The Politics Thread 2014

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

Post Reply
RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7354
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

The Politics Thread 2014

Post by RedRaider » January 2, 2014, 10:56 am

http://t.co/BoJz8dRbvr

Other than the fact that lives are at risk, no one could miss the irony of UNSW Professor of Climate Science, Chris Turney being stuck in sea ice in the middle of summer in the Antarctic after the warmest year on record. Thankfully, all except the crew, will be taken safely off the vessel by helicopter.

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43051
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by The Rickman » January 2, 2014, 12:00 pm

I didn't think there was any sea ice left??
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Toviii
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10385
Joined: March 10, 2012, 8:11 am
Favourite Player: Rapana

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Toviii » January 2, 2014, 12:05 pm

Image
'I've got 17 blokes in that dressing room that are hurting'

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43051
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by The Rickman » January 2, 2014, 12:06 pm

Of course it is. It's all much more complicated than anything that could possibly make sense.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43051
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by The Rickman » January 2, 2014, 12:06 pm

HEY LOOK OVER THERE, A BEAR!!
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Toviii
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10385
Joined: March 10, 2012, 8:11 am
Favourite Player: Rapana

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Toviii » January 2, 2014, 12:07 pm

Dr Karl is the suppository of all science wisdom.
'I've got 17 blokes in that dressing room that are hurting'

User avatar
gangrenous
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9609
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by gangrenous » January 2, 2014, 12:10 pm

The Nickman wrote:Of course it is. It's all much more complicated than anything that could possibly make sense.
It's more complicated than can be explained in a tweet. It has to make sense if that's what is happening!

User avatar
Toviii
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10385
Joined: March 10, 2012, 8:11 am
Favourite Player: Rapana

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Toviii » January 2, 2014, 12:11 pm

The section on sea ice from this article is relevant here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/An-over ... rends.html
'I've got 17 blokes in that dressing room that are hurting'

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » January 2, 2014, 4:14 pm

New research out predicting 4 degree rise by the end of this century and 8 degree rise by 2200. Hard to imagine that within less than 200 years, without dramatic action on climate change 95% of all species on this planet will be extinct :(

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/clima ... 304nw.html

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » January 2, 2014, 4:26 pm

In more uplifting news

http://www.smh.com.au/world/colorado-ce ... hv791.html

Interestingly the campaign that ultimately saw this legislation get voted in relied on the simple and undeniable fact that cannabis is safer than alcohol.

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24599
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Manbush » January 2, 2014, 7:56 pm

Green eyed Mick wrote:In more uplifting news

http://www.smh.com.au/world/colorado-ce ... hv791.html

Interestingly the campaign that ultimately saw this legislation get voted in relied on the simple and undeniable fact that cannabis is safer than alcohol.
"The state is levying a 25 per cent tax, which, it has been estimated, could bring in nearly $US100million a year. Politicians said the first $US40 million will be used to build schools."

Great source of income for a cash strapped nation :hmmm
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » January 2, 2014, 8:20 pm

Manbush wrote:
Green eyed Mick wrote:In more uplifting news

http://www.smh.com.au/world/colorado-ce ... hv791.html

Interestingly the campaign that ultimately saw this legislation get voted in relied on the simple and undeniable fact that cannabis is safer than alcohol.
"The state is levying a 25 per cent tax, which, it has been estimated, could bring in nearly $US100million a year. Politicians said the first $US40 million will be used to build schools."

Great source of income for a cash strapped nation :hmmm
In Australia the terms 'evidence based' and 'drug policy' won't be seen together for a long time :(

I honestly think the US will have legalised cannabis at a national level before Australia even get moving on medicinal cannabis.

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24599
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Manbush » January 2, 2014, 8:32 pm

Some doctors recommend it already, lol remember growing up my best mate during high school his dad was a doctor and massive conehead (his kids were told not to till they were 18, didn't stop em though), problem came when he recommended it to a parient who unbeknown to him was my dads girlfriend, dad was not impressed since I regular spent weekends there but thankfully I lived with mum and he had no say :lol:
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15738
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » January 2, 2014, 8:50 pm

Choose any random psychiatrist. Ask them if they support any action that makes cannabis in any way more accessible.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » January 2, 2014, 9:04 pm

T_R wrote:Choose any random psychiatrist. Ask them if they support any action that makes cannabis in any way more accessible.
They already have http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/substan ... chiatrists

Looking at the comments you can see that psychiatrists can be just as ignorant and misinformed as the rest of society.

Take this comment for example “There is no medical necessity to legalize or prescribe something as addictive or toxic as smoked marijuana.”

Image

http://archive.saferchoice.org/safercol ... r-doc.html

The reality is all drugs are dangerous if used by the wrong person and / or in dangerous quantities. Alcohol, Tobacco, and literally dozens of prescription medicines, many of which psychiatrists prescribe addict and kill hundreds of thousands every year. Cannabis is simply a much safer choice and should be treated as such

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15738
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » January 2, 2014, 9:09 pm

All I can say is that the psychiatrist that I know (hardly a representative sample, I concur, but a professor of the subject at a QLD uni) thinks the idea of legalising pot is an act of lunacy - and this is a guy who spent the 60's in something of a drug haze, I gather.

Ask the guy who has to clean up the mess what he thinks of something if you want to see the real situation.

Wonderful graph, by the way, and a completely reputable source, too!
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24599
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Manbush » January 2, 2014, 10:45 pm

That's where regulation and controls will actually reduce harm TR, ensure strains are high in CBD which are antipsychotics, something which is already used to treat schizophrenia and a natural occurrence in pot with THC
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43051
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by The Rickman » January 3, 2014, 1:02 am

Green eyed Mick wrote:New research out predicting 4 degree rise by the end of this century and 8 degree rise by 2200. Hard to imagine that within less than 200 years, without dramatic action on climate change 95% of all species on this planet will be extinct :(

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/clima ... 304nw.html
Can you also dig up what they were predicting around, I don't know, about 2001??

Because I'll betcha it was much worse than your latest figures. In fact I guarantee it.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24599
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Manbush » January 3, 2014, 5:01 am

A new study in the journal Nature Climate Change looked at 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming.

Out of 117 predictions, only three were accurate. The other 114 overestimated the amount by which the Earth's temperature rose.

The predictions were roughly twice the amount of global warming than had actually occurred.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rming.html

They also predicted a few years ago Brisbane would be forever dry year later we get a flood, nothing like fear mongering to increase funding.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » January 3, 2014, 6:50 am

T_R wrote:All I can say is that the psychiatrist that I know (hardly a representative sample, I concur, but a professor of the subject at a QLD uni) thinks the idea of legalising pot is an act of lunacy - and this is a guy who spent the 60's in something of a drug haze, I gather.

Ask the guy who has to clean up the mess what he thinks of something if you want to see the real situation.

Wonderful graph, by the way, and a completely reputable source, too!
What benefits are we currently getting from the prohibition of cannabis?

We have increased crime. We have toxic strains. We have usage rates that increase year on year. We have cannabis being easier to aquire than alcohol for high school age students. And we still have mental health issues linked to dangerous cannabis usage.

The reality is young (and old) people have access to information now. They know there is a difference between correlation and causation and they simply aren't listening to the anti-cannabis hysteria anymore. Their own experience, often disputes the kind of rubbish they are being fed from anti-drug campaigns.

The reason we need to regulate the drug is because cannabis is still a potentially dangerous substance. Nowhere near as dangerous as alcohol or cigarettes but people still need to be aware and protected as much as possible. We can't protect and accurately inform people by keeping it illegal.

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » January 3, 2014, 7:05 am

Manbush wrote:A new study in the journal Nature Climate Change looked at 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming.

Out of 117 predictions, only three were accurate. The other 114 overestimated the amount by which the Earth's temperature rose.

The predictions were roughly twice the amount of global warming than had actually occurred.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rming.html

They also predicted a few years ago Brisbane would be forever dry year later we get a flood, nothing like fear mongering to increase funding.

Here are some more from the same article

This is neither surprising nor particularly troubling to me as a climate scientist,’ Melanie Fitzpatrick, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, told FoxNews.com. ‘The work of our community is constantly to refine our understanding of the climate system and improve models based on that,’ she says.

She believed that over the long term, climate models will be accurate but there also too many variations in climate to expect models to be accurate over twenty years.

‘The paper in no way diminishes the extensive body of observations that global warming is happening and that it is largely due to human activity,’ Ms Fitzpatrick added.

‘Global surface temperature is still rising ... 2012 was in the top ten warmest years on record. The period 2001-2010 was the warmest on record since instrumental measurements began,’ she added.

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24599
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Manbush » January 3, 2014, 7:28 am

Green eyed Mick wrote:
She believed that over the long term, climate models will be accurate but there also too many variations in climate to expect models to be accurate over twenty years.
.
Too many variables over a short time wouldn't logic say there will be even more variables over a longer period. It's just funny the predictions that can be proven wrong because they've already happened aren't reliable sources but we're meant to trust longer term ones which can't be proven/disproven till they actually occur.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43051
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by The Rickman » January 3, 2014, 7:30 am

Manbush wrote:A new study in the journal Nature Climate Change looked at 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming.

Out of 117 predictions, only three were accurate. The other 114 overestimated the amount by which the Earth's temperature rose.

The predictions were roughly twice the amount of global warming than had actually occurred.
Well imagine my surprise there.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43051
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by The Rickman » January 3, 2014, 7:31 am

Green eyed Mick wrote:
T_R wrote:All I can say is that the psychiatrist that I know (hardly a representative sample, I concur, but a professor of the subject at a QLD uni) thinks the idea of legalising pot is an act of lunacy - and this is a guy who spent the 60's in something of a drug haze, I gather.

Ask the guy who has to clean up the mess what he thinks of something if you want to see the real situation.

Wonderful graph, by the way, and a completely reputable source, too!
What benefits are we currently getting from the prohibition of cannabis?

We have increased crime. We have toxic strains. We have usage rates that increase year on year. We have cannabis being easier to aquire than alcohol for high school age students. And we still have mental health issues linked to dangerous cannabis usage.

The reality is young (and old) people have access to information now. They know there is a difference between correlation and causation and they simply aren't listening to the anti-cannabis hysteria anymore. Their own experience, often disputes the kind of rubbish they are being fed from anti-drug campaigns.

The reason we need to regulate the drug is because cannabis is still a potentially dangerous substance. Nowhere near as dangerous as alcohol or cigarettes but people still need to be aware and protected as much as possible. We can't protect and accurately inform people by keeping it illegal.
I'm with GeM on this one. When you make things illegal all you do is introduce a criminal element.

You largely reduce this by legalising something and regulating it properly. Prohibition doesn't work.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24599
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Manbush » January 3, 2014, 7:40 am

Prohibition has never worked throughout history, instead of it costing us a fortune the government could turn it around and make a fortune from it while also helping the environment
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » January 3, 2014, 8:17 am

Manbush wrote:
Green eyed Mick wrote:
She believed that over the long term, climate models will be accurate but there also too many variations in climate to expect models to be accurate over twenty years.
.
Too many variables over a short time wouldn't logic say there will be even more variables over a longer period. It's just funny the predictions that can be proven wrong because they've already happened aren't reliable sources but we're meant to trust longer term ones which can't be proven/disproven till they actually occur.
It is the opposite. In statistics and modelling the more information the more accurate your predictions become. Variables that skew small data sets don't have the same influence on larger data sets.

You don't have to trust anything. You just have to be aware that if the predictions eventuate the results will be catastrophic. Climate scientists are 95% certain climate change is happening and even though some of the predictions haven't come to pass, many troubling things they didn't predict have.

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24599
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Manbush » January 3, 2014, 8:27 am

Green eyed Mick wrote:
It is the opposite. In statistics and modelling the more information the more accurate your predictions become. Variables that skew small data sets don't have the same influence on larger data sets.
.
If they have that information to begin with, problem is they're using their unreliable short term predictions as information for longer tem predicitions. They're still using the same amount of facts for short term and long term.

One of my problems with climate change is it doesn't seem to respond how I think of sciences, scientists generally try and disprove their theories to prove it correct, not shout down those who disagree nor hide or manipulate data to prove themselves correct, that's more how religion behaves not science.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » January 3, 2014, 9:05 am

Manbush wrote:
Green eyed Mick wrote:
It is the opposite. In statistics and modelling the more information the more accurate your predictions become. Variables that skew small data sets don't have the same influence on larger data sets.
.
If they have that information to begin with, problem is they're using their unreliable short term predictions as information for longer tem predicitions. They're still using the same amount of facts for short term and long term.

One of my problems with climate change is it doesn't seem to respond how I think of sciences, scientists generally try and disprove their theories to prove it correct, not shout down those who disagree nor hide or manipulate data to prove themselves correct, that's more how religion behaves not science.
I am not sure what u have issue with. The more information they have the more reliable their predictions become. There is much more data and a better understanding of the data now than in the 90's. There will be more data and an even greater understanding in another 20 years.

The fact is we have some models predicting a 2 degree rise by the end of the century and some models predicting up to 8 degree rise. We don't yet have a consensus because outcomes are by there very nature 'unpredictable'. We do however have a consensus on what the current models tell us about the past. Human activity is causing climate change and the rate of change appears to be accelerating.

User avatar
gangrenous
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9609
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by gangrenous » January 3, 2014, 10:06 am

Manbush wrote:One of my problems with climate change is it doesn't seem to respond how I think of sciences, scientists generally try and disprove their theories to prove it correct, not shout down those who disagree nor hide or manipulate data to prove themselves correct, that's more how religion behaves not science.
The problem is that your perceptions all come from mainstream media.

You see scientists shouting down those who disagree because they see over-representation of an idea in the media which runs contrary to scientific consensus. They see an idea being propagated in the media which they consider very likely to be wrong, and if it is will potentially lead to a mass extinction the likes of which humans have never faced. That's not what should be presented with equal weight to the population at large.

How do you as an atheist expect biologists to treat evolution deniers in the media? Give them equal time and keep contrasting the denier ideas with their own? Now obviously some climate change denial scientists are doing a much better job than evolution deniers. But I think you get my point.

Scientists don't form consensus through arguments in the media. They try to prove or disprove ideas through discussions in offices, simulations, conferences, and journal publications. Just because you don't see them doing it in the media, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Who is hiding data? Who is manipulating data? Where is the reporting on this coming from?

The fact that all those models overestimated global warming is a red herring which distracts and discredits based on the exact numbers being wrong, while largely ignoring the fact that the trend continues to be up at an alarming rate. The models of 20 years ago not being bang on isn't that disturbing. Do you remember what computer you were using in the early 90s?! I had an apple IIe myself, what a powerful beast that was... Expecting the climate models not to get more accurate over the last 20 years is blatantly ridiculous, particularly as it becomes an area of stronger scientific importance attracting more funding and more of the brighter scientists. They are trying to model the world (and externals!) though, so it's still not going to be easy.

Ultimately I'm not a climate scientist. I haven't studied or analysed the data myself. It could be that the problem is still overestimated, that something about the ecosystem which is not understood will counterbalance or mute further increase. But the decision you have to make is whether you trust the large percentage of people who spend their lives day in day out thinking about the problem, or whether you gamble on the tiny percentage of scientists, media with vested interests, or people like Nickman and dubby who have a gut feeling that it'll all be okay. Also it has an element of Pascal's wager to it. If the climate scientists are wrong but we listened to them it'll cost us some economic hurt and we'll be ahead in clean energy tech. If the deniers are wrong and we listened to them it could be catastrophic. When you include the probabilities of each scenario it's an easy decision for me.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15738
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » January 3, 2014, 10:12 am

Green eyed Mick wrote:
T_R wrote:All I can say is that the psychiatrist that I know (hardly a representative sample, I concur, but a professor of the subject at a QLD uni) thinks the idea of legalising pot is an act of lunacy - and this is a guy who spent the 60's in something of a drug haze, I gather.

Ask the guy who has to clean up the mess what he thinks of something if you want to see the real situation.

Wonderful graph, by the way, and a completely reputable source, too!
What benefits are we currently getting from the prohibition of cannabis?

We have increased crime. We have toxic strains. We have usage rates that increase year on year. We have cannabis being easier to aquire than alcohol for high school age students. And we still have mental health issues linked to dangerous cannabis usage.

The reality is young (and old) people have access to information now. They know there is a difference between correlation and causation and they simply aren't listening to the anti-cannabis hysteria anymore. Their own experience, often disputes the kind of rubbish they are being fed from anti-drug campaigns.

The reason we need to regulate the drug is because cannabis is still a potentially dangerous substance. Nowhere near as dangerous as alcohol or cigarettes but people still need to be aware and protected as much as possible. We can't protect and accurately inform people by keeping it illegal.
I don't really feel strongly on this - just repeating the words of someone who knows what he's talking about and who I respect.

The only thing I'd add to the de-criminalisation argument is that Vancouver went through this, opening up pot cafes in the downtown area. It's now a complete and utter cesspit - absolutely foul. Seems to me to act as a beacon to the worst of humanity. If you're going to de-criminalise, go all the way, rather than concentrating grief into a small space.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43051
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by The Rickman » January 3, 2014, 10:21 am

Manbush wrote:Prohibition has never worked throughout history, instead of it costing us a fortune the government could turn it around and make a fortune from it while also helping the environment
Exactly.

Good grief, I'm agreeing with GeM and Manbush. What just happened??
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24599
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Manbush » January 3, 2014, 10:53 am

gangrenous wrote:
How do you as an atheist expect biologists to treat evolution deniers in the media? Give them equal time and keep contrasting the denier ideas with their own? Now obviously some climate change denial scientists are doing a much better job than evolution deniers. But I think you get my point.

Who is hiding data? Who is manipulating data? Where is the reporting on this coming from?
That's another issue, if you question it ie a skeptic you get shot down and labelled a denier which is not what a skeptic is.

Remember the leaked emails about a year or two ago? I'll also find more after work when I've got time if you like.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » January 3, 2014, 10:59 am

T_R wrote:
Green eyed Mick wrote:
T_R wrote:All I can say is that the psychiatrist that I know (hardly a representative sample, I concur, but a professor of the subject at a QLD uni) thinks the idea of legalising pot is an act of lunacy - and this is a guy who spent the 60's in something of a drug haze, I gather.

Ask the guy who has to clean up the mess what he thinks of something if you want to see the real situation.

Wonderful graph, by the way, and a completely reputable source, too!
What benefits are we currently getting from the prohibition of cannabis?

We have increased crime. We have toxic strains. We have usage rates that increase year on year. We have cannabis being easier to aquire than alcohol for high school age students. And we still have mental health issues linked to dangerous cannabis usage.

The reality is young (and old) people have access to information now. They know there is a difference between correlation and causation and they simply aren't listening to the anti-cannabis hysteria anymore. Their own experience, often disputes the kind of rubbish they are being fed from anti-drug campaigns.

The reason we need to regulate the drug is because cannabis is still a potentially dangerous substance. Nowhere near as dangerous as alcohol or cigarettes but people still need to be aware and protected as much as possible. We can't protect and accurately inform people by keeping it illegal.
I don't really feel strongly on this - just repeating the words of someone who knows what he's talking about and who I respect.

The only thing I'd add to the de-criminalisation argument is that Vancouver went through this, opening up pot cafes in the downtown area. It's now a complete and utter cesspit - absolutely foul. Seems to me to act as a beacon to the worst of humanity. If you're going to de-criminalise, go all the way, rather than concentrating grief into a small space.
I agree. The ACT has de-criminalised cannabis but it still doesn't do anything to make consumption any safer or improve access to treatment or information.

Legalisation and regulation is the only real option. We can't stop people using it so we might as well give them the tools to use it as safely as possible and in the process generate revenue that could go to something all of society can benefit from.

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24599
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Manbush » January 3, 2014, 11:06 am

The Nickman wrote:
Manbush wrote:Prohibition has never worked throughout history, instead of it costing us a fortune the government could turn it around and make a fortune from it while also helping the environment
Exactly.

Good grief, I'm agreeing with GeM and Manbush. What just happened??
It's a new year mate, you must still be drunk
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
gangrenous
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9609
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

The Politics Thread

Post by gangrenous » January 3, 2014, 11:15 am

Manbush wrote:
gangrenous wrote:
How do you as an atheist expect biologists to treat evolution deniers in the media? Give them equal time and keep contrasting the denier ideas with their own? Now obviously some climate change denial scientists are doing a much better job than evolution deniers. But I think you get my point.

Who is hiding data? Who is manipulating data? Where is the reporting on this coming from?
That's another issue, if you question it ie a skeptic you get shot down and labelled a denier which is not what a skeptic is.
Whether you're a denier or a skeptic you're still flying against consensus. You need some pretty good evidence which hasn't been forthcoming...

Manbush wrote: Remember the leaked emails about a year or two ago? I'll also find more after work when I've got time if you like.
I remember them, storm in a teacup. I hope the other stuff is better. Also leaked is inaccurate right? They were stolen weren't they?

I take it you don't find any fault with the rest of my post?

Post Reply