
Australia’s top researchers urge politicians: “Listen to the science” - sohkamyung
https://australiascience.tv/80-of-australias-top-researchers-urge-politicians-listen-to-the-science/
======
jaimex2
Maybe it's people need to listen to the science first?

Australia deserves everything it has gone through after purposely voting in
PMs to 'scrap the carbon tax' and recently the guy bringing coal into
parliament saying there is nothing to fear.

~~~
tomglynch
'the guy' is our prime minister. Australian's are too easily manipulated by
the Murdoch media.

------
djrobstep
It's demonstrating naivety to think that inaction on climate change is driven
by not "listening to the science".

Reactionary politicians are well aware of what the science thinks - they're
just prioritizing their class interests.

The economic transformation necessary to properly fight climate is a threat to
their status quo power, and so they resist it.

"The science" is very much beside the point here.

~~~
sfifs
I don't know why you're getting down-voted. This is basically the answer. In
general, politicians tend to be very smart people - you have to be smart to
convince people to vote for you (or even in dictatorships be your enforcers).
However, the economic incentives are by and large not aligned and therefore
decisions poor in the long term get taken.

~~~
flukus
> I don't know why you're getting down-voted.

It seems HN has stopped the usual astro-turfing these posts attract and it's
been replaced by down votes and flagging.

Normally a comment or two is enough to kill the thread.

------
romanr
Political party elected for money reasons that ignores science is a symptom of
the problem, it is not the problem itself. Outdated laws and electoral two-
party system is the problem.

Why no “top researcher” ever urges to look at the root of the problem? Why
researchers of political science do not sound the alarm to change outdated
laws that were written 100 years ago when they couldn’t imagine shameless
lobbying, mega corporations, manipulated social networks, and climate
emergency that clearly requires different political system to manage it.

~~~
hndamien
We don't have a 2 party system though?

~~~
paranoidrobot
Australia (as well as the US, UK, NZ, and I'm sure many other countries) have
a two-party system as defined by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-
party_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system)

In Australia, in recent times that's the Liberal Party and the Australian
Labour Party.

While there have been influential minor parties, and even independent persons
who hold the balance of power on occasion, the executive leadership is always
from one of two major parties. Those parties may change over time, fwiw.

~~~
hndamien
That isn't really what that Wikipedia page is saying - although the
interpretation is ambiguous.

"In contrast, in Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia and in other
parliamentary systems and elsewhere, the term two-party system is sometimes
used to indicate an arrangement in which two major parties dominate elections
but in which there are viable third parties which do win seats in the
legislature, and in which the two major parties exert proportionately greater
influence than their percentage of votes would suggest."

The important weasel word there is "sometimes" and in those cases it would be
incorrect. To form Government one has to have a majority. To gain this
majority, the current Government is formed by a "coalition" \- which is a
combination of parties - Nationals and Liberals. The opposing majority party
is Labor. So here you have 3 parties. Not to mention that the structure of the
Australian elections is such that we have one of the most democratic systems
using compulsory, preferential voting - meaning that everybody has to vote,
and all votes convey some power in decision making. The only case where this
isn't try is in a recent edge case caused by rule changes allowing you to
number above the line (and not to completion).

It is about as close as you could get to a fair democratic system that is not
systemically bound to be a two party system, and in practice, has not resulted
in a two party system, but one of a coalition, a majority opposition and a
decent growing minor party. (With many others in the senate).

~~~
paranoidrobot
> Nationals and Liberals. The opposing majority party is Labor. So here you
> have 3 parties

The Nationals are really only a separate party from the Liberals in name only.
They don't (by and large) ever compete with the Liberals for seats, and where
policies differ - it's because the Nationals have a view that's more
representative of their regional constituent's views.

~~~
hndamien
Yes, but the more important distinction is the election structure which is not
systematically designed to result in a two party system. "System" being the
important word here, not "outcome".

------
Paraesthetic
Australian here, its not that we don't care about the climate (same for our
politicians), its that we realise that we contribute to under 1% of the
problem. However to reduce that 1% we would effectively have to kill off
industries in which around half our workforce is employed. Thats a big re-
skilling project.

But then you look at China who is the main problem (also 1 billion people to
our 26 million), and they are doing nothing.

~~~
eeh
> also 1 billion people to our 26 million

Do you understand the notion of per-capita emissions? Australia has higher per
capita emissions than China, and thus must act accordingly.

NSW has a hosepipe ban. Is my household exempt from this, simply because
there's only 2 of us, and 2 is such a small number in comparison to NSW's
population? No, everyone must do their part. Australia is not.

~~~
Paraesthetic
I didn't in fact think of that being a factor, although being that we are
where China mines their fuel I would say the economic cost would be terrible
either way

------
nl
This is a good, 11 tweet summary of why the science _really is testable,
falsifiable science_
[https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/121788547450272972...](https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1217885474502729728)

~~~
IntemerateApe
That is good, but it is besides the point.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends
on his not understanding it."

\- Upton Sinclair

~~~
Covzire
The inverse is also true.

"It is easy to get men to claim something, when their salary depends on them
making the claim."

As supporting evidence: Statistics.

------
selfishgene
Should politicians treat psychological research as "science" ... and if so,
what p-value should be considered politically acceptable?

~~~
greglindahl
Are you interested in talking about this article? Because it isn't about
psychology.

~~~
selfishgene
Let's remember that sometimes one man's science can be another's religion.

Applying the label "science" doesn't remove any of the uncertainty associated
with many so-called "scientific conclusions."

In this regard, psychology is not all that different from climate change.

------
pnako
In a democracy politicians listen to voters, not to "the science". So those
researchers perhaps should focus on convincing voters? Having actual
scientists being the public face of global warming would be a welcome change
from having spokesmen being TV people or high-school dropouts.

~~~
gregoryl
The people voting for this party are poorly educated, and derive almost all
information from "mainstream" media, which is largely owned by Murdoch.

------
ocschwar
The chasm between politicians and science is staggering. For a truly
terrifying example, there's the 2018 IPCC report. It's under 600 pages. The
summary for policymakers is 25 pages, with the following 5 chapters each with
an executive summary of about 2 pages. So let's say a 35 page read for
politicians.

For 170K a year, plus an expense account, plus a nice pension, we should
expect each of the representatives of the United States Congress to slog
through those 35 pages, right?

If you want the terrifying truth, watch this:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZsHtpk0XII&t=217s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZsHtpk0XII&t=217s)

Greta Thunberg, providing the United States Congress with a roughly 3
paragraph TLDR of the IPCC report, and even this is news to probably most of
them.

CP Snow's essay The Two Cultures is all too true.

~~~
eeh
I interpret climate inaction not as science ineptitude, but as defecting in a
prisoners dilemma sense.

The high capita emitters (AU/US/CA/NZ) are refusing to slow down economic
growth (each country has to slow down to different degrees, depending on their
existing energy mix), and are relying on other nations to make progress.

Rich countries will adapt. Poor country may not have the resources to do this,
and thus climate inaction is an inequality issue, not just a scientific issue.

Politicians respond to votes and slowing economic growth is not popular.

Either rich countries will willingly sacrifice growth to help the poor of the
world (not going to happen), or we encourage international cooperation. This
is what's happening (Paris, Kyoto), albeit with defectors who need to be
punished.

~~~
ocschwar
> I interpret climate inaction not as science ineptitude, but as defecting in
> a prisoners dilemma sense.

I interpret politicians not doing the reading as politicians not doing the
reading.

------
papito
Respect for science and clear evidence are becoming primo commodities these
days - it seems all over the world.

Get ready to live in a world of a LOT of stupid in it, and keep your wits
about you.

It's all a simulation nothing is real NOTHING MATTERS.

