Interesting stuff

Celeb Episode of...'Who's sick of being a Liberal Party Millionaire Bagman.'

Eddie : Carry over Champ is named after a Beef Burger (Cue: Audience Giggles)
Contestant : "I repeatedly asked you not to joke about beef burgers Eddie."
Eddie! On with the show:

Q: Sydney Council jet-setters annual travel rort is (A) $6k or (B) $16,000,000.00
A: .....(Pause + sweat) " What lifelines do I have Eddie? "

Eddie's - Foot in mouth Lifelines...
a) You can phone your friend the PM to phone Chief of Police
b) Draw-down from your $80m water buyback to give a more balanced answer.
c) You can forge your answer with the clapped out office party money printer
d) It doesn't matter as you'll remain in your hot seat should you refuse to answer

'No pressure!
Should you dodge this Question you'll advance to the grand finale Vanishing Act

(How to reconstitute Climate Change & vanish with $Gazillion worth of Hot Air).

(X)tinction audience member megaphones! "He has the final in the bag!"
Eddie : We'll take that as a protest against the State...

https://www.9news.com.au/national/scott-morrison-and-nsw-police-chief-de...

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/conspiracy-theory-taylor-accused...

@ VJ "....but that's not how it seems to work"
No, because an anonymous internet forum is a bit like two dogs either side of a fence. Each knows the other cant get at it and rip it to shreds so they bark their silly heads off.

Loungelizard, how does going against overwhelming evidence and a mountain of facts make a person an original thinker?

Classic tin-foil hat logic.

Funny TBB.

I'd have a drink with any of them if they were shouting.

I always pictured Pauline as a Gin and Squash girl. (Vickers Gin)

Edit: depends where you get your mountain of facts from Andy.

An interesting read but probably only for some ;)

"Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds
New discoveries about the human mind show the limitations of reason."

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-...

In the words of Charles Darwin:
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”

andym im not sure which views/opinions of i-d you are referring to but in general he seems a thoughtful guy who isnt parroting party opinion like some here, not saying i endorse everything he says . i also note over the years you have positively contributed re your surf experience so thanks to you also. (cant say i agree with nationalising the banks tho)

Yeah Zen, of course Pauline's a cheap gin imbiber! Accounts for the 'cat's bum' mouth.

And Marsala is too ethnic.

And in the words of George Bernard Shaw:-

"Beware of false knowledge, it is more dangerous than ignorance".

Veal marsala- there's a classic.

Loungie, you say he "isn't parroting party opinion like some here"

Couldn't disagree more, from both angles.

Facts and evidence are apolitical.

and as shaw also said, "those that can, do, those that can't teach"

Lost me

"Anybody who isn't confused here, doesn't understand what is going on"

"Those that know do, those that understand teach."

Aristotle

Facto is that the original? I like that so much better.

If your into large sharks checks check this...

https://www.staradvertiser.com/2019/01/16/hawaii-news/local-diver-ocean-...

“Scientists have discovered a powerful new strain of fact-resistant humans who are threatening the ability of Earth to sustain life, a sobering new study reports.
The research, conducted by the University of Minnesota, identifies a virulent strain of humans who are virtually immune to any form of verifiable knowledge, leaving scientists at a loss as to how to combat them.
“These humans appear to have all the faculties necessary to receive and process information,” Davis Logsdon, one of the scientists who contributed to the study, said. “And yet, somehow, they have developed defenses that, for all intents and purposes, have rendered those faculties totally inactive.”
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/scientists-earth-endange...

Hmm, explains a few things.

@Fitzroy

Hopefully you will come back and see where this conversations went, if you do check out this video

What he says aligns very closely with your observations of the southern reef areas "between 2011 to 2016 in the southern region there was actually an increase of about 250% of coral growth" @ about 6:00 and talks about the reefs ability to recover from bleaching like you have observed and explains about how it recovers.

The whole video is worth a listen but from 4:40 to about 20:00 will also explain a lot about why typical media views/perception and your observations differ so much.

Some of it is very eye opening and makes complete sense, most is in regard to the process and problems around the system of this area of science.(total lack of replication in studies etc)

The rest of the video is mostly about what happened to him, good listen if have the time though.

Blockbuster interview, thanks for the link. Well worth listening to all.

Classic line at the end "let's start with the easy stuff of fixing science then we'll get to the universities" gave me a chuckle.

Thanks for putting that up Indo, agreed cracking interview.

Despite what one may think of the IPA (bastion of free speech or fascist neo-liberal concern) the good doctor comes across, not only as a highly intelligent, principled man but a reasonable man as well.

Can't imagine he'll be invited to Christmas drinks at JCU this year though.

So far Peter Ridd has raised $700,000 dollars to fund his legal expenses. Where do you think that came from? All those Mums and Dads out there passionate about climate denial? Yeh right. The fossil fuel industry is a BIG dirty business with lots of money to splash around on those who serve its cause.
Then there is the mind boggling arrogance of someone, with no relevant qualification or experience in the issues he is pushing, asserting that he is right and thousands of climate scientists are wrong. His PhD is in the physics of sediment transport. Until January 2018 he had not published on either the broader issues facing the barrier reef or on determining the quality of scientific research. In short he seems to have had a very sudden shift in focus. Why he did so is a legitimate question given that his publications disagree with the conclusions of the vast majority of scientists with better qualifications and longer experience in the fields he has entered.
If you want to see the kind of impact undermining science has, look at Samoa where an anti-vaccination campaign has led to an epidemic with a current death toll of over 40. The death toll from the work of climate deniers is already orders of magnitide higher than that and will continue to climb for centuries. In time there will be a reckoning. Climate justice might be slow coming, but it will be remorseless.

I don't recall in the interview he was a climate denier, he did question the science regarding coral bleaching and the stifling of academic freedom being overridden by a so called university specific code of conduct. He also touched on that funding goes against replication studies and is allocated purely to fund new studies.

Did you listen to the interview? I think to dismiss what he says because it goes against your way of thinking respectfully reflects on you BB. He certainly isn't no academic lightweight and I for one think he raised many valid points in the face of putting his career and lifes work in jeopardy.

So, i'm happy to stand by my post above, i thought it was a great interview and his word is as valid as the next.

Quite possibly there could be money from various companies or organisations, but i think you are underestimating just basic individuals, I just had a look at his go fund me page just over the last week all kind of donations have come in ranging from $10 to $250 most around $50 to $100. (then he is quite open on the page about having another $100K from other avenues, which could be these companies?)

BTW.Noticed he paused the go fund me page for now until see how thing proceed.

People these days seem to donate to anything and everything with these pages, obviously when you get press or a story that fuels donations.

BB obviously didn't listen to the interview, because what he is talking about isn't undermining science, what he is talking about is strengthening the way these areas of science are conducted,

If science was carried out the way he talks about (properly checked, tested or replicated) people wouldn't need to question science, it would actually be proper science and if what his on views aren't true then it would actually work against him.

If it's true what he says about the process of science in these areas, then no matter the views on the science you believe everyone should question the science, unless you watch the interview you might not get what i mean but once you do you all understand what im trying to say.

"If science was carried out the way he talks about (properly checked, tested or replicated) people wouldn't need to question science, it would actually be proper science."

What he is referring to is known as the replication crisis. It arose when experiments at the heart of important scientific papers did not produce the same results when repeated. It is a significant problem in areas like psychology and medicine. The reasons for it in those areas are fairly clear: many of the original papers simply did not use a representative sample of the population but conducted their work on College aged students in the US and then generalised these results to other groups.
Beyond the minds (and wallets) of climate deniers there has never been a replication crisis in climate science. The legitimate concerns that were raised about a decade ago in terms of the language used to decribe possible outcomes have all been addressed. Despite being the science under the most intense scrutiny by well funded organisations and individuals determined to discredit it, climate science is rock solid. It's happening now for the reasons that have been repeatedly stated. It is not going away. There are huge risks if do not immediately and drastically (at least 7% per year) reduce emissions. 7% a year? How hard can that be with the resources available to wealthy nations!

I mean seriously Indo if you aren't being paid for this, look around you should be able to pick up a steady income for your efforts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

Yes I've read about replication crisis before i actually learnt about it after Peter mentioned it in an interview months ago and went reading about it, but it's not the only aspect he points out.

I know climate change can be intertwined with the topic of the reef health, but to me the current topic is more just about reef and way science is conducted in this area.

That said what he points out and says, now makes complete sense to me in regard to climate change science, because although i think the issue of climate change obviously very muddied by politics and money ive never been a believer in some crazy conspiracy theory that scientist are out to deceive etc

But to me after hearing what he says, and then reading some other things on the same topic of just these problems in science, it makes complete sense, why things often dint add up.

I think its important to also differentiate between skeptics and deniers, i don't think Peter is a denier (or am i) id call him a skeptic.

BTW. Ive been reading and watching videos on coral bleaching and even that is pretty interesting once you get into it, we often just think of coral bleaching as caused by water temp changes, but much of the beachings are caused by a large number of low tides combined with other factors.

Like the 18.6 year declination of the moon cycle (and longer cycles) that cause a higher numbers of very low tides and also El nino events that can cause changes in tide heights (didnt even know about this?) obviously if you get two combined factors or different combinations they could make a bleaching event worse.

Basically coral doesn't like being high and dry too long or regularly.

UNESCO will next week release the Australian Government's offical report on the health of the GBR. It is not expected to be good news for the reef nor the government. Given known climate change damage to the reef the Australian Government's previous commitments* to mitigate water quality problems in both cane and beef farming are expected to be spotlighted and determined as a dismal fail. It is possible UNESCO will now downgrade the GBR's world heritage status to endangered.

This story was featured on ABC's 730 Report

* made by Greg Hunt when he was the Environment Minister in the Abbott government to avoid the reef's world heritage status being downgraded.

Peter Ridd is currently employed to write a report and conduct a speaking tour supporting cane growers denial that they contribute to sediment runoff and poor water quality in the GBR catchment area.
The funds come from the half a billion dollar pool of money granted to the GBR foundation with no tender process. Is also supported by the Cane Growers Association, and the Australian Environmental Association, a climate science denial charities set up by the IPA.

The board of which is comprised of mining executives.

A panel of experts headed by former chief scientist Ian Chubb has warned that Ridd is misrepresenting robust science in regards to the GBR similar to that of the tobacco industry.

Peter Ridd......straight shooter.

ID, if Peter Ridd took money from the IPA the agenda for the findings would have definitely been pre determined. Peters only job would have been to find evidence to support an agenda, and to have a well known name who has a tale of wo in regard to climate change on the paper. Not present the findings of research.
That’s what my critical thinking has deducted.

How do 1160 - not 1600 as claimed - new coal fired power plants fit into the scheme of things? Surely they will make it Game Over?

https://www.politifact.com/west-virginia/statements/2019/sep/20/cecil-ro...

BB and other whingers take note - if you're so convinced of your position (Murdoch press/conservatives responsible for climate change deaths) press charges or shut the fuck up.

D-Rex takes the prize for the most puerile comment today, Two in fact.

Thanks Matty, appreciate the high praise.

G’day D-rex, our legal system doesn’t work like that I’m afraid but your comment does highlight the warnings APRA and the ACCC have given businesses like banks and insurance companies and also superannuation funds about risking shareholder and members funds if they decide to invest in industries exposed to or adding to climate change. This is why for e.g. no bank or insurance company will touch Adani. It’s real and it’s now.

.

Melbourne's economy now larger than [South Australia +Tassie + ACT combined].
https://www.urban.com.au/news/city-of-melbournes-economy-now-larger-than...

Tony's Tea Lady says to make up yer mind."Is that 10,13 or 52 - COAG tea towels?"
Just a heads up..Kindy Kidz need another week on new 13 point star for the Flag.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCx6qNTUMAA2gMI.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKkL0iaUAAAP0Y2.png

No worries D-Rex. The pleasure is all yours.

Indo,

Here's some reading for you. It's a lengthy article but well worth taking the time to read. He reviews all the contentious issues regarding climate change data collection, analysis and model projections,

https://reason.com/2019/11/21/what-climate-science-tells-us-about-temper...

Some quotes from the article:

"I began my time on the climate change beat as a skeptic."

"After attending the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro........ I was simply unconvinced that the available data demonstrated the need for the kind of radical intervention activists were proposing."

"And in 2006 I concluded that "I now believe that balance of evidence shows that global warming could well be a significant problem."

"Will climate change be apocalyptic? Probably not, but the possibility is not zero. So just how lucky do you feel? Frankly, after reviewing recent scientific evidence, I'm not feeling nearly as lucky as I once did."

Cheers.

Sorry Salty dog over that discussion been done too many times before and goes nowhere, much more interested in the side issues associated with it all.

Blowin, try and get a book called Amexica, a few years old. But a good explanation on the origins of the problems along the border. From NAFTA to culture.
It’s a good read.

https://stillnessinthestorm.com/2017/08/the-appalling-horrors-of-the-sor...

http://www.metatech.org/wp/spiritual-warfare/georgia-guidestones/

Occasionally I read Bill Blain and take in his view on macro stuff, it was refreshing to read his take on what the investing climate of the 2020s may be:

https://morningporridge.com/the-morning-porridge/f/blains-morning-porrid...

He's suggesting the theme may be Sustainable Investment, it's a nice thought that this may fix the environmental wrongs. Imagine a great cleaning up of how we do things - less pollution, less division, support for people - and imagine markets drive it and demand it and opportunities continue. Imagine large opportunities to make things in the West, making them greener. Renewing. Much of our arguing here should mellow if the result ends up on the same page for what everyone wishes. Already, if you look at Oz coal consumption, it's down 20%, solar uptake is strong, batteries and EVs on the way... Then the Mars missions will be a go to look forward to in the early 2030s. Pretty good stuff.

Saw Rugby Australia paid out Izzy.

Smart move by them if they had keep going would most likely have cost them as much or more and just made them look silly losing.

Hopefully they have learnt from this and maybe next time they or others just issue a statement saying the views are his/hers and not those of Rugby Australia.(or AFL etc)

Don't agree with Izzys views, but good on him for standing up for himself and free speech.

Nothing to do with free speech unless I get to call Izzy a black bastard according to my views of the limitations of certain races and no one blinks.

Not that I would and not my view but plenty of idiots would go there, no room for homophobia or racist rants.....eh.

dangerous world you're proposing there i focus, where one cannot express what they believe

it may be the belief of a dickhead, but thats for the public to decide, not the government/business/sport industrial complex

Most interesting how RA seem to have rolled over so much after so much tough talk

not least because of all the talk of precedent setting

seems like maybe something more going on than just the PR aspect

they're sending out some seriously confusing messaging

It’s likely RA rolled because their legal advice told them so for the good of the game or some such bullshit. It’s a real pity it didn’t go to court but that’s water under the bridge now. You can be sure RA’s player contracts will be bullet proof water tight to stop a repeat. Don’t count on Izzy playing elite sport ever again. Who would want him?

rumble in the jungle battle of the monotheist washed up sports star homophobes

I'll look forward to it...