Posts by Neil Morrison
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
__It's possible that broad weather patterns change__
Nope. It's certain that broad weather patterns change.
But I'm not doubting that broad weather patterns change rather that those changes necessarily lead to extreme weather conditions - a distinction those doing the research mentioned in The Guardian are careful to make.
It does seem that recent climate changes (i.e. the periods preceding and immediately after the last ice age) have involved seriously chaotic "weather". And we also know that weather is notoriously hard to predict.
That's the problem. It's all too easy to say that increased rainfall leads to increased flooding. Some of the most impressive flooding occurs in desert regions (low rainfall) such as parts of Australia.
Flooding and high average rainfall aren't necessarily linked. So increased average rainfall might not lead to increased flooding.
General trends and rare events can be difficult to correlate.
-
I don't the researchers are claiming that extreme weather conditions are linked to global warming, from The Guardian -
"The study looks at the trends in annual precipitation, but we don't address the trickier issue of what is happening with the extreme events. Especially regionally, that is harder to discern because there is much more variability and the events are rarer as well, so it is a more difficult problem."
All those towns flooded in England are sitting on flood planes which were of course created by (pre-global warming) floods. Much like in NZ, flat land by rivers being a very handy place to build.
It's possible that broad weather patterns change but extreme events are not affected, or there's just a swap from one sort of extreme condition to another - e.g. drought instead of flood. Or the extremes could become more extreme.
The problem with planning for rare events is that you have to choose a time frame - 100 yrs 200 yrs - which every so often will by definition not be good enough. So whenever there is major flooding such as happening now in England that causes damage then that will show up a lack of planning but only in the sense that the planning was for a shorter timeframe. It's always tricky. It takes more resources to plan for the rarer occurrences.
In NZ we plan for flooding but it's pretty much guaranteed that every few years at least one part of NZ will experience conditions beyond those planned for.
-
Why should DBP be gone, Neil?
Ministerial responsibility. If Labour had reacted less defensively then I'd give them the benefit of the doubt but they just look peeved that anyone should disagree with their judgement.
I'd probably be easily convinced that Setchell's appointment was inappropriate but the way Labour has gone about this is particularly shoddy, especially DBP's plausible deniability defence. He knew, he just didn't know Setchell's name - not quite, he wasn't told Setchell's name and didn't ask because he didn't have to.
It's completely understandable that Labour would not want Setchell in that job the idea of an independent public service is to prevent political parties from doing what they find is to their advantage and getting rid of people thought to be a political threat should be done upfront rather than how Labour has gone about this.
-
It's not pretty and I have to say for the first time I have had doubts about Clark's integrity.
DBP should be gone but he'll stay because Labour has such a slender hold on power. They tippy-toed around Phillip Field for quite some time for the same reason. And then had the nerve to argue that was some sort of high-minded adherence to natural justice.
I'd be inclined to right this off as cock-up rather than conspiracy but only if someone took some responsibility and Clark actually took this seriously.
Helen Clark of all people should have been a little more astute when it comes to partners and their relationship to government
-
Dr Creon sounds like a character from one of Pynchon's novels. I haven't read Mason & Dixon but am currently reading Vineland which is very funny, reminds me of the Coen brothers.
Pynchon and thermodynamics - so appropriate.
But the application of thermodynamic concepts, which concern very simple things such as boxes of molecules, to something as forbiddingly complex as an economy has about it the odour of new-ageism.
Not necessarily. I've only glanced thru the paper so don't have a handle on what they are saying but economics is based on having to keep one's self alive in the face of a universe that usually doesn't play along, accept for the occasional unintended and short lived gift such as fossil fuels. It's all about energy (food, warmth etc) and (as Hayek pointed out) information - thermodynamics. And Pynchon - he was there already.
-
And then, well, there's got to be some catch. I'm constantly astounded by the way the Greatest Nation on Earth can stick some pretty basic stuff in the too-hard basket.
There's some very good backgound to this in Malcolm Gladwell's piece -
America’s health-care mess is, in part, simply an accident of history. The fact that there have been six attempts at universal health coverage in the last century suggests that there has long been support for the idea. But politics has always got in the way. In both Europe and the United States, for example, the push for health insurance was led, in large part, by organized labor. But in Europe the unions worked through the political system, fighting for coverage for all citizens. From the start, health insurance in Europe was public and universal, and that created powerful political support for any attempt to expand benefits. In the United States, by contrast, the unions worked through the collective-bargaining system and, as a result, could win health benefits only for their own members. Health insurance here has always been private and selective, and every attempt to expand benefits has resulted in a paralyzing political battle over who would be added to insurance rolls and who ought to pay for those additions.
We were lucky to have gone down a different path but look at how difficult reforms have been here and in Britain.
There's some hope things might change. Hilary Clinton is now working with some of the fiercest opponents to her 90s health reforms on new proposals.
-
But I think it's the best film Moore has made
It helps that he sets himself such a low bar.
I thought Malcolm Gladwell's The Moral-Hazard Myth was a quite refreshing and insightful analysis of the problems with the US heath system
-
Call me old-fashioned but I feel we should respect Michael Moore's efforts by at least paying for a ticket to see the film in a cinema.
His efforts might have deserved respect had his motivation been anything other than money and self-aggrandisement.
His recent conversion to the cause of health reform is in marked contrast to when the last serious reform attempts were made by the Clintons. At that time Moore was waging a vendetta against Bill and Hillary. He may not have had as much of an effect as the Reps in making sure the Clintons didn't succeed but he sure tried.
He also completely ignores the real world reforms proposed by the leading Dem presidential hopefuls. Hillary Clinton is putting foward a reform package that is an updated and improved version of the one she tried to push thru in the 90s. But don't expect to learn about that in Sicko.
-
The Australian seems to be about the best media source on this issue at the moment. It currently has two quite good stories.
Aboriginal coalition's alternative plan
They have concerns about the 5 year leases and permits but it seems more to do with the pragmatics of whether these measures would make things better or worse.
Healing hands bridge a cultural divide
There are some benefits at least.
-
Instead he's attacked the problem as if it's a purely aboriginal issue, inferring that they're the authors of their own misfortune.
Maybe. I can't see into his mind. But the study that he is responding to is as far as I can tell free of any racist agenda.
I see Howard's response as heavy handed but I am really not inclined to write off what he is doing as racism.
Clare Martin, the NT politician who commissioned the study, is against the leasing of problem community land and of getting rid of travel permits but is otherwise prepared to work with Howard.
The controversy over Howard's approach appears to revolve around the 5 year lease of community land and the travel permits. che links to allegations that the former are just an excuse for land grabs and there are some who feel that doing away with the travel permits will open up aborigine communities to further abuse from white travelers ("back-packers" in fact).
I've read the stuff that che has linked to and remain unconvinced. Howard's measures may not work but they are a very strange way of land-grabbing. What does the Federal govt gain (that white Oz does not already have) from acquiring 5 year leases on a minuscule amount of the Australian outback that contains some of the most destitute communities in the country? If this was Vaucluse there might be some sort of case. Maybe it's some very clever way of getting a hold of even more mineral resources but I haven't seen any evidence.
This does look like a rethink of the laws concerning aboriginal land ownership and maybe that's an issue of concern. But I wonder if the present land ownership arrangements benefit more than a privileged few.
As for the permits for entering Aboriginal areas, if they are so beneficial why are things so bad?