetation information from several satellites and merged them into one time series covering the last two decades. This allowed them to track global changes in biomass from month to month, and this is something that was not possible before.

For the period 2003-to 2012, they found that the total amount of vegetation above the ground has increased by about 4 billion tonnes of carbon.

So, we're still Losing Rainforests, But we're Gaining Forests elsewhere

They found unexpectedly large vegetation increases in savannas and shrublands of Australia, Africa, and South America. Previous analyses have focused on closed forests and did not measure this increase.

Now... the question we all want to know. Is Australia Getting Greener?

Well, On average, Australia is “greener” today than it was two decades ago, ok. This is despite ongoing land clearing, urbanisation and the recent droughts in some parts of the country.

However,..... the increase in vegetation hasn't been uniform. The largest increases are in northern Australia, with lesser increases, here in S.A. and a small decrease in south-eastern Australia.

These vegetation trends seem to be mainly explained by rainfall patterns... alright, follow me here.... northern Australia has been getting wetter and south-east Australia dryer and this pattern is predicted to continue according to the most recent climate change projections from the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology.

Apart from the effect of rainfall patterns, their study also agreed with other studies observing a gradual greening trend for the past two decades, even where there was NO change or even a small decrease in rainfall.

This has been mainly caused by the increasing number of trees and shrubs growing on semi-arid grasslands. These plants are more efficient water users than other plants such as grasses. So.... with the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel emissions, they are able to absorb more carbon from the atmosphere without using more water.

We all know that the world’s vegetation plays an important part in slowing down climate change. But statistically - about a quarter of all carbon emissions from human activities are removed by vegetation, with the size of the carbon land-sink increasing over time.

However, it remains to be seen how the increased climate variability that accompanies climate change will affect this terrestrial “carbon sink” in future.... This is particularly true for seasonally dry ecosystems that experience fires, such as our Australian bushy areas, where a single fire event can easily remove the carbon stored in plant biomass over many previous years. The future interaction between climate variability, vegetation and fire is difficult to predict and remains the focus of this intense research.

Overall, their study provides more direct evidence of the global increase of vegetation growth and the terrestrial carbon sink than previous studies with unprecedented geographical attribution, and year-to-year changes.

With terrestrial vegetation removing about a quarter of the carbon emissions from human activities and the global oceans removing ANOTHER quarter, this means that half of our CO2 emissions remains in the atmosphere. Therefore, stabilising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the consequent impact on the climate system will still require large reductions of global fossil fuel emissions.

So... the point? Care for you're environment people, 'coz - WE - EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US, can play an important active role. & I feel that we should all work together in this. I'm doing my bit by spreading the word.

and THAT'S the Green Thumb Segment, here on Reddit. =>

[–]PersianDee -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Any politician over the age of 40 needs to step aside and allow younger people to step into top political jobs if they are not doing to accept new scientific evidence. Issues being debated today are merely generation based but it is us younger generations that are going to have to deal with the future from todays discussions.

[–]pmam 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

Issues being debated today are merely generation based

I wholeheartedly disagree.

There's nothing about being under 40 that a priori qualifies someone to accept scientific evidence. And there are many people over 40 who, y'know, have children, who they care about a great deal.

Rather than make some arbitrary and pointless distinction on age I'd look for a politician who shows that they have the ability to understand scientific reasoning and are able to make decisions for the good of society as a whole, not a handful of vested interests.

Because you see over-40 politicians making selfish/foolish decisions on climate change, you assume that all over-40 people are selfish/foolish. The correct perspective is that most people who become politicians are in debt to the people who put them there or keep them there. That's why they act the way they do.

[–]whiskybearapocalypse -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Jesus Christ. Is this The Shovel?

Abbott to investigate weather for disproving Andrew Bolt headline.