We've got problems with government? Try Australia....

What can we do to change the minds of decision makers and people in general to actually do something about preparing for the forthcoming economic/energy crises (the ones after this one!)?

Moderator: Peak Moderation

Post Reply
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 12499
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:35 am
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

We've got problems with government? Try Australia....

Post by kenneal - lagger »

An email from an Australian campaign group, Get Up.
"The ABC are our enemies", Ken.

That's a direct quote from a Liberal National Party conference last weekend, right before they voted in favour of "enforce[ing]... balanced debate" at our National Broadcaster.1

And it isn't an idle threat.

The Morrison Government has quietly tabled insidious changes to the ABC's charter that could force dangerous ideas – peddled by anti-vaxers, tobacco and gun lobbyists, and climate deniers – into our living rooms.2,3

Even though Labor and the Greens are opposed to the changes, we need to make sure a solid majority of the Senate will stand strong and vote against this attack on our ABC's editorial independence.

That's where you come in, Ken.

Together, we can expose these warped changes for what they are. But it'll take expert policy advice, hard-hitting research, creative tactics that cut through Morrison's spin and strategic interventions targeting whichever politicians need to be pursuaded.

It won't come cheap and, with the government planning to push these changes through in the next three months, we need to get started as soon as possible.

Can you chip in $12 to the campaign to ensure the crossbench sees this bill for exactly what it is and stands for our ABC?

Here's what we can pull off with enough support:

Commission world-class researchers to produce a report on case studies where editorial intervention has forced coverage of dangerous fringe issues

Run a public awareness campaign to put that research up in lights, and show people just how twisted these changes to our ABC's charter are, ensuring massive support for our public broadcaster as this government ramps up its attacks on Press Freedom

Run discrete targeted strategies to ensure enough Senators come out in support of a fully-funded, politically independent ABC


We know this kind of campaign works. Earlier this year, Scott Morrison tried to appoint a new ABC chair with connections to the Liberal Party. Thousands of you came together – chipping in to fund an investigation into the candidates and redouble the public pressure on the government to appoint a truly independent Chair. In the end, Morrison was forced to back down from his widely-reported front-runner.

But to effectively fight back against this fresh attack on our ABC, we need your support.

Can you chip in $12 to fight back against these warped changes to our ABC's charter?

Former Media Watch host Jonathan Holmes has described this legislation as having the potential to "become a weapon aimed straight at the ethos, and the reputation, of the most trusted news source in Australia".3

Which is exactly what the government wants – putting them at odds with a united public that is more concerned about press freedom than ever before.

Armed raids at the ABC, criminal prosecution threats against journalists, and a sweeping series of laws targeting whistleblowers have captured our attention. Across the political spectrum, there is growing support for a robust, free, and independent press.

The escalation is terrifying – but it's also an opportunity. An opportunity to build people-powered support for a free and independent press, to champion the importance of publicly funded journalism, and to draw attention to the dangers of the Murdoch media's creeping dominance of our media landscape.

The fearless work of our ABC has never been so important. Click here to chip in $12 and fight back

In Determination,
Ruby, Patrick, Sarah and Tosca – for the GetUp team

PS - These changes to our ABC's charter are the brainchild of Pauline Hanson. The Coalition agreed to push these changes in exchange for One Nation's support for laws that increased the power of the Murdoch media. Hanson's inspiration? The actual motto of Murdoch's rabidly right-wing US TV station FoxNews – "Fair and Balanced". Click here to chip in to fight back against the "Murdoch Amendment" to our ABC's charter

References:
1. ABC described as 'enemies' of the LNP at state convention, Brisbane Times, July 12 2019
2. Legislation proposed for introduction in the 2019 Winter/Spring sitting, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Australian Government, Canberra
3. What One Nation's plans for the ABC charter would mean for fair reporting, Jonathan Holmes in the Sydney Morning Herald, August 16 2017 GetUp is an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning group. We use new technology to empower Australians to have their say on important national issues. We receive no political party or government funding, and every campaign we run is entirely supported by voluntary donations. If you'd like to contribute to help fund GetUp's work, please donate now! Please note we've updated our Privacy Policy. If you do not wish to receive updates to ken@kenneal.co.uk from GetUp, please unsubscribe.

Our team acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the land on which we meet and work. We wish to pay respect to Elders - past, present and emerging - and acknowledge the important role all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people continue to play within Australia and the GetUp community.

Authorised by Paul Oosting, GetUp Ltd, Level 14, 338 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
User avatar
ReserveGrowthRulz
Banned
Posts: 735
Joined: Sun May 19, 2019 8:00 am
Location: Colorado

Post by ReserveGrowthRulz »

Nothing wrong with objecting to things folks don't like. But everyday, there is new evidence of thinking that just doesn't sit well with me.

In this case..." force dangerous ideas...into our living rooms."

From a scientific perspective, there is no such thing as a dangerous ideas. Just ideas.

From a societal perspective, this kind of language primarily indicates that one side, "us", wants to demonize something that "them" are talking about.

The concept applies uni-directionally of course, notably only in that it is a red flag within language that demonstrates the reader is about to get hit with an "us versus them" based argument.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11250
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:
In this case..." force dangerous ideas...into our living rooms."

From a scientific perspective, there is no such thing as a dangerous ideas. Just ideas.
That is wrong. What is dangerous is giving scientific credibility to ideas which have none whatsoever. Like, for example, allowing climate change deniers like Nigel Lawson to claim there is a genuine scientific dispute about it, when no such dispute actually exists. The only people denying climate change are either non-scientists like Lawson, or a tiny number of scientists who are being paid a lot of money to act dishonestly.
User avatar
ReserveGrowthRulz
Banned
Posts: 735
Joined: Sun May 19, 2019 8:00 am
Location: Colorado

Post by ReserveGrowthRulz »

UndercoverElephant wrote:
ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:
In this case..." force dangerous ideas...into our living rooms."

From a scientific perspective, there is no such thing as a dangerous ideas. Just ideas.
That is wrong. What is dangerous is giving scientific credibility to ideas which have none whatsoever.
I didn't say anything about scientific credibility, only that there are no dangerous ideas. Just ideas that some folks don't like, and use those words within the "us versus them" meme.

Scientific credibility is something else, a nebulous concept when someone thinks that because they published a cool idea on their blog, that it then becomes "research". Gail Tverberg springs to mind perpetuating this nonsense.

So, if you consider Gail lending "scientific credibility" to a really bad idea, then the problem still isn't with her, it is with the person who thinks that because she claims it is research, it is. Normal people in other words, with no more experience with critical thinking or objective analysis than a rock.

If you consider scientific credibility to be someone publishing a bad idea (immigrants are dumber than locals, white people have big brains and others don't, pick your favorite racist angle), this certainly happens. Unfortunately, science itself is supposed to stop people from claiming stupid things under the veneer of science, but it doesn't always work as planned. I know of very few who run around refuting the bad "science" claims of others. Particular when creating a science rag from scratch takes a professor or two irritated at their ideas not being taken seriously, and providing a venue for their own research interests.
Undercoverelephant wrote: Like, for example, allowing climate change deniers like Nigel Lawson to claim there is a genuine scientific dispute about it, when no such dispute actually exists. The only people denying climate change are either non-scientists like Lawson, or a tiny number of scientists who are being paid a lot of money to act dishonestly.
"Denier" is just another one of those words that means "you don't agree with me". Used to end an argument, rally the legions of internet troops for "us" to run out and bash "them".

I got called one all the time when refusing to bow down before ridiculous peak oil ideas, and look how poorly that turned out for the other folks. Saudi America Rulz!

Perpetuating bad ideas is not a good thing. I have no objection to the ideas being fought out in the scientific arena. Most people have a limited ability to even determine if there is a honest scientific dispute over it, peak oilers proving that point quite recently.

Scientists certainly have to be paid by someone, so what might the recommended ideas be to keep grant competition bias out of the process? Only trust the government researchers? Only trust multi-disciplinary teams? I tend to be comfortable with that one myself, but ivory tower academics aren't always so thrilled with it, something I can vouch for from personal experience.

In the end, again as peak oil has demonstrated, people are going to shriek their opinions from the rooftops, with or without a solid science background. That doesn't make it a dangerous idea, more like an ill-informed one. So, how do we fight ill-informed ideas? Strikes me by creating better informed citizens, able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Call that a scientists lament though, because I can't see it in the schools, or public discourse, or much of anywhere except among a group of honest citizens. And older. Watching the modern social media, give me my YouTube stars nonsense and the young people being funneled into it, I only can feel despair when it comes to informing any of them of much of anything.
User avatar
BritDownUnder
Posts: 847
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:02 pm
Location: Hunter Valley, NSW, Australia

Post by BritDownUnder »

Australian politics never ceases to amaze me. You have to have wonder for people as different as Bob Katter, Pauline Hanson (and a while ago Wilson Tuckey) on one side and Bob Brown and Paul Keating on the other side actually being able to co-exist in one parliament without murdering one another.

I like the ABC except for its current affairs output. The irritating Virginia Trioli, Waleed Ali and a particularly irritating Muslim woman whose name I cannot recall and is now in the UK could have never made it to the screen on profit making TV. Then again you have the Andrew Bolts on Sky News.

Makes for lively screen media. By contrast the newspapers are complete drudge. No Sun, Daily Mail, FT or Sunday Sport to be seen. Just a newspaper for each state capital.

I view Get Up as a leftist organisation who have their place. Same as I view One Nation as having its place.

On global warming and Rural matters I side with the Australian ABC. On most other issues I side with the Murdoch media. Mostly I view government secrets as just that. Let a parliamentary enquiry dig them up if there are things worth revealing.
G'Day cobber!
woodburner
Posts: 4127
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:45 pm

Post by woodburner »

UndercoverElephant wrote:
ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:
In this case..." force dangerous ideas...into our living rooms."

From a scientific perspective, there is no such thing as a dangerous ideas. Just ideas.
That is wrong. What is dangerous is giving scientific credibility to ideas which have none whatsoever. Like, for example, allowing climate change deniers like Nigel Lawson to claim there is a genuine scientific dispute about it, when no such dispute actually exists. The only people denying climate change are either non-scientists like Lawson, or a tiny number of scientists who are being paid a lot of money to act dishonestly.
Not like Extinction Rebellion, whose real function is to support the roll out of 5g, and does not really have a lot to do with the idea of zero carbon by 2025, though they pretend it does. The XR groups are supposedly autonomous, and not controlled by any central body, not so, it seems. Tha Plymouth group organised a meeting to discuss 5g roll out, and were decended on by the, er, controllers (Gail Bradbrook of EE fame) and told to cancel the event. Still, when five cities have had their economies and life screwed up by the protestors over the summer (and 5g gets installed) they will of course support the XR protests. They won’t have much left to do when their jobs have gone.

PS What is this “climate change denier� label for? I suspect most people accept that one of the main functions of climate, is to change, it alays has done, probably always will.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
User avatar
ReserveGrowthRulz
Banned
Posts: 735
Joined: Sun May 19, 2019 8:00 am
Location: Colorado

Post by ReserveGrowthRulz »

woodburner wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:
In this case..." force dangerous ideas...into our living rooms."

From a scientific perspective, there is no such thing as a dangerous ideas. Just ideas.
That is wrong. What is dangerous is giving scientific credibility to ideas which have none whatsoever. Like, for example, allowing climate change deniers like Nigel Lawson to claim there is a genuine scientific dispute about it, when no such dispute actually exists. The only people denying climate change are either non-scientists like Lawson, or a tiny number of scientists who are being paid a lot of money to act dishonestly.
Not like Extinction Rebellion, whose real function is to support the roll out of 5g, and does not really have a lot to do with the idea of zero carbon by 2025, though they pretend it does.
the coolest thing about XR is the name and the branding!! In a world where branding and claims of success regardless of past or present actual success are what catches the eye, these folks are genius!

In the US the idiot stunna' sportbike community tried something similar, but they didn't have a cool name or a reason to jam up traffic, other than they could. No one has even heard of them because of it.

But XR has got the new age advertising thing down pretty good!
woodburner wrote: The XR groups are supposedly autonomous, and not controlled by any central body, not so, it seems. Tha Plymouth group organised a meeting to discuss 5g roll out, and were decended on by the, er, controllers (Gail Bradbrook of EE fame) and told to cancel the event. Still, when five cities have had their economies and life screwed up by the protestors over the summer (and 5g gets installed) they will of course support the XR protests. They won’t have much left to do when their jobs have gone.
You have a personal beef with them? Get caught in one of their traffic jams to save the world?
woodburner wrote: PS What is this “climate change denier� label for? I suspect most people accept that one of the main functions of climate, is to change, it alays has done, probably always will.
The denier label in general is designed to call out anyone who disagrees with someone. Sort of like one big flag announcing that one of "them" has appeared, refused to spout herd think, gored a sacred cow maybe, and now must be labeled so that the entire group can pile on.

Like me! I once dared to point out all the old peaks, and dared ask the question about weren't they properly understood before pretending the current one might be one, rather than just another in a long line.

Then peak oil became "just another oil production rate smaller than now", same as all the other claims, and presto! Now folks don't call me a denier anymore! Comes in handy, the critical thinking and objective analysis stuff.
woodburner
Posts: 4127
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:45 pm

Post by woodburner »

No, haven’t got a personal beef, and never been near one of their traffic jams. I arrange my life to avoid crowds. They can turn from being reasonable people into something that I would rather be far away from.

Once more, here is the low down on XR.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
User avatar
ReserveGrowthRulz
Banned
Posts: 735
Joined: Sun May 19, 2019 8:00 am
Location: Colorado

Post by ReserveGrowthRulz »

woodburner wrote:No, haven’t got a personal beef, and never been near one of their traffic jams. I arrange my life to avoid crowds.
I'm with you on that one. Never been to a music concert in my life. Skipped my college graduation ceremony even.
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 12499
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:35 am
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

The XR people I know don't give a monkey's about 5G; a thought about it hasn't crossed their thoughtful minds.

As far as I am concerned it is just another daft conspiracy theory to come off the keyboard of woodburner. As such it is best ignored as I've got bored watching umpteen crazy Youtube videos.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
woodburner
Posts: 4127
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:45 pm

Post by woodburner »

You can’t comprehend can you? Gail Bradbrook is in bed with EE. EE is rolling out 5g. No watch the video and learn something instead of coming out with your usual attacks.

Your post was a tad oxymoronic, as you said in your first sentence
The XR people I know don’t give a monkey’s about 5G; a thought about it hasn’t crossed their thoughtful minds.
Exactly my point, they are so wound up with a non-threat, they cannot see an extistential threat coming to their living space soon, unless they do something about it. It’s not about only faster download speeds is it?

I won’t tell you anymore as you can research it for yourself.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 12499
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:35 am
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

Woodburner, I have wasted my time watching too many videos recommended by you which contain absolute sh1te about global warming and other things to bother to watch another about anything. If you continue to spout sh1te no one is going to bother about anything that you say let alone spend valuable time watching over long videos full of people spouting half truths, downright lies and dodgy, cherry picked statistics about perfectly good science.

You can't even resist calling global warming a "non-threat", when all the science says it is, while trying to interest us in another daft, probable, conspiracy theory.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
woodburner
Posts: 4127
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:45 pm

Post by woodburner »

kenneal - lagger wrote:Woodburner, I have wasted my time watching too many videos recommended by you which contain absolute sh1te about global warming and other things to bother to watch another about anything. If you continue to spout sh1te no one is going to bother about anything that you say let alone spend valuable time watching over long videos full of people spouting half truths, downright lies and dodgy, cherry picked statistics about perfectly good science.

You can't even resist calling global warming a "non-threat", when all the science says it is, while trying to interest us in another daft, probable, conspiracy theory.
What a pleasant rational post. I think it says a lot about the writer, whoever he/she is.

PS it is no longer “global warming�. It was changed some time ago as it was becoming dificult to get across to people. It was changed to “climate change�, as that could cope with any change without having to be specific.

It comforting to know you think 5g danger is just “a daft, probable, conspiracy theory�. Very reassuring. Especially when many scientists and medical staff worldwide think otherwise. They must be misinformed.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
Post Reply