Changing Minds

Watched the documentary called ‘I Can Change Your Mind On Climate Change’.  It was followed by a Q and A panel on the same topic.

It featured Anna Rose, co-founder of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, and Nick Minchin, former coalition senator. Both participants invited the other to speak to a selection of experts of their choice, in an effort to convince them to change their mind.  It was an interesting yet futile concept.

Rose would be considered an alarmist.  She appealed to emotion very often.  Asking viewers to think about future generations or those in third world countries.  She wholly believes that the world will end if we don’t act on climate change.  She is very naïve and idealistic. 

Minchin is less emotive.  He’s labelled a sceptic despite saying that he agrees that the climate is changing.  He takes a common sense approach and is disappointed about the lack of a fair dinkum debate that has long been stifled by a supposed consensus in the science.

The stifling of debate and alarmism over ‘the science’ seems to have been counterproductive, the by-product being the growth of a dismissive apathy from the general public.  This infuriates the alarmists, as they can’t stand the fact that there are people who disagree with them.

Washington DC journalist, Marc Marano, disagreed with her.  But Anna wouldn’t engage in discussion due to her assertion that Marano is involved in dodgy practices in his efforts to discredit climate scientists.  Her strongest defence was that Marano appeared to have links to a certain tobacco mogul. Minchin later rightly pointed out that such a defense was tenuous in that it had no direct bearing on the climate change debate, much less Marano’s involvement in the same. There was no rebuttal from Marc as the documentary moved on, although he appeared miffed at her behaviour.  Not surprising as it was rude, childish and cowardly, and certainly not exemplary of the accepted rules of civilized debate.

Anna’s uncle is a farmer near Moree.  She took Nick there to hear his views.  To Anna it is land like this for which she is fighting.  Her uncle reported that by his own measurements his land is warming - so much so that he is planting his summer crops up to three weeks earlier than usual.  Anna would contend that this is a sign that the science is true; that the earth is warming dangerously and the world will cease to exist with inaction.  Another view is that him planting crops earlier is a great example of adapting to the already changing climate and that earlier crops may mean more crops, or perhaps even a competitive edge in the agricultural market, if there are other regions of the world requiring what he plants, when they’re all waiting for their warmer season to arrive.

Both extremes were on display during the documentary and the panel.  On one end is the alarmism view held by Anna Rose, although even she seemed not to be able to sustain such a tiring stance. At the end of the documentary she stated, “the Science is never 100%”. So the question is, can even she trust the zealous approach she currently takes on climate change, when the data underneath her are turning on a dime? Even Rose herself did not appear entirely set on her stance.

At the other end is dismissing that the climate is even changing.  Fortunately no one on the panel held this view, as this would be to blatantly deny all the fluctuations we have experienced since records began. Like most issues the truth might be somewhere in the middle.

The documentary did manage to crystallise my views on this issue.  The climate is changing as it always has.  It is always active, warming or cooling, currently warming (even though we remain in an ice age).  Therefore causes of warming are mainly natural with a small role played by human forces. The world will not end through inaction but we ought to be good stewards of this planet by looking towards alternate sources of power.  Nuclear should be considered if you’re serious about quitting coal.  In the meantime other sources need to be developed to make them cost competitive and capable of managing base load power.  Our economy should not be harmed unnecessarily in the process.

Sensible decisions are needed - not emotion driven alarmism.

I Love My Ring

The origins of the giving wedding rings goes back a long way. It is a symbol of love and commitment to each other.

But there are extra ways to be reminded of that special someone than the mere presence of the ring.

1. A callous has formed on my hand below my ring finger. It reminds me that marriage is hard work, but worth it.
2. Touching something metallic results in a clang. A ring from the ring that makes me think of my wife
3. Her rings sparkle more than mine but watching her admire them always makes me smile

The Stink

The Health Services Union (HSU) has been suspended by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). They say they have a ‘zero tolerance’ on corruption and had to make this tough call on the HSU.

In response to this issue Gillard spins through by pointing at workchoices as something much worse than anything you could imagine the unions performing.

Yet it was the HSU that negotiated away certain wage entitlements in the last collective bargaining agreement for those in my profession. It was worse than anything workchoices could have done. It infuriated many.

The HSU is on the nose to say the least. That is why the ACTU is distancing itself from the stink. It’s what most would do. Yet Gillard remains close to the stink by defending Craig Thompson, the former HSU secretary at the heart of the problem.

Eventually Gillard will begin to stink as well. That is if she doesn’t stinketh already.

UPDATE:  Here's what Messrs Bolt and Ackerman have to say on the subject

SUV Phenomenon

There seems a growing trend of SUV’s becoming the family car.  It is especially the case of those made by prestigious European brands.  Not sure why.  Perhaps being higher off the road is the main attraction, or an ego thing.  I thought being higher off the road represents a desire to go off the road.

But can you imagine taking an Audi, Porsche, Mercedes or Renault SUV off the road?  I doubt it.  Especially one with shiny rims as they all seem to have as a standard feature from the factory.

Sporting a European SUV might suggest an eye for quality, superior engineering.  Yet the BMW version is not good off road, if you take the word of Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear.  As a result it can’t be considered superior engineering for an on road car as its SUV features usually detract from its on road capabilities.

So you’re left with an overpriced status symbol.  If that’s what you want then good for you.  But there are plenty of worthwhile alternatives.  How about a Toyota Landcruiser for proper off road capabilities.  If you want European then go for the sedan of your favourite make.  The Subaru Forrester is a good compromise of road and all wheel drive, plus its very reliable.  But if you must go an SUV then consider a Ford Territory, it’s cheaper and arguably better.