Say Yes to lane closures

johnboy 4 June 2011 56

On Sunday (June 5) two southbound lanes on Commonwealth Avenue will be closed to facilitate the movement of the ‘Say Yes’ rally to Parliament House.

The two lanes on Commonwealth Avenue, between Albert Street and Parliament Drive, will be closed between 12.45pm and 2pm.

One of the southbound lanes will remain open for motorists however a reduced speed of 40km per hour will apply.

Motorists may experience short delays at intersections along Commonwealth Avenue between Albert Street and Coronation Drive.

All road closures will be published in real time through ACT Policing’s traffic twitter (ACTPol_Traffic).

[Courtesy ACT Policing]


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
56 Responses to Say Yes to lane closures
Filter
Order
Diggety Diggety 4:31 pm 07 Jun 11

(RANT WARNING)
Convincing the general population of the threat of ACC had significant setbacks early on due to scientists and politicians prematurely releasing unconfirmed surveys of ACC’s effects. This is something that should not be done in science; the politicians on did not have the knowledge or training to know to not release them. Some groups had a vested interest in ACC being either real and devastating OR not real and a hoax, these groups since have advocated for release of unconfirmed data for their own ends.

In response, some scientists stepped out of the arena of science to counter this action and ended up simply making ACC more a political issue, rather than a scientific one. This made climate scientist’s job of proving ACC, so much more of a personal one. Therefore, difficult to maintain scientific integrity and follow scientific process, remembering also that we are ‘self-regulating’. I.e. peer review.

We have now so much misinformation on climate change it is ridiculous. It comes from both sides, though what I have found recently is most of it is coming from the Left side of politics. The reason that is (IMO) is that they have more of a vested interest in ACC being real and with dire consequences.

Politics can go to hell.

Diggety Diggety 4:27 pm 07 Jun 11

pajs said :

Diggety, I am aware of the difference between correlation and causation. I am not aware of what you think is incorrect about the basic physics and chemistry of the greenhouse effect and the enhanced greenhouse effect. Perhaps you could explain?

Yes, pajs.

The basics BEHIND greenhouse gas (GHG) theory is provable, controllable and repeatable.

For example, in a lab, we shoot a laser at a target, then adjust the composition (not density) of the gas between and we achieve an observable difference in temperature at the target and (more importantly) the gas inbetween.

This is not restricted to CO2, in fact other gases we and the rest of nature emit are far more aggressive in their reaction. Some even stay active in that system for longer (or shorter). However, CO2 is our culprit due to the magnitude of the GHG flux released.

The problem of extrapolating an observation to something as complex and large in magnitude as Earth’s climate is where all the work is. It undisputably makes ACC a theory and a very difficult one to get a good understanding of.

There is so much to learn, and in most cases, very difficult to gather data to evaluate and support argument. We have data being presented all the time to support a particular argument, then, soon after a data set that disputes/debunks or confirms that argument*.

* Remembering ACC is made up of a vast number of arguments and theories.

shadow boxer shadow boxer 3:56 pm 07 Jun 11

Jim Jones said :

shadow boxer said :

So you think we will still be burning carbon in 100 years ? again show me a symptom of global warming that can convince me we can’t just ride this out.

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/climate-change/impacts/future.aspx

Again, if you think we can just ‘ride this out’ without taking any action, then you haven’t been paying attention.

that is a terrible link, I think even the proponents of a tax would see that link is clutching at straws and using time periods selectively to push a barrow.

My guess is the 1 degree rise by 2030 will have exactly the same effect as the 1 degree rise between 1910 and 2010. Nothing we can’t handle.

Classified Classified 2:46 pm 07 Jun 11

shadow boxer said :

So you think we will still be burning carbon in 100 years ?

Human bodies certainly will be! 😉

Jim Jones Jim Jones 2:31 pm 07 Jun 11

shadow boxer said :

So you think we will still be burning carbon in 100 years ? again show me a symptom of global warming that can convince me we can’t just ride this out.

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/climate-change/impacts/future.aspx

Again, if you think we can just ‘ride this out’ without taking any action, then you haven’t been paying attention.

shadow boxer shadow boxer 2:19 pm 07 Jun 11

Jim Jones said :

shadow boxer said :

people with an open mind like myself just aren’t buying.

lol

shadow boxer said :

If you are seriously suggesting technology will not evolve over the next 100 years without a tax on everyone that earns over 80k you are losing the plot..

No, not that it will not evolve – what’s being discussed is the rate of evolution. It’s well established that market mechanisms are a very strong factor on technological evolution. In the case of renewable energy, companies with investment in fossil fuels aren’t investing as much in renewable energy as they are in fossil fuel, because the latter brings in more profit. In the event that carbon is priced (if this is done well), then investment and R&D will move to renewable energy and the technology will move a lot quicker.

shadow boxer said :

Far better to be convincing me why this is not a temporary blip in the grand scheme of things, hereby coined the carbon age, and explaining the hurry.

If you don’t think that climate change is anything more than a ‘temporary blip’ then you haven’t been paying attention. The science is remarkably clear on this.

So you think we will still be burning carbon in 100 years ? again show me a symptom of global warming that can convince me we can’t just ride this out.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 2:07 pm 07 Jun 11

shadow boxer said :

people with an open mind like myself just aren’t buying.

lol

shadow boxer said :

If you are seriously suggesting technology will not evolve over the next 100 years without a tax on everyone that earns over 80k you are losing the plot..

No, not that it will not evolve – what’s being discussed is the rate of evolution. It’s well established that market mechanisms are a very strong factor on technological evolution. In the case of renewable energy, companies with investment in fossil fuels aren’t investing as much in renewable energy as they are in fossil fuel, because the latter brings in more profit. In the event that carbon is priced (if this is done well), then investment and R&D will move to renewable energy and the technology will move a lot quicker.

shadow boxer said :

Far better to be convincing me why this is not a temporary blip in the grand scheme of things, hereby coined the carbon age, and explaining the hurry.

If you don’t think that climate change is anything more than a ‘temporary blip’ then you haven’t been paying attention. The science is remarkably clear on this.

FD10 FD10 1:36 pm 07 Jun 11

Jim Jones said :

Honestly, I really do wish that the issue would be depoliticised. It’s too important to use as a political football, and the negative effects that we’ll have by constantly putting off taking action will have some fairly dire economic results.

Completely agree.

shadow boxer shadow boxer 1:27 pm 07 Jun 11

Jim Jones said :

shadow boxer said :

wtf, what evidence ?

I think pajs and I were in agreement on the facts, we were just debating the urgency.

– technology does not arise spontaneously: examples given, then JB got into the act and added more info, you’ve retorted with ‘Yes, technology does arise spontaneously’. I could direct you to numerous tomes regarding the necessary factors for technological development, but there’s not much point, as you’d just ignore it.
– ditto with ‘tax the middle-class’: there’s policy in place and a number of treasury modellings (and the Garnaut report) released that have scuppered this myth. Your response was “it’s just another green scheme that will cost me money”.

I think this is a good example of why the Greens are losing this debate, lots of hysteria that people with an open mind like myself just aren’t buying.

If you are seriously suggesting technology will not evolve over the next 100 years without a tax on everyone that earns over 80k you are losing the plot.

Far better to be convincing me why this is not a temporary blip in the grand scheme of things, hereby coined the carbon age, and explaining the hurry,

I havent heard any reasoned arguements yet.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 1:01 pm 07 Jun 11

FD10 said :

While I appreciate your opinion (and a decent comment without the overtones of a negative attitude which it all too common around here), I must disagree with you on this point:

Jim Jones said :

I disagree that we need another election. We have a government in the early stages of its term who are implementing policy. In a representative democracy you don’t go to an election each time there is a contentious or controversial issue – that’s what Parliament is for.

I would say that this issue alone is the catalyst for another election. Fair call about contentious issues not requiring an election (e.g. an election over current immigration debate is not needed), but as you said yourself it is a representative democracy. As far as I’m concerned, those people who voted for their representative based on the comments of Gillard leading up to the election have been misrepresented. I’m sure you’ve heard this argument many times before, so I won’t go into it further (also it’ll keep the page size down when the fanatics on here start flaming me with quotes).

Whether the swing from any election is +/- ALP, Greens or Coalition, I think it’ll advance the progress of the climate change debate (hopefully it would reduce the political aspect so scientific evidence gets a larger profile) and it will shut up the shock jocks who keep harping on about the point I made above (and hopefully then Media Watch will stop talking about this issue, they’ve done it to death!).

For the record – I am all for climate action but I don’t have faith in this government to run it effectively or efficiently. Out of a bad bunch, in my opinion these guys will do the worst job.

On the whole, I disagree (mostly because I don’t believe that,while the Labor Party is doing a pretty bodgy job with the climate change legislation, the Liberals’ policy is so bad that they can’t find anyone to support it apart from flat-earthers). But you certainly make some good points.

Honestly, I really do wish that the issue would be depoliticised. It’s too important to use as a political football, and the negative effects that we’ll have by constantly putting off taking action will have some fairly dire economic results.

If Rudd had the balls to take the ETS to a double-dissolution election, we’d all be in much better shape now.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 12:53 pm 07 Jun 11

shadow boxer said :

wtf, what evidence ?

I think pajs and I were in agreement on the facts, we were just debating the urgency.

– technology does not arise spontaneously: examples given, then JB got into the act and added more info, you’ve retorted with ‘Yes, technology does arise spontaneously’. I could direct you to numerous tomes regarding the necessary factors for technological development, but there’s not much point, as you’d just ignore it.
– ditto with ‘tax the middle-class’: there’s policy in place and a number of treasury modellings (and the Garnaut report) released that have scuppered this myth. Your response was “it’s just another green scheme that will cost me money”.

FD10 FD10 12:52 pm 07 Jun 11

While I appreciate your opinion (and a decent comment without the overtones of a negative attitude which it all too common around here), I must disagree with you on this point:

Jim Jones said :

I disagree that we need another election. We have a government in the early stages of its term who are implementing policy. In a representative democracy you don’t go to an election each time there is a contentious or controversial issue – that’s what Parliament is for.

I would say that this issue alone is the catalyst for another election. Fair call about contentious issues not requiring an election (e.g. an election over current immigration debate is not needed), but as you said yourself it is a representative democracy. As far as I’m concerned, those people who voted for their representative based on the comments of Gillard leading up to the election have been misrepresented. I’m sure you’ve heard this argument many times before, so I won’t go into it further (also it’ll keep the page size down when the fanatics on here start flaming me with quotes).

Whether the swing from any election is +/- ALP, Greens or Coalition, I think it’ll advance the progress of the climate change debate (hopefully it would reduce the political aspect so scientific evidence gets a larger profile) and it will shut up the shock jocks who keep harping on about the point I made above (and hopefully then Media Watch will stop talking about this issue, they’ve done it to death!).

For the record – I am all for climate action but I don’t have faith in this government to run it effectively or efficiently. Out of a bad bunch, in my opinion these guys will do the worst job.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 12:21 pm 07 Jun 11

FD10 said :

Also, if you claim that a galaxy poll of 500 people is a “pushpoll”, then why don’t you scrutinise the demographics of the pro-tax rallies? Let’s compare the effort of answering a telephone to going out on a freezing cold day to march. Now let’s think about the political motivation behind each of those acts. Sort of throws your argument out of the window when you look at the other side of the coin.

Having said that, I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying that trying to predict levels of support for this issue by using rally attendence numbers or telephone polls is inconclusive.

1) Godwin!

2) Of course basing levels of support from rally numbers and the like is stupid – I’m responding to A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster on this very point.

3) The 500 respondant pushpoll was a pushpoll because of the leading question asked and the backing of the IPA, the 500 number is relevant insomuch as it can’t be taken seriously as a poll of the population.

I disagree that we need another election. We have a government in the early stages of its term who are implementing policy. In a representative democracy you don’t go to an election each time there is a contentious or controversial issue – that’s what Parliament is for. If you take away that, then there’s no point in having representative democracy. If you don’t like it, vote differently at the next election.

While I’m no fan of the Labor government, at least they are trying to make a start on addressing climate change (albeit much too late and while having the agenda hijacked by rent-seekers), while the Coalition at times doesn’t even seem to want to acknowledge that there is an issue. When they do acknowledge that there is an issue – the policy to deal with it is so laughable that, not only will any economists or climate scientists defend it, the most knowledgeable members of the Liberal Party can’t bring themselves to support it.

If there’s one issue that should be getting bipartisan support, it’s addressing climate change. It’s a sad indictment of the Australian political system that this issue has been politicised to the point that people will reflexively argue that there is no problem (despite all the evidence) because of their political leanings.

FD10 FD10 11:58 am 07 Jun 11

Jim Jones said :

I think I’d rather place my faith in the 50,000 people that showed up at climate change rallies over the weekend, rather than the 500 people who were pushpolled, or the 3000 people bussed from Sydney.

Hmmmmm keeping with the theme of historical analogies, let’s try this one. The Nazi Party held rallies with many hundreds of thousands of people in attendance. It doesn’t mean they were right.
Their strongest result in an election before Hitler could manipulate his way to Chancellor was 37.3% of the vote, hardly a majority.

Just sayin’,,,,,

Also, if you claim that a galaxy poll of 500 people is a “pushpoll”, then why don’t you scrutinise the demographics of the pro-tax rallies? Let’s compare the effort of answering a telephone to going out on a freezing cold day to march. Now let’s think about the political motivation behind each of those acts. Sort of throws your argument out of the window when you look at the other side of the coin.

Having said that, I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying that trying to predict levels of support for this issue by using rally attendence numbers or telephone polls is inconclusive.

What we need to settle this debate is an election, and nothing else will compare.

shadow boxer shadow boxer 11:51 am 07 Jun 11

wtf, what evidence ?

I think pajs and I were in agreement on the facts, we were just debating the urgency.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 11:25 am 07 Jun 11

shadow boxer said :

I don’t really care, it’s just another green scheme that will cost me money.

The taxing the middle class is not a furphy if my understanding is correct that the mechanism is tax cuts cutting out to zero for those earning more than 80k.

We seem to have developed a whole range of technologies over the past 100 years without needing a mechanism like this. People are always looking for new and better and I just can’t see the urgency.

So your response to the explanations put to you is: “I don’t care, I’m not listening”?

Well done. That’s precisely what Australian society needs, more people who will ignore evidence.

shadow boxer shadow boxer 11:09 am 07 Jun 11

I don’t really care, it’s just another green scheme that will cost me money.

The taxing the middle class is not a furphy if my understanding is correct that the mechanism is tax cuts cutting out to zero for those earning more than 80k.

We seem to have developed a whole range of technologies over the past 100 years without needing a mechanism like this. People are always looking for new and better and I just can’t see the urgency.

Mr Gillespie Mr Gillespie 10:55 am 07 Jun 11

Shadow boxer #34

In 2111 we will be 100 years older. Add the number 1 before your current age in years. Can you see yourself living that long?

What the hell is the point?? I can’t see medical science allowing us to live even a few years longer than how long we live now.

Chances are, you and I are not going to be around to see what the world will be like in 2111, let alone how we get our electricity or what fuels our cars then.

johnboy johnboy 10:52 am 07 Jun 11

An interesting point about the “progress” of wars is that they almost never broke new scientific ground, but in the crucible of intense competition new technologies were put into production that had previously been neglected because they upset the status quo.

Makes one wonder if progress can be had without war if intense competition can be peacefully fostered.

(And there’s your space race)

Jim Jones Jim Jones 10:46 am 07 Jun 11

shadow boxer said :

Jim Jones said :

shadow boxer said :

It’s not great, but not the end of the world, wouldn’t we be better off putting ur money into short term initiatives like saving the tassie devils and polar bears than lowering carbon rates that will lower naturally over time as new technologies develop ?

New technologies don’t develop spontaneously.

One of the major aims of pricing carbon is so that it motivates the business sector to invest in the development of new technology.

Yeh I see the point but new technologies do kind of just develop spontaneously, particulalrly over 100 years or so, we appear to have plenty of time.

I’m not sure the Tassie Devils do and there appear smarter ways to encourage R&D than just taxing the middle class.

Okay, first up: no technology ever arises spontaneously – there needs to be a concerted effort to make it functional. With regards to renewable energy, etc., the amount invested in R&D will increase if businesses see it as a way to maximise profit.

For an example of motivated technological advancement, look at the past 2 World Wars, in which military technology made massive leaps and bounds (due to heavy investment) and then the technology made it into public use (airplanes are a big one to note here). Or look at the technological advances made possible by the space race as part of the Cold War.

Secondly, whether you agree with a carbon tax or some other mechanism for pricing carbon – calling it ‘taxing the middle class’ is just a furphy. The tax is paid by polluting companies (apparently 1000 or so) who will probably pass on some of their extra costs to the consumer, who will be renumerated by the tax proceeds being funnelled to them in tax cuts. In some instances (pensioners, etc.) the people will be overrenumerated.

Regardless, the idea that we can all just sit on our arses, not take any action and think, well, some technology will spontaneously develop that will fix everything is a myth. Effort needs to be expended to assist with technological development.

You wouldn’t assume that space travel would be a technology that would arise ‘spontaneously’ without heavy investment and R&D, so why assume that alternative energies would be any different – particularly when vested interests are all too keen to prevent a shift towards alternative forms of energy?

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site