Global Warming

[Sintiger]

People can do good things for others at their own expense, but they are still serving their own interest.

Pretty cynical view of people's motives i believe but undoubtedly true of some, but definitely not all. I have met quite a few people who I see at altruistic, not religiously motivated btw.

 

[Giardiasis]

At $20 billion and growing she can keep it afloat for a hell of long time without impacting her lifestyle one iota.

That $20 billion is not in liquid cash, ready to spend where she pleases. I daresay a fair chunk of it is tied up in illiquid assets.

and offsetting losses with financial gain through the influence provided by the paper.

Can you please expand on this?

 

[Giardiasis]

Then why doesn't she just sign the charter of independence? I wonder if you have watched FOX News lately, now there's a perfect example of turning a supposed news agency into a Republican propaganda machine.

I have already said why, because she is not prepared to risk her money on the back of people that are proven failures. Same reason why other majority owners didn't sign the charter either.

And have you read the New York Times lately? Now there's a perfect example of a Democrat propaganda machine. Both are serving the market, what's the problem?

So you're suggesting that assets can't be sold and business operations rationalised? Ever seen Wall St? Ever wondered how guys like Mitt Romney made their fortunes? Selling off assets is common place, particularly when the share price doesn't reflect the resale value of a business. Fairfax still has some lucrative assets, it's just that it's paper division is haemoraging money at an alarming rate. Newscorp is already beginning the task of restructuring it's business, Fairfax is doing the same, it's not a question of whether Fairfax will be broken up, but an issue of how far the board is willing to go. Rinehart is very unlikely to lose in the wash-up, and if she does, it will be a drop in the ocean when one considers her 29 billion dollar retirement fund.

Eh, no I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that Rinehart isn't going to be making money from Fairfax unless it becomes profitable. If you would prefer Fairfax to remain the leftist choice of media, then perhaps you'd like to risk your money and buy a majority stake?

 

[tigersnake]

That $20 billion is not in liquid cash, ready to spend where she pleases. I daresay a fair chunk of it is tied up in illiquid assets.
Can you please expand on this?

Its self evident G. She can take a small short term hit on newspaper sales, but a relentless editorial push against the science and policy of climate change, and any mining tax changes, even if only marginally effective, will offset it 10 times over. Its basic stuff.

 

[tigersnake]

Don't expect a reply to this post today. The gang are having a Carbon Tax Party ;D

Its a happy day for me. Its no longer free to pollute.

Its a tiny step, probably too little too late, but the main outcome is a change in thinking. Using energy has an impact. Its pretty simple.

 

[bullus_hit]

I have already said why, because she is not prepared to risk her money on the back of people that are proven failures. Same reason why other majority owners didn't sign the charter either.

If you can't see her attempts at gaining influence I dare say you are arguing for arguments sake.

And have you read the New York Times lately? Now there's a perfect example of a Democrat propaganda machine. Both are serving the market, what's the problem?

When the media simply becomes a mouthpiece for political parties then it aint worth reading in my opinion, whether that be Democrat, Republican, Greens or Socialist.

Eh, no I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that Rinehart isn't going to be making money from Fairfax unless it becomes profitable. If you would prefer Fairfax to remain the leftist choice of media, then perhaps you'd like to risk your money and buy a majority stake?

If you think Fairfax is pro-Gillard then you obviously haven't been reading much lately, or perhaps you are so entrenched in the Andrew Bolt school of thinking that anything else is just too radical. By the way, I don't usually read The Age for my political fix, there are a number of excellent sites which avoid turning every issue into a right versus left slanging match.

 

[tigersnake]

I most certainly do, anything that threatens freedom of speech should be questioned and challenged if we truly value democracy. Rinehart has an agenda, she couldn't give a stuff about the journalists at Fairfax and couldn't give a stuff about certain segments of the community.

As an example, do you think Rinehart cares about rural Australia and the fact that big miners are destroying livelihoods? Do farmers deserve a voice or are we expected to listen to her self-serving drivel at the expense of everyone else in society?

As for risking her hard earned capital on an ailing media organisation, do you honestly think this is about restoring the company to profitability? I would consider that notion naive in the extreme, and that has been backed up by her refusal to allow for editorial independence. This is about controlling information and using the media to influence politicians and public opinion.

If Fairfax goes under, I also suspect Rinehart would be laughing all the way to the bank, at present, it would probably be worth more if it was carved up and sold off on the open market. And if that happens, Australia would play host to the most homogenised media in the world.

Just gotta love livin' in the free world.

The thing that really floors me is that her agenda is already being pushed hard by Murdoch and has been for years. Given that, and also given her huge and increasing profits, why is she so driven to gag the pesky moderate analysts at Fairfax? I can only think of a few reasons, none of them are flattering to her: 1) She is in WA which has a Fairfax daily as its only paper. She and her associates aren't as exposed to the relentless Murdoch anti-science anti-AGW we are everyday. But then again the Aus is over there. 2) She ideologically driven to an extent that we've never seen before. She just likes/ wants to crush the opposition.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Hi Liverpool. I had heard a little about your previous life on here from someone that was around at the time. I notice you are up against the 'group' on here again. You know you are wasting your time trying to argue against the 'gang' - people of the left tend to prefer to cluster, it gives them a feeling of strength.

I try to forgive this character flaw though, as I tend to think much of it stems from them having been bullied at some point themselves, or perhaps 'left out' or overlooked, so they gravitate to where they know the 'group' is close by, having like-minded people close-by gives them some security and assists with their 'group-think.'

I doubt very much any of these posters would spend time arguing 'one up' against a group of dissenters on a different forum, as you and Glardiasis do here at times. Let me say there would be many 'lurkers' that agree with you, have agreed with you, and admire your enrgy to debate and courage to stand against the 'gang' on here.

Does this qualify for GoldPosts? :rofl

Merveille the maverick and his posse of invisible lurkers. It's gotta ring to it.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

The thing that really floors me is that her agenda is already being pushed hard by Murdoch and has been for years. Given that, and also given her huge and increasing profits, why is she so driven to gag the pesky moderate analysts at Fairfax? I can only think of a few reasons, none of them are flattering to her: 1) She is in WA which has a Fairfax daily as its only paper. She and her associates aren't as exposed to the relentless Murdoch anti-science anti-AGW we are everyday. But then again the Aus is over there. 2) She ideologically driven to an extent that we've never seen before. She just likes/ wants to crush the opposition.

Could it be simpler and more parochial than that? It's what Lang wanted.

 

[tigersnake]

Does this qualify for GoldPosts? :rofl

Merveille the maverick and his posse of invisible lurkers. It's gotta ring to it.

Its a doozy.

 

[Giardiasis]

If you can't see her attempts at gaining influence I dare say you are arguing for arguments sake.

I just don't see anything wrong with it. Wanting something and getting something are two different things.

When the media simply becomes a mouthpiece for political parties then it aint worth reading in my opinion, whether that be Democrat, Republican, Greens or Socialist.

And you have the freedom to make that choice.

If you think Fairfax is pro-Gillard then you obviously haven't been reading much lately, or perhaps you are so entrenched in the Andrew Bolt school of thinking that anything else is just too radical. By the way, I don't usually read The Age for my political fix, there are a number of excellent sites which avoid turning every issue into a right versus left slanging match.

No it is pro-Greens so it criticises the ALP from the left.

 

[Giardiasis]

Its self evident G. She can take a small short term hit on newspaper sales, but a relentless editorial push against the science and policy of climate change, and any mining tax changes, even if only marginally effective, will offset it 10 times over. Its basic stuff.

Not really, it just allows you to keep thinking you are right without really thinking about it. She doesn't need Fairfax to publish that sort of material.

 

[tigersnake]

Not really, it just allows you to keep thinking you are right without really thinking about it. She doesn't need Fairfax to publish that sort of material.

You're right she doesn't need Fairfax. But she wants it, thats where the ideology comes in. She's on the record that 'something has to be done' about her perception of what is media bias, in particular the unjust persecution of the Nation's powerless and disadvantaged billionaires. I have thought about it G, and I've made a call. To say 'you're call is just wrong' is reverting to the same schoolyard 'did/ didn't' where you always finish up. I fully acknowldege my view isn't rocket science and the vast majority of the nations analysts are saying the same thing.

 

[Liverpool]

Hi Liverpool. I had heard a little about your previous life on here from someone that was around at the time. I notice you are up against the 'group' on here again. You know you are wasting your time trying to argue against the 'gang' - people of the left tend to prefer to cluster, it gives them a feeling of strength.

I try to forgive this character flaw though, as I tend to think much of it stems from them having been bullied at some point themselves, or perhaps 'left out' or overlooked, so they gravitate to where they know the 'group' is close by, having like-minded people close-by gives them some security and assists with their 'group-think.'

I doubt very much any of these posters would spend time arguing 'one up' against a group of dissenters on a different forum, as you and Glardiasis do here at times. Let me say there would be many 'lurkers' that agree with you, have agreed with you, and admire your enrgy to debate and courage to stand against the 'gang' on here.

Thanks for the encouraging post Merveille.

Nah, not worried about the 'group' as such...although I do get a bit more bored these days than in the past...must be middle-age kicking in :cutelaugh

However, I'll still post my opinions and thoughts and what I believe in when I feel like.....and believe it or not Merveille, I think some posters are more "anti-Liverpool" rather than "anti" some of my opinions"...so I wouldn't be too harsh on them.
I could say the sky was blue and I reckon I could still get a 50 page thread of debate out of them

Liverpool: Sticking up for the majority since 2005

 

[Sintiger]

No it is pro-Greens so it criticises the ALP from the left.

wow
I thought I had lost the ability to be surprised by what some people believe but that one has really surprised me. Then again I think it was you who said the other day that the ABC was the most left wing Government funded media organisation in the world outside China? Am I right on that? Apologies if I am misquoting you.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I just don't see anything wrong with it. Wanting something and getting something are two different things.
And you have the freedom to make that choice.No it is pro-Greens so it criticises the ALP from the left.

This is because of support for Earth Hour no doubt. That one act doesn't greenify the entire enterprise.

 

[Giardiasis]

wow
I thought I had lost the ability to be surprised by what some people believe but that one has really surprised me. Then again I think it was you who said the other day that the ABC was the most left wing Government funded media organisation in the world outside China? Am I right on that? Apologies if I am misquoting you.

Yes you are misquoting me. The ABC is a leftist organisation though.

 

[Giardiasis]

This is because of support for Earth Hour no doubt. That one act doesn't greenify the entire enterprise.

How many conservative journalists work for the Age? About as many as the ABC.

 

[bullus_hit]

This is because of support for Earth Hour no doubt. That one act doesn't greenify the entire enterprise.

The Age is hardly a mouthpiece for the Greenies, it may not have the stated aim of trying to drive the Greens to oblivion (unlike the Murdoch press) but it doesn't pander to them either. The Age has slowly edged to the right with it's editorial direction, it's not as extreme as the Australian but it certainly provides many conservatives with a voice and is generally pro-business when it comes to governement policy.

As far as global warming is concerned, people need to look beyond the tired old right versus left bitchfest. Many would like to think that it's some Bob Brown conspiracy but history has shown it's an issue which has transcended the political divide. The first head of state to go public with her concerns was none other than Margaret Thatcher, conservatives such as David Cameron and Newt Gringrich have also followed suit.

Despite twits like Alan Jones shooting off his mouth in all manner of directions, global warming isn't a conspiracy and it isn't something invented by the socialists in order to mess with the world order. Such claims are so far fetched that it beggars belief that people still swallow such bunkem, but then again, 80% of Fox News watchers still believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

Which leads me to my final point, it's all good and well to serve up propaganda for those who want to feel good about their prejudices, but as far as freedom of speech and expression is concerned, it's about as helpful as a Chemical Ali victory speech.

 

[tigersnake]

How many conservative journalists work for the Age? About as many as the ABC.

Unlike Murdoch organisations, the ABC and Fairfax have other selection criteria other than just being conservative. Things like grasp of the topic, balance and addressing arguments that refute your own. The ABC have a statutory obligation to have 'balance' at every discussion, courtesy of JH. Fairfax doesn't and focusses on good analysis. Unfortunately for your side there just aren't that many decent conservative commentators. Gerard Henderson is a rare one, he writes for Fairfax.

Its not a conspiracy that there aren't many conservatives in Universities. Its due to the reality that conservative ideas don't stand up to rational scrutiny.