The war on coal

[Craven Morehead]

Anyway I’ve been telling everyone I know that Adani was going ahead regardless of what they think, glad to be vindicated!

Yep, no doubt it's going ahead now.
Bob Brown's little journey up here caused a huge amount of (unreported) discontent and anger.
We're not real keen on southerners coming up here and telling us how to live our lives.
However, no doubt that there'll be massive protests and picket lines on site when Adani eventually starts construction and it will get ugly.

 

[DaRick]

The CFMEU declared they were pro Adani. But Shorten sat on the fence. Palaszczuk sat on the fence. Given the rest of Labor's agenda I think people in Queensland were entitled to read between the lines and assume an anti-Adani policy from Labor after the election.

Problem is that being pro-Adani would have alienated many Victorians.

I'm not sure that the ALP had a choice but to vacillate.

 

[Frank Bunn]

It seems that Labor getting smashed in Queensland has prompted to Palaszczuk to jump off the fence.

Speaking at a press conference at the Hay Point coal terminal at Mackay in north Queensland on Wednesday, the Premier announced she would appoint her Coordinator-General to oversee approvals of the mine.​

​

"I think that the community is fed up with the processes, I know I'm fed up with the processes, I know my local members are fed up with the processes," she said.​

​

"We need some certainty and we need some timeframes — enough is enough.​

​

"I'm asking for the two parties, Adani and the independent regulator (DES) to sit down with the Coordinator-General and I want them to meet tomorrow actually.​

​

"I want them to sit down and work out a definitive timeframe on decisions around these reports.​

​

"We're up for this challenge, we work every day focusing on jobs."​

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-22/adani-approvals-removal-environment-department/11138140


Why not come out with this last week Anna? Or 6 months ago? Does she really think the voters in Queensland are that stupid they will forget her role in this debacle?

 

[kranky al]

Fossil fuels are 90% socialism.

As in the socialise any risks, losses and costs.

Just keep the profits privatised.

Bloody commies!!

 

[kranky al]

It seems that Labor getting smashed in Queensland has prompted to Palaszczuk to jump off the fence.

Speaking at a press conference at the Hay Point coal terminal at Mackay in north Queensland on Wednesday, the Premier announced she would appoint her Coordinator-General to oversee approvals of the mine.​

​

"I think that the community is fed up with the processes, I know I'm fed up with the processes, I know my local members are fed up with the processes," she said.​

​

"We need some certainty and we need some timeframes — enough is enough.​

​

"I'm asking for the two parties, Adani and the independent regulator (DES) to sit down with the Coordinator-General and I want them to meet tomorrow actually.​

​

"I want them to sit down and work out a definitive timeframe on decisions around these reports.​

​

"We're up for this challenge, we work every day focusing on jobs."​

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-22/adani-approvals-removal-environment-department/11138140


Why not come out with this last week Anna? Or 6 months ago? Does she really think the voters in Queensland are that stupid they will forget her role in this debacle?

You are right

One should never underestimate the stupidity of queensland voters.

A state thats being hammered by climate change.

 

[HairyO]

You are right

One should never underestimate the stupidity of queensland voters.

A state thats being hammered by climate change.

Trying to find evidence of QLD being hammered by climate change.

Can you please help ?

I assume the regularity and severity of events have statistically increased beyond the point where natural swings and roundabouts occur ?

 

[kranky al]

Trying to find evidence of QLD being hammered by climate change.

Can you please help ?

I assume the regularity and severity of events have statistically increased beyond the point where natural swings and roundabouts occur ?

Climate change

Climate change is having an immediate impact on the Great Barrier Reef and the ecosystems it supports. Learn more about the its effects, here.

www.barrierreef.org

 

[HairyO]

Climate change

Climate change is having an immediate impact on the Great Barrier Reef and the ecosystems it supports. Learn more about the its effects, here.

www.barrierreef.org

"Has the potential".

You said it is being hammered. The QLD Govt blamed bushfires.on climate change. I assume the research would have proved this, and they werent just using the loss of land, livestock and potentially lives for political purposes.

Right ?

 

[kranky al]

"Has the potential".

You said it is being hammered. The QLD Govt blamed bushfires.on climate change. I assume the research would have proved this, and they werent just using the loss of land, livestock and potentially lives for political purposes.

Right ?

The acidification and bleaching is already here mate

Since 2016, Half of All Coral in the Great Barrier Reef Has Died

A new study warns the massive structure has become a “highly altered, degraded system.”

www.theatlantic.com

 

[HairyO]

The acidification and bleaching is already here mate

Since 2016, Half of All Coral in the Great Barrier Reef Has Died

A new study warns the massive structure has become a “highly altered, degraded system.”

www.theatlantic.com

First question - without looking it up, how old is the Great Barrier Reef?

First point - tourism operators hate these scare stories because they are untrue and are causing huge drops in visitor numbers.

Read up on Peter Ridd and see what happens when experts dare go against the trend and call out bad science.

 

[kranky al]

First question - without looking it up, how old is the Great Barrier Reef?

First point - tourism operators hate these scare stories because they are untrue and are causing huge drops in visitor numbers.

Read up on Peter Ridd and see what happens when experts dare go against the trend and call out bad science.

So 99% of published papers on the reef ecology are wrong and an ocean physicists view is right?

Gawd climate denialists give me the shits

Why not get an electrical engineer to design a bridge or a mathematician to design a diet.

Peter ridd is so far out of his own field - and the court case he had isnt a validation of his views - jcu were sanctioned ONLY for not following industrial relations law.

 

[HairyO]

So 99% of published papers on the reef ecology are wrong and an ocean physicists view is right?

Gawd climate denialists give me the s**ts

Why not get an electrical engineer to design a bridge or a mathematician to design a diet.

Peter ridd is so far out of his own field - and the court case he had isnt a validation of his views - jcu were sanctioned ONLY for not following industrial relations law.

99%? How many papers have been written since 2016? How many did Ridd write? You do realise a large amount of the analysis done today uses methods he invented. So if he says its being done wrong, he probably has some idea.

Also, how do you explain some parts of the reef being larger now than they were in the 1970s?

And why didnt you answer my question on how old the reef is?

Gawd fanatacists give me the shits.

 

[kranky al]

99%? How many papers have been written since 2016? How many did Ridd write? You do realise a large amount of the analysis done today uses methods he invented. So if he says its being done wrong, he probably has some idea.

Also, how do you explain some parts of the reef being larger now than they were in the 1970s?

And why didnt you answer my question on how old the reef is?

Gawd fanatacists give me the s**ts.

I dgaf about how many papers ridd has written on reef ecology as hes a reef physicist.

1)If however he was to go back to uni and get qualified as a climate scientist or something actually related to the papers hes writing id be more inclined to take him seriously

2) source

3) source

3) the reef is 500000 years old in its current form is around 6000 years old.

In the last 50 years weve wiped out around half of it.

 

[Steinfreo]

If Coal from Adani was going to be consumed here, was owned by the state or fed, coal consumption was truely trending up (it isnt despite what this Indian * boi tells you), Australia had a real interest in preserving our coal industry, the mine itself took take than just 5 nerds to run it, I would be into it for a lefit I really dont give a s**t about the environment, I think mother earth should reject us weve earnt it.

QLD got scammed because they are dumb and desperate simple as that. Its exactly the same as the scam Trump pulled, the dummies are desperate at the moment and because of social media they feel they have the faculties to fix this mess western capitalism is heading towards, they dont.

 

[HairyO]

I dgaf about how many papers ridd has written on reef ecology as hes a reef physicist.

1)If however he was to go back to uni and get qualified as a climate scientist or something actually related to the papers hes writing id be more inclined to take him seriously

2) source

3) source

3) the reef is 500000 years old in its current form is around 6000 years old.

In the last 50 years weve wiped out around half of it.

So a reef physicist isnt qualified to give an opinion on the external influences affecting the reef? But a climate scientist who has no experience in reefs would be more qualified?

However, a dinosaur expert like Tim Flannery would of course be qualified. As would Australia's Chief Scientist. Who is a neuroscientist.

The reef around Gladstone has grown. The northern parts of the reef were savaged by a cyclone. The southern parts are growing. And in 10 or 15 years the northern reef will have recovered from the cyclone. Because that is what nature does.

Fraser Island was supposedly wiped out by a cyclone back in the 80s. Would never recover. Yet by the 90s it had almost fully recovered. Its really annoying when nature finds a way.

BTW your 50% is the upper end of the claim. It was 29% to 50%. And even the 29% is proving to be wrong.

This is the problem with doomsayers. The bloody world just refuses to listen and die. It keeps recovering.

 

[kranky al]

So a reef physicist isnt qualified to give an opinion on the external influences affecting the reef? But a climate scientist who has no experience in reefs would be more qualified?

However, a dinosaur expert like Tim Flannery would of course be qualified. As would Australia's Chief Scientist. Who is a neuroscientist.

The reef around Gladstone has grown. The northern parts of the reef were savaged by a cyclone. The southern parts are growing. And in 10 or 15 years the northern reef will have recovered from the cyclone. Because that is what nature does.

Fraser Island was supposedly wiped out by a cyclone back in the 80s. Would never recover. Yet by the 90s it had almost fully recovered. Its really annoying when nature finds a way.

BTW your 50% is the upper end of the claim. It was 29% to 50%. And even the 29% is proving to be wrong.

This is the problem with doomsayers. The bloody world just refuses to listen and die. It keeps recovering.

It recovers bits - it loses more

Personally im going to take the word of the vast overwhelming majority of experts in the field
Theres only one barrier reef

Theres only one earth.

The default position should be prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wont do damage not the other way around.

 

[Frank Bunn]

The default position should be prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wont do damage not the other way around.

Your argument is logically and scientifically invalid.

 

[kranky al]

You know what.

If bigfooty existed thirty years ago - and we were all talking on politics - we would have been arguing about the murray darling - ans id have been showing you a bunch of experts saying it was headed for disaster - and you dickheads would be quoting a rocket scientist who was saying no way - the muzzas gonna be just fine.

Thats how conservatives work.

 

[kranky al]

Your argument is logically and scientifically invalid.

Your argument is how we got to the stage of most of the world being fished out, miles and miles of plastic garbage littering the ocean, plastic being found in the guts of creatures bought up from the bottom of the marianus trench, rivers being dead, whole areas dead from pollution, cancer rates rising, desertification, the amazon being destroyed, etc etc etc

 

[Frank Bunn]

Your argument is how we got to the stage of most of the world being fished out, miles and miles of plastic garbage littering the ocean, plastic being found in the guts of creatures bought up from the bottom of the marianus trench, rivers being dead, whole areas dead from pollution, cancer rates rising, desertification, the amazon being destroyed, etc etc etc

I don't buy this doomsday pessimism.

Crop yields are up substantially due to scientific advances and increased CO2 levels. We are feeding and providing clean water to more people than ever in history.

Global infant mortality is at record low levels with corresponding increases in longevity. Population growth will tail off as people understand that their children will most likely live to adulthood.

Your chance of surviving cancer is better than ever before and recent discoveries in epigenetics could revolutionise accurate early detection and treatment.

Global school attendance is at record high levels with corresponding increases in literacy rates.

More people than ever have access to electricity which is a huge game changer in people's lives and health eg people in Indian cities not having to burn dirty locally collected crap which poisoned their families.

Wild capture of fish has remained steady for about the last 20 years and is projected to remain steady, whereas fish farming production has doubled over the same period and is expected to double again in the next 20 years.

 

[kranky al]

I don't buy this doomsday pessimism.

Crop yields are up substantially due to scientific advances and increased CO2 levels. We are feeding and providing clean water to more people than ever in history.

Global infant mortality is at record low levels with corresponding increases in longevity. Population growth will tail off as people understand that their children will most likely live to adulthood.

Your chance of surviving cancer is better than ever before and recent discoveries in epigenetics that could revolutionise accurate early detection and treatment.

Global school attendance is at record high levels with corresponding increases in literacy rates.

More people than ever have access to electricity which is a huge game changer in people's lives and health eg people in Indian cities not having to burn dirty locally collected crap which poisoned their families.

Wild capture of fish has remained steady for about the last 20 years and is projected to remain steady, whereas fish farming production has doubled over the same period and is expected to double again in the next 20 years.

In other words you have put your fingers in your ears and deny the mountains of evidence that actual scientists whose job it is to study a field have provided.

Mate we have already established that you are a conservative - you dont have to prove it any more.

 

[Frank Bunn]

In other words you have put your fingers in your ears and deny the mountains of evidence that actual scientists whose job it is to study a field have provided.

I've just highlighted several areas of substantial human progress brought about by actual scientists, some of which contradicts what you said. You seem to be the one with your fingers in your ears and ignoring evidence.

 

[HairyO]

It recovers bits - it loses more

Personally im going to take the word of the vast overwhelming majority of experts in the field
Theres only one barrier reef

Theres only one earth.

The default position should be prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wont do damage not the other way around.

There are many barrier reefs. In fact, if waters warm the number of reefs globally will increase. Sydney's reefs will possibly come back to life.

I do like your bit about the earth. The earth was fine before us. It will be fine after us. You could have gone more emotive and said "there is only one people".

How many of those overwhelming majority of experts in the field have had their research properly reviewed? Australia has completely dropped the ball in peer review. There is a heap of money for new research and almost none for peer review. Peer review used to be considered vital in the scientific community. Now it is far less important than getting new papers out.

If that doesnt trouble you, it should.

 

[kranky al]

I don't buy this doomsday pessimism.

Crop yields are up substantially due to scientific advances and increased CO2 levels. We are feeding and providing clean water to more people than ever in history.

Crop yields are artificially and temporarily being boosted in unsustainable manners.

The soil our wheat is grown in is little more than beach sand - there is no life in it at all - our crops are being grown by chemicals being added to the soil at ever increasing amounts - the main chemical we need to worry about is phosphorus - we have mined it down to a few places left in the world and when it runs out - pow this method of sustenance ends - just like that

For further reading google peak phosphorus.

Global infant mortality is at record low levels with corresponding increases in longevity. Population growth will tail off as people understand that their children will most likely live to adulthood.

This much about infant mortality is true - although 7 billion on a planet is nothing to brag about - china has dropped its 1 child policy.

Your chance of surviving cancer is better than ever before and recent discoveries in epigenetics could revolutionise accurate early detection and treatment.

Your chance of getting cancer is much higher than it ever was and childhood cancers are at an all time high

Source: https://www.ewg.org/research/industrys-myths/myth-3-cancer-rates-are-decreasing

I will get to the rest when i have time.

 

[Hawk Dork]

Crop yields are artificially and temporarily being boosted in unsustainable manners.

The soil our wheat is grown in is little more than beach sand - there is no life in it at all - our crops are being grown by chemicals being added to the soil at ever increasing amounts - the main chemical we need to worry about is phosphorus - we have mined it down to a few places left in the world and when it runs out - pow this method of sustenance ends - just like that

For further reading google peak phosphorus.

Exactly
The soil is dead, commercial farming is just a hydroponics set up