this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
77 points (97.5% liked)

Australia

3582 readers
30 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
77
Turnbull berates The Australian for promoting climate denial (independentaustralia.net)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
66 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

News Corp’s blurring of news and views damaging society

Archive

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you've quoted an article that complains about the cost of SH 2.0 and another that complains that it's delayed (name an infrastructure project that isn't delayed or over budget). But neither of those refute the projects long term benefit as a renewable energy source. Moving on, you've made moot points, congrats.

At least you admit he was working on a positive climate policy and lost his job because of it. Both sides of the debate now agree he was doing what he could.

You've obviously come from /r/Australia because they certainly had a penchant for slinging the word "whataboutism" around as if it was a good argument. It's more of a trumpism where you just say a slogan so you don't have to address the point. Well done.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So you’ve quoted an article that complains about the cost of SH 2.0 and another that complains that it’s delayed (name an infrastructure project that isn’t delayed or over budget {No1 says: Yo, that's an ad hominem}). But neither of those refute the projects long term benefit as a renewable energy source. Moving on, you’ve made moot points, congrats.

Umm, you've quoted nothing. Does that make your 'points' less than nothing? Nobody is stopping you from providing evidence, articles or scientific studies.

Also, does just saying something make it your own? Or does talking about something make it a great idea and a fabulous achievement, but if it's rubbish idea and goes tits up, it's somebody else's fault?

At least you admit he was working on a positive climate policy and lost his job because of it.

Wait, what? Where did I say that?

Both sides of the debate now agree he was doing what he could.

Evidence?

You’ve obviously come from /r/Australia because they certainly had a penchant

Yep, that is an ad hominem. You attribute my motives/actions for something without entirely any evidence.

for slinging the word “whataboutism” around as if it was a good argument. It’s more of a trumpism where you just say a slogan so you don’t have to address the point. Well done.

Whoa! And you just ad hominem'd your ad hominem. And throwing the 'trumpism' in is arguably a whataboutism.

C'mon bro, you can address the point:

TURNBULL + ENVIRONMENT + EVIDENCE = POSITIVE RESULTS

Show me the way!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You said he "influenced" them so much that they got rid of him. You're implying that his stance wasn't conducive to their ideology so they removed him as their leader. He lost the party room because he tried to introduce the NEG, he refused to butcher the policy by funding coal fired plants. He didn't succeed, but he did the best any liberal leader could amongst one of the most aggressively right wing eras in Australian politics.

What are you expecting me to quote on SH 2.0, you've claimed it was worse than the NBN but haven't backed up legitimate reasons why? Because it's expensive and went over budget? The original NBN quote was expensive, and you'd be to be highly optimistic if it stayed on budget and was delivered in time, it's a government project afterall.

Do you need links?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You said he “influenced” them so much that they got rid of him. You’re implying that his stance wasn’t conducive to their ideology so they removed him as their leader. He lost the party room because he tried to introduce the NEG, he refused to butcher the policy by funding coal fired plants. He didn’t succeed, but he did the best any liberal leader could amongst one of the most aggressively right wing eras in Australian politics.

Evidence?

What are you expecting me to quote on SH 2.0, you’ve claimed it was worse than the NBN but haven’t backed up legitimate reasons why?

No, I never said it was worse than NBN. I said it would be criminal (and I just mean that colloquially, ie that it would be funny in the saddest way) if it turned out worse than the NBN.

Because it’s expensive and went over budget? The original NBN quote was expensive, and you’d be to be highly optimistic if it stayed on budget and was delivered in time, it’s a government project afterall.

Are you claiming the mixed-tech NBN was a success vs the originally planned FTTP?

You can look into the NZ FTTP with reducing costs as rollout occurred as a counterpoint. Happy to look at your source.

Do you need links?

Have you got a link? Any link? You haven't given one so far. For anything you've claimed. Or that Turnbull has claimed.

BTW: I upvote you bro. Anyone downvoting shouldn't be, and should join the discussion. Respect!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

This link speaks a bit to what I've been saying.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/turnbull-says-his-biggest-leadership-failure-was-on-climate-change-83289/

That being said a lot of what I've discussed is covered in both Turnbull's unauthorised biography and his memoirs, but I can't expect you to go and read those. But that link touches a bit on just what sort of battle he was facing even in cabinet. Without Turnbull, the NEG would have included 5 billion investment in coal fired plants. Sometimes it's about what you don't do that easily gets overlooked.

I won't touch the LNP NBN roll out as that's not what I was referring to and we don't need another tangent.