I legitimately think the business model is to get approval and then demand compensation.
2 Likes
Pretty much, I think too. And it will work. Political parties will win some seats they want to win, mining executives will take home bonuses paid for by the public purse, and weāll be left with the bill.
1 Like
I hear what you are saying. But re guns germs and steel, Jared diamond was writing in his field. He is a phd in geography and evolutionary biology.
There is legit academic criticism of his work, but it was part of academic discourse.
Good comment though
I should clarify, diamond did over reach and gĆ©nĆ©ralise in that book at times and there has been a relatively respectful back and forth over claims and itās been based on evidence.
I thinks itās a fair way from Peterson saying ā the climate canāt be modeledā when he isnāt a climate scientist, and itās patently untrue.
3 Likes
The problem that I see with Jordan Peterson is that for many he is so believable. In a similar way that Trump followers believe everything Trump says.
It is just dangerous for people to have that power.
1 Like
People like Peterson, Trump and Tate have a particularly dangerous skill, whereby they offer simple solutions to complex problems.
They accomplish this by leveraging their prior (often perceived and not real) successes or accomplishments into an authoritative or credible position and offer simple ideas which confirm the biases of their audiences in areas far outside their areas of expertise
3 Likes
Sound like how Worsher got the job at Essendon.
2 Likes
Not sure if this post is for Climate Change or Australian Politics threadā¦ i.e. check out the mine owner.
First time for everything.
Cue āwell I hope all the coral doesnāt freeze if the climate cools and thereās no coal or gas to keep them warm, Iām now 45% through the IPCC report and it hasnāt even mentioned Jordan Petersonās views on Eskimo sexā¦ā
2 Likes
iāll reply to this msg as a reply to this and humble minions post as itās way to complex to go into in the depth it would require.
for the record I didnāt say or claim (not that you guys specifically said it about me either) that peterson should be considered a reputable source on the subject.
I followed up on a claim that heās a pseudo intellectual comment from another poster. further follow up on the topic of him was in relation to you and foxās claims about what you guys have perceived he either has said or thought heās said.
my only other comment on him is in relation to if heās not to be believe cos he isnāt apart of the right field, then what fields are qualified to make comments ? and what makes them qualified ?
benny sent a link which iām trying to get to and go through and understand (obviously as he stated thereās alot of sceince stuff in there idiots trying to do their own research on are not going to understand 
as iāve learnt)
having glanced at it and looked into the IPCC as he suggested, it says that council doesnāt do any of itās own research, it peer reviews others work.
So in going back to the original question, whoās qualified and what fields are qualified to make informed decisions on the subject ?
would it cover then people who are good at researching clinical data across any field ? which then JP could be (not saying is or should be, but could) able to make comment ? as it would make a whole range of other people qualified then on both sides.
thereās a whole lot more, but this is too long a post now.
Looks like everybodyās off reading the report. Close thread?
Well lets hope the climate does not get hotter as predicted by most people who have studied it cause ālots are gunna die of starvation, disease & the cold(/heat)ā
3 Likes
We humans are in a bit of a pickle after watching this clip. On a positive note, the investors amongst us could make a killing, if we donāt blow the world up beforehand:
Couldnāt stay away from the YouTube kooks? I thought you were going to be busy reading the IPCC report and watching that Yale climate science online course?
Is he a kook though? Makes lots of good points that we all need to understand and at no stage does he deny CC
Thereās a very real supply side challenge coming and there isnāt the policy foresight to address it. Copper production will need to increase by 600%. That means that exploration right now should be absolutely ballistic, but it isnāt. Exploration is funded by the market, the market is focused on short term commodity prices. Funding is extremely difficult to source when copper prices are low, which means exploration stops. We are facing a scenario where we know long term demand is high, we know exploration takes a long time, but we artificially turn off exploration because of short term price dips.
Something needs to be done in this space. Itās going to bite us in the ā ā ā ā , but by the time the problem is obvious it will be a 10+ year delay to find the resources and build the mines needed to fix it.
We are in a period where geology departments are being closed down in universities. We arenāt producing the scientists needed to fill the obvious needs of the coming 30 years.
2 Likes
There are and will be a whole bunch of problems created by the solutions we utilise to mitigate the climate change problem. Thatās the nature of things. If the debate actually moves on to how to solve those problems, rather than re-litigating the existence of the problem we know we currently have thatās progress.
4 Likes
Agreed.
Imagine articulating the infrastructure needed to fuel petrol powered transport. We are going to fill vehicles full of highly flammable liquids. We need to find and pump millions of barrels of the stuff a day. We need massive refining infrastructure, massive pipeline networks and massive trucking fleets.
But it was all solvable. We can sort this, the trick is to identify problems as early as possible.
4 Likes
And not use those problems as an excuse for not making the transition, which is the line that people like this Manhattan Institute are pushing long-term.
5 Likes