Good old Oscar!

And, the old farm saying goes: "There's no substitute for human stupidity."

Alex

Please, please, don't encourage Mr Pickford. He has insulted tradesmen this morning and I am not impressed. I am sure you don't share his views on tradesmen.

Thanks

Gerard Dean

We should take care this doesn't become snobbishness - 'we' know what's important, but the plebs don't.

Alex

If people are that stupid, how come I watched that Yankee Neil Armstrong walk on the moon on the when I was a kid.

Surely there are some smart, hard working people around.

Gerard Dean

That was when the yanks had the crap scared out of them by the acheivements of the russians re sputnik.

One of their immediate reactions was to massively upgrade science teaching in their schools.

But now, with the west's technological dominance for the past decades, we have become complacent and science education is slipping down the pecking order. And we will and are suffering as a result.

Science should be a complusory subject up to at least year 12.

Compulsory? Hmmmm

I understand your sentiments but making it compulsory may be somewhat heavy handed. I guess that English is compulsory and some form of maths. Some people call for a language to be compulsory. In fact a teacher friend of mine (yes I do have them) says that if you added up all of the calls for subect matter to be included in schools, students would have a 27 hour day.

Compulsory?

Thought provoking comment.

Gerard Dean

Gerard, I beleive you are reading too much into Mr Pickfords comments re tradesmen. As someone who was a tradesperson for many years I find nothing insulting about the comment; trades people meet the immediate needs of their market, we don't operate based on a greater good, we give our customers what they want now. That seems like a perfectly good analogy for the MO of the 'news' industry to me.

Dear Matthew

I could not make sense out of Mr Dean's ad hominum attack on me. So I thought it best to leave it alone.

Cheers

Giles

Pk, being only the 2nd member of my family to go to college, I understand.

Mr Wyres

Try reading the following comment slowly, "trades people meet the immediate needs of their market, we don't operate based on a greater good, we give our customers what they want now."

Think of all the trades people who make this country great, the plumbers and drainers who drain our waste away so we don't die from cholera, the builders who make our homes and university buildings, the mechanics who keep our trucks and cars running, the gardeners who make our cityscape look nice, the electricians who run keep our power system running. Do they only work for the money, are they not satisfied when a broken V8 motor roars back into life or a power point pumps out power.

To contend that trades people "don't operate on the greater good" indicates that you think others do. Perhaps you could identify these people who "operate for the greater good". Would they be the professional classes such as yourself as a Mechanical Engineer, or professional people or doctors or priests or teachers or nurses or footballers or Professors of Environemental Philosophy who tell me not to use fossil fuel, then use themselves. As far as I can see none of these work for the greater good any more than my long suffering builder.

Damned snobbery is an evil. Stop it.

Gerard Dean

Mr James

The media is more than the Age's home page.

The Australian mainstream media do a wonderful job bringing us a wide variety of news including environmental news. Editors know that you cannot keep hammering the same story every day so they . For 2 weeks it was the Olympics, now Assange and Gillard and the New Zealand soldiers. In a few days an environmental story will break and we will be over it like flies, then it will be Christmas time.

In the meantime, people go about their daily business, boring stuff like driving to work means we are interested in cars. The footy finals are around the corner, so footy will raise it's profile, then politics.

Next time you burn some non renewable JetA1 fuel to attend an academic conference overseas, try looking at their media. Most countries cannot match the depth and level of Australian news outlets, mainly because they don't have our delightfully biased ABC. DON"T GET ME WRONG, I LOVE THE ABC.

Oh. I just saw something, you are a lecturer with the National Centre for Sustainability. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Does that mean you live a sustainable lifestyle, or you tells others to? I am thinking that those airconditioned new buildings at Swinny arern't too sustainable.

Gerard Dean
Master of JetA1 Fuel Usage.

As much as I hate to admit it, Gerard does have a point here.

There is certain level of hypocrisy even on the science side.

Not that there is much alternative to flying to science conferences etc which are also essential. Perhaps more remote video conferences and less in person conferences, but then the scientific community may already do this.

Iguess, as with politicians, if you are going to talk the talk then you are generally expected to walk the walk.

Not sure exactly how the science community can acheive that without plane travel while maintaining the regular contact that is needed between scientists.

Greg, Mr Dean consumes far more Jet Fuel in his own pursuit of profit for his business than any academic might hope to.

Of course, good luck to him. His business is an export success.

But his continual trolling of this issue is both a tad hypocritical and also tedious - but it probably just reflects the fact he likes to stir rather than make a substantial contribution to many of the discussions.

Greg

I agree. Of course we have to fly and drive and take trains to go about our business; be we politicians, academics, scientists, manufacturers, pensioners, tradespeople and the sick.

All I ask is that those who lecture us like Professor Mathews, acknowledge their own use of fossil fuels in their writings and public pronouncements.

Sure, it will dampen their message somewhat, but it will bring a much larger return - credibility. I guess you could look at is as a form of "Welcome to Country" ceremony.

All of us, including those descended from the convicts to the latest immigrants from the Middle East, know we are occupying Aboriginal land. It should be remembered that most Aboriginal people lived on the fertile east coast and considered the Yarra and Parramatta rivers as prime tribal lands. Then we came along and did what humans have always done, and occupied their land. The Welcome to Country ceremony acknowledges the original owners of our wonderful country and let's us move on without having to continually display angst.

So, perhaps Professor Mathews should start with her "I love JetA1 fuel" statement in which she acknowledges her own use of the fossil fuel in the course of her work and pleasure. Surely, this is the only moral approach from an philosophical and environmental perspective.

I await the Professor's perspective with interest.

Gerard Dean

I figured from the tone of his post that he is a climate denier.

But I still concede that he has a point Mark, that the science community should address, as they deem appropriate, as part of their communication on the climate change issue.

Hmm, that smacks of a double standard too Gerard. Why is it that you don't apply it to your own angry ant posts taking others to task about using Jet Fuel when you have acknowledged that you consume heaps of it?

Yippee, Doctor Harrigan is BACK IN TOWN

Now watch the sparks fly. All we need now are the usual suspects like Mr Hendrickx to roll along, and we are on for another roll.

I am not a denier, truly I ain't. Of course the climate changes, it always has, it always will. But if it is changing due to us burning fossil fuels and Professor Mathews knows it, whey does she keep using fossil fuels.

Now, I am off down the street in my 7 Litre V8 Commodore. If any lowly BMW or Audis dare line up at the traffic lights,you know she will do her best for Australia. And that can only be a good thing.

Think about it.

Gerard Dean

Gerard - you are a "dinier" if you promulgate the statement "Of course the climate changes, it always has". The point is that our use of fossil fuels is causing increased heat CO2 content in the atmosphere and ocean, leading to increased heat content and decreasing ph in the coean - so rising sea levels and damage to the matine ecosystem as well as loss of sea ice, rising temperatures etc - all of which will make life more difficult for just about evey living thing - including us car driving apes.

We all keep using fossil fuels, as you well know, because our built infrastructure makes it virtually impossible to do otherwise and still live our lives. But we can take steps to reduce our carbon footprint.

That's what responsible people are trying to do whilst advocating for change in policies that will see our built infrastructure change over time to something more sustainable.

That the popular meida don;t discuss this is because it's not "entertaining"

When will you join the ranks of the responsible and ethical rather than the ratbaggery pointing of fingers at those who advocate change?

Oops - "denier" ;)

Greg - for the record. Jet fuel contributes less than 2% to emssions though probably has about twice that impact due to where it happens - and it is one of the fastest rising srouces of emissions.

But road use (cars) and power generation are the pareto issues. Mr Dean never even mentions them

Call me what you will Mark,

But never, ever think that my 7 Litre V8 won't try and extract every last joule of power from the Optimax fuel I feed the beast when the pedal is slammed to metal when up against a German car.

And that can only be a good thing. For Australia

Gerard Dean
A proud 7 Litre V8 owner and fossil fuel user.

I think you will find that the joules of *energy* (or alternatively Watts of power) that are extracted from your optimax fuel (that probably prefers to be called V-Power) by your american built 7L V8 do not do much for Australia.
Unless its a heavily modified Holden Small block?

And yes I realise I am just bickering....

To clarify my comment; only the holden small block and leyland V8 were built here.

It would be more patriotic to purchase a 6cyl as they are designed and manufactured locally

I will take your word for it Mark, but the means of consuming fossil fuels is not really all that important.

The fact remains that the scientific community appears to consume as much fossil fuels as the business community.

If this is not the case and climate scientists are indeed puting strategies in place to minimise this, and consumption in general, then they need to make this clear to the public.....walking the walk.

Now that Gerard has brought this up I suspect this issue is a contributor to the level skepticism towards climate change among the general public.

Matthew

Spot on. Holden started with the 253 V8 then progressed to the 308 I think. The famed Ford GTs were all powered by yankee V8s.

I might be wrong on this, but I think that Holden built 350 or 5.7 V8s until the early 2000's. I am pretty sure my first HSV 5.7 litre V8s were made in Port Melbourne.

You are correct that the V6 is made in Australia, however the only high performance Australian motor made now is the turbo charged Ford Falcon in-line 8. A fantastic motor.

It is good to know that this site is not the total preserve of organic tea drinking vegetarians.

Thanks for the correction

Gerard Dean

We are ALL still guilty of using fossil fuels. Until we have viable alternatives, that will continue to be the case. What part of "We are trying to transition from that" isn't getting through? The massive part that mainstream media continues to stifle.

Accusing each other of using the only sources that are currently available is an exercise in stupidity - unless there is a hidden agenda of undermining any attempts at discussing sustainable alternatives, hmmmmm, Gerard Deam et al? Part of which we see within the mainstream media, which is what this article is about.

While I sit typing this post, I am using a gas-heater for warmth. This will continue to be the case until there are (for me - I'm not wealthy) affordable alternatives. However, while the "sceptics" continue to hold sway, the viable alternatives remain too far into the future for the average schmo like yours truly to ever implement.

"While I sit typing this post, I am using a gas-heater for warmth. This will continue to be the case until there are (for me - I'm not wealthy) affordable alternatives. However, while the "sceptics" continue to hold sway, the viable alternatives remain too far into the future for the average schmo like yours truly to ever implement."

Given this represents the majority of Australians at present we should be talking about zero net population growth as part of a strategy to:

1) Conserve what is left of fossil fuels for as long as possible until viable alternative energy sources become available.

2) To limit demand on viable renewable energy when it is available because they will have a very much lower EROEI than fossil fuels.

Enery Retruned On Energy Invested

Greg

"1) Conserve what is left of fossil fuels for as long as possible until viable alternative energy sources become available."

Agree

"2) To limit demand on viable renewable energy when it is available because they will have a very much lower EROEI than fossil fuels."

Not so sure with this one. The point of renewable energy being sustainable is that they will have a high EROEI - if they are given the support, research, development, investment needed.

Meanwhile we fiddle.

Dianna I suggest you read up on the term EROEI and learn a bit more about the economic viability of alternative energy sources compared to fossil fuels.

I was not aware of this myself until one time I decided to investigate a little more deeply the viability of alternative energy sources.

I did a really rough back of the envelope calculation one time that revealed that, to replace its current annual consumption of oil energy with solar electricity, the US would have to implement an area roughly the size of Malaysia packed solid with solar cells.

That is a MASSIVE amount of infrastructure compared a much smaller number of oil rigs delivering the same net energy.

Then consider how we would maintain, replace and expand such MASSIVE infrastructure without the industrial might afforded by oil energy. I.E. Without heavy haulage vehicles, cranes, heavy earth moving vehicles and vehicles to patrol an area the size of Malaysia,......... Without oil energy we simply could not do it at the rate reuired by our current population let alone a population of 9 billion plus all expecting a western standard of living.

Then consider that electrical energy cannot currently be stored and transported as efficiently as a tank full of petrol or a tanker full of petrol.

When you take this into consideration it is difficult not to become rather alarmed about humanities future prospects if we fail to halt and reverse population growth.

Also consider biofuels, e.g. oil seeds. There is already a looming shortfall in food production as the global population climbs towards 9 billion.

To replace crude oil, oil seeds will have to compete with food crops for productive agricultural land as has been the case in the USA with corn/maize and ethanol production which has had some effect on global maize and corn prices. Much of the third world is dependant on these as staple foods.

Consider that it take a much longer period of time to grow the oil seeds, harvest them and extract the oil than it does to simply pump and equivalent volume of oil out of well. We will not be able to produce biofuels at the same rate as we can with oil at present. And biofuels require a far greater amount of energy investment hence their EROEI is lower.

That is more akin to ignoring the problem rather than trying to solve it in my opinion.

And given that there is little other choice than the popular media, not consuming it almost means cutting yourself off in a 'hippie shack on a mountain side'.

If you think there is "little other choice than the popular media" then you have either been living under a rock for the past 20 years (and hence don't know the internet) or else are unaware of public broadcasting in Oz, USA and UK.

While I agree Tim - I also think your example is analogous with over-consumption - I must say that the average Joe, (that's you, me and the other guy) have a trained army of marketing psychologists, picking our collective minds apart to see what makes us tick. The result is this kind of junk-food for the mind media - something most folks find irresistible.

We are responsible for this mess to a degree, but we've also got a lot of calculated intelligence telling us what we should think.

Hmm, sort of. There are many businesses that operate to make a profit and are also in the provision on a social service - and we licence them accordingly because we recognise as a society the important of providing some regulatory environment that (if done properly) both enables the profitable provision of that service (and hence aids society) but also allows the profit motive to be pursued.

Banking is one such service. The media is another.

However I think the answer lies not in restrictive regulation but regulation that encourages diversity of supply. After that it is up to us consumers to "decide".

Good post though Matthew, espcially the points about public educarion and having an informed youth.

Thanks Mark,
I think I would put the 'public service' provided by the banking industry in the same basket as the 'public service' provided by the media.
They both provide a service to the public, but operate mostly to generate profits, and don't consider the needs of society unless those needs align with the most efficient means of generating a profit (purely speculation of course).

Maybe Matthew. I think that's a bit of a balck and white view.

I prefer something more nuanced.

The profit motive need not be inconsistent with the social service objective - though they are not the same. Whilst profits (or more properely economic value added - returns over and above their cost of capital) must be primary for any business in order to prosper - and hence provide a return to their shareholders - they need not be the "only" objective of a business. Indeed it that it is true it is a business that is not welcome in society (Tobacco companies spring to mind).

It is quite proper for businesses to have a public service that they should fulfil in return for society licencing them to make a profit - such as we do for both those sectors - giving them a limited monopoly. To the extent that they do not fulfill that public service it is reasonable for them to be taken to account.

Dunno about that Desmond.

I suspect you are giving too much intellectual credit to the current crop of journalists.

I think they write trivial social and political crap because:

1) They intellectually incable of comprehending the big picture and big issues.
2) They simply too intellectually lazy to analyse the big picture and big issues.
3) They are too busy not offending the editors by writing stuff that might conflict with their world view that might lead to them losing their job.
4) All of the above.

1) and 2) go to our education system and its apparent failure to teach kids the ability think critically rather than swallow everything they are told by authority figures without question.

That could change with a higher quality and complusory longer science education. Critical thinking is an integral part of science particularly when it comes to discussing the possible reasons for unexpected results to experiments either because of a mistake or because unanticipated effects.

Also the mere fact that your knowledge may be at a higher level than the 'authority figure' enables you to often see through their crap.

Greg, Your point 3) is about what I had in my mind. (professional journalists)
What we need is people who do the research, get the facts, publish and follow up on the outcomes, if any.

We also need editors etc that are capable of real thought about big picture issues, rather than social trivialities, and who hire journalists who are capable of real thought about big picture issues.

What about media board directors that are capable of real thought and can see the value of quality journalism to greater society as well as buisiness profits.

Compulsory science up to at least year 12 will go some way towards improving the intellectual quality of members of society in general. And the average quality of jorurnalism must then reflect the greater average intellectual quality of society.

We have all heard the term 'dumbing down'.
Well that is essentially what our current education system is doing at present, dumbing down our society