Have it cunts
Indo, regarding Marohasy’s video.
I don’t normally get involved in discussions like this but in this case, I’ll make an exception.
I have viewed Marohasy’s video and read Tara Clarke’s paper three times and have come to the conclusion that the claims made by Marohasy are unmitigated bullshit.
Firstly, read the title of Clarke’s paper: there is a clue there. She is trying to establish the age of dead corals and recovery rates for new coral.
At the beginning of her video Marohasy states she visited an inshore reef the experts claim has been destroyed by global warming.
Clarke’s paper made no such claim.
Clarkes paper clearly defines the area studied. She uses photographs as well as anecdotal evidence to compare the state of that section of the reef, and admits the limitations of that method.
Marohasy doesn’t state where she went but Clarke's report and pictures indicate she researched an exposed area of reef. She states the at the time of the visit in 2012, the low tides were .25m and .17m. Marohasy visited on 27 August 2019 around midday early afternoon by the look of it. Low tide that day was 0.42m at 1.30pm. That is 17 to 25cm more water than when Clarke viewed the reef. Marohasy doesn’t view any exposed reef whatsoever and water depth ranges from approx. 1 meter to several meters. It’s obvious Marohasy is not looking at the same area of reef viewed by Clarke.
I could go on and on but, briefly Clarke makes no claim the “Global Warming” is responsible for the destruction of coral at Stone Island. She makes a point that cyclones and floods are most likely responsible the coral deaths. She also states: “Although outside the time period that brackets the mortality event, anomalous SSTs preceding the extreme low tide and flood in 1987 that reportedly caused coral bleaching in the central GBR may have also lowered the coral’s ability to withstand the later events.”
Clarke also points out that neighbouring reefs have recovered and offered some reasons why Stone Reef recovery is poor by comparison. None of those reasons include “Global Warming”.
It’s worth noting too, that Marohasy and Ridd have had a long association through the IPA and the AEF, and that Marohasy is funded by an admitted “Climate Change Deniers”, B Macfie Trust. She’s only in it for the money.
The Australian Academy of Science agrees.
I wouldn't refer to Marohasy's video as science by a long stretch.
The comments submitted on YouTube in response to the video make for interesting reading!!!
I guess each to their own how they view things, but personally i find it great to hear positive reports especially from Fitzroy (the kind of reports i trust the most)
If only we could collect all reports/view from similar people up and down the reef that live and breath the reef. (with limited outside influence from politics, media or money) then we could get the true picture of things.
esme still dreaming still puddin pullin
" each to their own how they view things"
No Indo, you're not automatically entitled to your point of view, you're only entitled to what you can argue for, and so far your arguments are getting demolished time and time again.
"If only we could collect all reports/view from similar people up and down the reef that live and breath the reef. (with limited outside influence from politics, media or money) then we could get the true picture of things."
It's not about how I view things at all.
Scientists have been doing that for over forty years, Indo, and the current picture for the reef overall is not that pretty.
Here:'s some more facts about Dr Peter Ridd
Only demolished here is the cliche view that half of us people in the southern states have that the reef is pretty much a dead bleached mess that will never recover.
Thats been busted with video proof of areas that were suppose to be dead and void of coral and clear views from someone that has lived and breathed the reef and says that the he has seen bleached area recover and that what we are being feed is BS and that what he see's the reef is in good condition.
My argument is that we are not getting feed the true picture, which is obviously true.
Indo you just don't get it do you.
Marohasy did not look at the areas researched by Clarke, therefore you cannot make a direct comparison.
Researchers admit corals can and do recover after bleaching but the concern now is that the bleachings are becoming more frequent giving the corals less time to recover.
You spend too much time watching Sky.
You need to go do more research into Peter Ridd and learn the whole story, Peter is a classic case of the problem we are seeing with areas of science like climate science where if you dont tow the expected line you are spat out, this is the complete opposite of what science would be.
I'm sure he would have preferred to have continued work and funding where he was and be able to voice the findings he has but unfortunately as we have seen if you don't tow the line and it doesn't fit in with the expected narrative you are pushed to the side or worst.(as he has experienced)
Hence why these scientist end up getting support from organisations like IPOA, if the system wasn't broken he and others wouldn't need to have support from these organisations.
Quite simply for him and others it's either tow the line and not tell the truth, get support elsewhere and tell the truth, or retire.
To be honest im kind of over this topic now Fitzroy has left the room as little is going to added, like most things people will beleive what they believe and despite facts and evidence its rare for people to change their minds.
"people will beleive what they believe and despite facts and evidence its rare for people to change their minds."
You said it.
" ... like most things people will beleive what they believe and despite facts and evidence ......".
You're not looking yourself in the mirror are you aunt esme?
Ridd etc only get support from the IPA because he/they are prepared to publish what the IPA wants.
Like I said I don't normally engage in this sort of stuff. It doesn't achieve anything.
In closing, all I will say is that we now have a warming trend on top of natural variation courtesy of C02. The temperature data confirms that.(No one has yet proven to my satisfaction that something else is responsible).
But the denialists say the data is faked.
I say ice doesn't give a shit about the data.
Problem with that theory is his views come before IPA support.
Just remember this is a well respected guy with 40 years at the university who career and reputation has been completely ruined, the easiest thing for him was to tow the line, he didn't because he decided to do the right thing and tell what he believed to be the truth.
The problem now is the strong message to others, if you don't tow the line the same will happen, the complete opposite of what science should be, even if others agree or they come to the same conclusions as Peter even with strong new evidence, they would be very brave(or stupid) to come forward after the way he was treated and continues to be.
BTW. The reef issue we are talking about really has nothing to do with climate change, it's about condition of reef and ability to recover from bleaching etc (something that is not new)
... and yet another gigantic leap in logic from aunt esme
No just my view, its Peters he talks about it in interviews, but offcourse you would know better as always.
Your such a fuvk witt always mocking and school yard name calling but rarely have any counter arguments typical of the far left
No no esme I just know it’s far easier not to argue with stupid, now carry on.
Indo I have always appreciated your good manners and agree that the name calling gets us nowhere but the opinions expressed here against your views are not far left, they are pretty much dead centre. I really struggle to understand how someone who can be so moderate and reasonable clings to ideas that have been disproven over and over again.
The correct thing for Ridd to do was to approach JCU with his findings and opinions regarding reef research. He however saw fit to have his views publicised by the IPA and all the Right Wing media outlets. He didn’t approach a reputable journal with his findings, he just chose to denigrate his colleagues work.
Now, from Marohasy’s submission to the Senate Enquiry:
“In fact, since 1999 despite increasing expenditure in the area of water quality monitoring it is increasingly difficult to access basic water quality data. The situation is absurd, and I am told it reflects the state and federal government’s desire to maintain the perception of declining water quality, while in reality, the situation is improving.”
So, in her opinion there is a conspiracy. God save me!!!!
Read it all here:
“BTW. The reef issue we are talking about really has nothing to do with climate change, it's about condition of reef and ability to recover from bleaching etc (something that is not new)”
That is precisely what Clarke is saying in her paper, but Marohasy etc claim these researchers cite “Climate Change” as the cause. And you believe Marohasy is correct. You’ve confused me!!!
As for name calling and the far left cop this:
For a short while I would engage in discussion on Jo Nova’s blog, an asylum for RWNJ’s of the world.
The abuse and insults were frequent: the one that sticks in my mind though is being referred to as “the stench of a dead decaying corpse”. How tasteful.
About 12 months ago Nova’s senior idiot in residence, in one of his replies, made derogatory comments about my mother. Three times I asked the moderator to remove the comment and for an apology. Each time he refused. I finally received a response from Nova where she stated “this fellow does it all the time and I’ve asked him to stop but he won’t. Anyway, there’s no Tropospheric hot spot so Global Warming can’t be happening”.
She’s lost the plot completely. Pretty much like all the other RWNJ’s of the world.
Open your eyes and your mind mate.
Guy you just don't have any counter argument you rarely do, only person worse than you is factum who has zero to say that is constructive just slags people off or post memes or other BS, all that constant name calling, niggling and moking is just boring and once gets into back and forth pattern it sucks for everyone
@blindboy, it was more a general comment rather than related to reef talk.
@salty dog i dont remember it that way, but will have to go back and read it all.
And also read your link when get a chance.
Lunch now with shitty phone signal
Don't be surprised Blindy, he said it himself -
Esme, everyone is entitled to their view, right or left, but don't express or parrot-phrase (deliberately misspelt) stuff you get from your preferred news sources as balanced or constructive. It's just not you, you are always of and from the right, but the majority of us, as BB correctly elluded to earlier, are of the middle plus/minus. But as you yourself said "people will beleive what they believe and despite facts and evidence its rare for people to change their minds." Carry on ....
It's only not balanced or constructive to you because it doesn't sit in with your narrow views.
I really cant understand how you can think that Peter Ridd's treatment will not affect others and ensure that alternative views, ideas. theories even finding are explored or shared...why on earth would people feel free and safe to do that after the way he was treated.
Really its basically censorship of science.
"Ah Indo, never the sharpest tool in the Swellnet shed and with the memory of a brain-damaged goldfish.
Go back to your 'creamy coffee' bigoted shit as one example in these threads and you'll see plenty of my opinion.
Or your burqa bump fantasy.
Etc, etc, etc...
And you now get the replies and derision you earned, deserve, and probably dig.
And you're not the only gronk on here or in the real world.
Just the boggiest of the bog-standard ones round these parts.
So as a specific specimen, you do serve a purpose of sorts I guess."
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, ya gormless gronk.
Gee's what a surprise Factotum spewing insults. (ok fair enough i did bag you out early today)
But in all honestly you are the biggest wanker going round, you bring zero to this forum, nothing constructive, never share a proper opinion, theory, idea or story, maybe you have but cat even recall you talking about surfing.
Only time you get close is when you talk music, the rest of the time your post are just one liners trying to be clever or funny mostly at other expense of others or just spewing insults or lame memes.
Or crappy links from some obscure leftwing rag, which wouldn't actually be too bad, if you actually then went into some type of conversation about the topic or your view on it.
But nah its one liners memes links or nothing, well that is unless you want to abuse someone then you will post something a bit longer.
Anyone else here, I'm happy to have a discussion with, you...completely pointless.
Oh yeah, I forgot to add your immediate post-Christchurch massacre crap about the NZ PM.
Lest we forget.
As I said, cock-womble, "you now get the replies and derision you earned, deserve, and probably dig."
And that's from those that have been on here longer than 5 minutes (and that aren't fellow travellers) that remember your excremental lowlights, and now can even give that fuck.
Me? Nah. For mine, nothing you regurgitate has been worth poking a stick at directly, at all, for quite awhile now. The content anyway. The intent..? Even that's transparently tawdry and low-hanging rotting fruit these days.
Like the bulk of this thread, actually.
So just keep digging your hole, digger.
This recent thread is a great example of what you are about.
Just on the second page you have shared 9 links but given us nothing but one liners even on the first page you just share links and quote others, great conversation.
Facto, you feeling benevolent this arvo? There is a very long and stinky list logged in my memory banks.
Indo I disagree with almost everything you say but you are one of the few regulars here who has actually tried to mainatain a reasonable standard of discussion. The place has deteriorated radically in the last 12 months and now seems to be mainly about who can be the biggest smart arse or throw the most cutting insult which is a shallow immature waste of time and ultimately much more destructive than contributions (like yours) which are misinformed. You can argue with a clearly stated position. You're wasting your time with put down merchants. This should draw their fire for a while anyway.
Yep BB although i don't share your views 90% of the time i agree, once it goes into the back and forth insult and banter its a waste of time.
Had my little spill today but will go back to as civil discussion as possible.
I don't know if the last 12 months have been worse though, it was pretty bad when Herc was around, stopping political threads on front page kind of worked, but it seems they are creeping back in.
IMHO one thread like this that is mixed discussion including social issues and politics is fine, but when all you see on main page is politics/social issues threads it does kind of suck for those that aren't interested in these type of threads and are looking fir more tame topics including surfing..
Says the gronk that is on here 24 friggin' 7!?
V.I. strikes again!
By your own measure, YOU are the 'problem'.
BB, it is true ID doesn’t usually engage in name calling, however, your comments utterly ignore that many of ID’s comments posted under the disguise of civil debate are in themselves deeply offensive and outside the norms of balanced debate. Facto detailed two excellent examples today that fit that description to which I’ll now add the Adam Goodes debate and his reflections on Andrew Bolt’s court defeat on identifying as Aboriginal. There are more, many more.
It is also equally true I’m conflicted between ignoring the worse comments and calling them out but by doing so gives hIm further opportunity to rehash or defend the indefensible.
So BB where do you sit on that?
V.I. and his shtick is old news, or on this thread, 'interesting stuff'.
I'm here for the humour.
Ha ha..are you serious???
So because my views on social issues and politics differ from yours and you somehow find them " deeply offensive and outside the norms of balanced debate" it's the same as throwing personally insults around?
No sorry, i will make it simply for you.
One is playing the ball the other is playing the man.
My views on all those issues are in no way extreme or outside of the norm, if you go on social media under the articles of these related issues you will find half the comments full of views similar to mine, many making mine look very tame, you will even find similar views in digital or print media, if you are offended by these views, that's your problem, offence is a choice, and yes im offended by lots of your social and political views, that's my choice, but i just shake my head and hope others like you don't have too much influence on our society.
Just for the record I stand by every one of those views mentioned, some of them i passionately uphold, the only one that might have been controversial at the time is the one about NZ pm as could be seen by some as being in bad taste as too soon, say the same thing now with the passing of time and its completely fair game.
Ive probably changed my view on Adam Goodes a little too, i think in hindsight although he didn't help the issue, it was the media that were the real trouble makers fuelling a fire of division on both sides the crowd and Adam, all for a news story.
BTW. In regard to that Bolt court case one of those who took him to court has changed her tune and regrets taking him to court, turned Christian and has much more right wing views now, she even appeared on his bolt report.
Actually, in all seriousness, are you really as simple and naive and well, dumb as you try and present yourself? Or just terminally wilfully ignorant and revelling in it? After considering all your output, I wager the 2nd is a good bet. Which is bad. No two ways about it. As the meme says "prove me wrong".
Nah, don't even try. Oi!
Just your polite monthly reminder to refrain from personal attacks, thanks.
No worries Ben, assuming piss-taking is still encouraged and even perhaps a strategically placed expletive in response to some ridiculous comment from the fringes.
BB, it’s disappointing you choose to ignore my question, as someone who has dabbled in journalism you would agree words can be powerful tools and to fail to call out matters from the dark fringe, or in my case ridicule, may “normalise” them in our thinking and communication. In today’s world I don’t think “I disagree with what you say but I’ll defend your right to say it” cuts it anymore, society and particularly politics isn’t that civil. Only my opinion, no reply required.
Facto, your 11:36 PM post, nailed it.
stick with it indo, you are one of the few that make the site interesting with original thoughts and generously sharing your surf knowledge etc factotum, guysmiley etc are interesting only to see the flaws of the socialist left writ small on an individual level, and gratifying that pretty obviously none of them people you would choose to share a beer/joint/lineup with
You must live in a bubble Guy if you think my views on any of these issues are dark fringe views, like it or not they are mainstream conservative views, many shared by our own government and possibly roughly half of our population.
I actually disagree strongly with some of the views on these issues that are further to right.
Brothers in arms. I've almost got a tear in my eye.
All we need now is Moe and Curly to join in.
I'm staying out of this one for now, but Indo seems pretty reasonable and middle-of-the-road :) It'd be nice to have a beer with everyone and respect them recognising everyone's views are different, but that's not how it seems to work
Over on the trigger points thread, if anyone wants to know more about money/currency, I did a series of posts on this thread before, when the Fed began their repos, look for 'Exter's Pyramid', as before. I'd love to say more, but will withold for now.
Guy, I am sorry I missed your earlier comment. In terms of regrettable opinions, yep Indo has expressed a few but in every case that I can think of, the counter arguments were presented quickly and strongly. I can see the point in humour but there is a limit where it ceases to be funny and just becomes gratuitously insulting. At that point it actually works against any logical consideration of the point under discussion.
Forget the pub test, howzabout the 'have a beer with' test?
Tin of New and Maccas with ProMo?
Glass of single malt with A. Bolt?
Sweet sherry with Alan Jones?
Marsala and coke (the drink) with Pauline?
50 middies of XXXX Gold with the Beetrooter?