Climate Change and our Land of Fire, Flood and Drought.

Quote:

---

I've got to get a PSA test tomorrow and once I have the results I'll go back to the docs for advice.

---

Very good luck with the PSA results. Seriously. I trust you have caught it early. [wink11]

You seem to have some misconceptions about how Australian voting and government works.

Australia, in HoR elections, uses the tranferable preferential voting system. Any candidate that is elected has a majority of votes in that seat - first preferences are not the only votes that count. Where there are more than two candidates, the the voters who gave their first preference to the least successful candidate has their vote taken as being for their second preference, and these are added on to the first preference votes for each candidate. This is repeated until a candidate has a majority.

Thus it is categorically wrong to equate first preferences as the only votes that count, as you have done. In a first past the post system, such as that used in the UK, you would be right, but that is not what is used here.

And neither is it correct to say that it is a minority government. In Australia, the status of the government is determined in the House of Representatives, and the current government actually has a majority in that house.

There are problems with Australia's electoral system, but not the ones you claim. (In my view, mainly single member electorates, but I also bear in mind that any electoral system has problems, and Australia's is better than most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

You seem to have some misconceptions about how Australian voting and government works.

Australia, in HoR elections, uses the tranferable preferential voting system. Any candidate that is elected has a majority of votes in that seat - first preferences are not the only votes that count. Where there are more than two candidates, the the voters who gave their first preference to the least successful candidate has their vote taken as being for their second preference, and these are added on to the first preference votes for each candidate. This is repeated until a candidate has a majority.

Thus it is categorically wrong to equate first preferences as the only votes that count, as you have done. In a first past the post system, such as that used in the UK, you would be right, but that is not what is used here.

And neither is it correct to say that it is a minority government. In Australia, the status of the government is determined in the House of Representatives, and the current government actually has a majority in that house.

There are problems with Australia's electoral system, but not the ones you claim. (In my view, mainly single member electorates, but I also bear in mind that any electoral system has problems, and Australia's is better than most.

---

I know exactly how the preferential system system works, even been a candidate myself.
I repeat, the LNP received a minority of first preference votes, that's just a fact.

This thrread is very near politics and also recent posts have relapsed into personal denigration.

If you blokes do not clean up your act I wil recommend to the other mods that it be deleted.

Regards PhilipA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

I know exactly how the preferential system system works, even been a candidate myself.
I repeat, the LNP received a minority of first preference votes, that's just a fact.

---

And the point of this fact is what?
The other major party didn’t get in; another fact.
Far left and Far right didn’t get a look in.

And none of these parties at a federal level are directly involved in the management of Lands, Parks, Wildlife or Bushfire prevention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

It's a bit pointless talking about maximums, which might only occur occasionally.
....

---

Fair point.
So not only is it a useless fabrication to induce scaremongering, it's also a pointless exercise too.

So why then, does The Conversation post it in their diatribe on proof that climate change is doing this that and the other, in that stupid article they claim as the vaccine for climate deniers?
They obviously linked to the video to prove some point, which you just said yourself is a pointless point!
Watch the video and try(if you can) to understand what it's trying to express.
The first 6 or so sec shows some(bunkum) data .. this is the point of my reply, because no such data exists. Beyond the 6 sec mark is a prediction of distributions of maximums they expect to occur. Not have occured, predicted to occur.
First point. If the historical data is bogus, how can they claim the predictions to be of any value?
The (bunkum) historical data shows this red line, that they claim is of some significant importance, varying higher and lower in value up till present, and then for no explainable reasoning in the future just slowly creeps higher in it's value.
Based on what logic?
Finally, you now claim that it's of no importance.

So the summary can be simply put:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Conversation articles are opinion pieces by academics writing their opinions about issues in their fields of expertise. They are not intended to be impartial. They are the opinions of experts in the field saying what they think is important.
....

---

So what they think is important is pointless baseless data(or facts)?

Maybe you could write in and question their reliance on pointless pseudo scientific scaremongering

And again, they try to make an argument that fires have got worse, yet don't bother to provide a similar type of graphic to prove this comment in any way?

Earlier on in the thread(#1477) you replied with the implication that I tried to fudge figures(which I didn't, as all my figures come directly from scientific sources) .. so isn't it appropriate that you'd contact these Conversationists academics and make similar complaints?
Or does it only work one way, in that if you perceive someone to be a climate denier, those types of comments are the only ones you target as inaccurate?

I love to post Bens videos.
I guess i agree with his take on things.
Interesting video none the less.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl4cQKKudjM

Here's an interesting summary of where Australians actually stand on climate change.

If Australia were 100 people, here's where we'd stand on climate change
What Australians really think about climate action - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Here's an interesting summary of where Australians actually stand on climate change.

If Australia were 100 people, here's where we'd stand on climate change
What Australians really think about climate action - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

---

Did that article originate from the ABC or the Labour Party think tank ??[bigwhistle]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Here's an interesting summary of where Australians actually stand on climate change.

If Australia were 100 people, here's where we'd stand on climate change
What Australians really think about climate action - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

---

Entertaining survey.

Whilst indicative of the 54,000 people who participated the bias will exist that these people are leaning towards ABC topical issues.

If this was done as a referendum of the entire country - that would be interesting to read.

I did find it interesting the divide between “we need to learn to adapt” and the more youthful approach of “introduce technologies to change it”.

One of the changes that I think can bring about some notable change - remove convenience! Throw away society, throw away gadgets, single use items etc are intensive and heavy.

All consumer goods should be required to be serviceable (increase lifespan), should be able to be fully recycled (EOL) and cheap single use products should be removed.
But watch out for the impact on cost if that all happened!