| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" 09:56 - Nov 18 with 25961 views | sP7qupUf |
Is this a genuine attempt to address pressing issues or a smokescreen to detract away from the ongoing issues with the C-19 pandemic, emerging issues around cronyism and the potential disaster with the "oven ready" Brexit deal? The lack of detail would suggest the latter to my mind. |  | | |  |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 16:16 - Dec 3 with 1511 views | Catullus |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 13:54 - Dec 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
So, videos and photographs of areas of the reef showing how well it is doing are "junk science"?
OK.
Perhaps you should have read some of it instead of immediately looking for a reason not to? |
Areas of it doing well do not prove that other areas of it haven't been destroyed. There are 9 places that say they've had no covid cases, Does that mean it's a massive con?
When you provided a source the first thing I dad was look her up to see what the scientific community say about her and it wasn't very good. So why should I believe someone when the majority criticise her work? When other eminent scientists say her work is discredited and should be ignored, why should I bother reading it? | |
| |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:36 - Dec 3 with 1503 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 16:16 - Dec 3 by Catullus |
Areas of it doing well do not prove that other areas of it haven't been destroyed. There are 9 places that say they've had no covid cases, Does that mean it's a massive con?
When you provided a source the first thing I dad was look her up to see what the scientific community say about her and it wasn't very good. So why should I believe someone when the majority criticise her work? When other eminent scientists say her work is discredited and should be ignored, why should I bother reading it? |
Because she is trying to prove that those eminent scientists are either not using good science which she explains, are very biased or are just outright lying or any combination of the the 3.
She is visiting places that they have said are dead, but if you had read what is written you will find that what may have been true in 2016 no longer is.
But the work she is doing does not attract any government grants, so she has to finance it herself and take the time off from her actual work.
She has been expecially attacked along with many others for the work they have done identifying problems with the Australian BOM "Acorn and Acorn 2" network of weather stations. Her report has gone before their government and forced the BOM to answer the criticisms and in most cases they can't.
I just thought you might like to see the work that real scientists are having to do in their own time on their own dime because the they can't get funding, but it is OK if you have a closed mind, millions do.
It is a shame because she is a real live conservationists who worked on the Murray Basin issues for the Institute of Public Affairs.
If nothing else you could have read her bio. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 10:44 - Dec 4 with 1452 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:36 - Dec 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
Because she is trying to prove that those eminent scientists are either not using good science which she explains, are very biased or are just outright lying or any combination of the the 3.
She is visiting places that they have said are dead, but if you had read what is written you will find that what may have been true in 2016 no longer is.
But the work she is doing does not attract any government grants, so she has to finance it herself and take the time off from her actual work.
She has been expecially attacked along with many others for the work they have done identifying problems with the Australian BOM "Acorn and Acorn 2" network of weather stations. Her report has gone before their government and forced the BOM to answer the criticisms and in most cases they can't.
I just thought you might like to see the work that real scientists are having to do in their own time on their own dime because the they can't get funding, but it is OK if you have a closed mind, millions do.
It is a shame because she is a real live conservationists who worked on the Murray Basin issues for the Institute of Public Affairs.
If nothing else you could have read her bio. |
I took a quick look at Marohasy's work on her website - my initial thought was that it constituted extreme cherry picking. To an extent that it is of no scientific value whatsoever.
I'll be honest I'd never heard of her but she seems to have a bit of a cheek accusing other scientists of lying:-
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/19/scientist-says-rightwing-thi
And she seems to make a bit of a habit of cherry picking data too:-
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/26/australias-science-academy-a
She is clearly cherry picking locations of study to suit her argument. That makes me wonder what she has to hide? | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:49 - Dec 4 with 1441 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Quoting the Guardian, enough said.
Do you actually expect her to cover the whole of the barrier reef in one go?
This is an on going exercise.
But typical of you, just like prof you attack the person's credibility when she has published a book and papers in journals.
She is a genuine scientist. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:07 - Dec 4 with 1439 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:49 - Dec 4 by A_Fans_Dad |
Quoting the Guardian, enough said.
Do you actually expect her to cover the whole of the barrier reef in one go?
This is an on going exercise.
But typical of you, just like prof you attack the person's credibility when she has published a book and papers in journals.
She is a genuine scientist. |
The Guardian is merely the conduit. The quotes are from the original scientist who undertook the study Marohasy has misrepresented amongst others.
Of course she couldn't cover the entire Great Barrier Reef but she should have at least surveyed the same locations but she hasn't even surveyed the same type of reef.
I haven't mentioned her credibility at all, I've criticised her work as not being representative because it isn't.
She is a scientist. A scientist who works for a right wing think tank. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 13:29 - Dec 4 with 1420 views | Catullus |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:36 - Dec 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
Because she is trying to prove that those eminent scientists are either not using good science which she explains, are very biased or are just outright lying or any combination of the the 3.
She is visiting places that they have said are dead, but if you had read what is written you will find that what may have been true in 2016 no longer is.
But the work she is doing does not attract any government grants, so she has to finance it herself and take the time off from her actual work.
She has been expecially attacked along with many others for the work they have done identifying problems with the Australian BOM "Acorn and Acorn 2" network of weather stations. Her report has gone before their government and forced the BOM to answer the criticisms and in most cases they can't.
I just thought you might like to see the work that real scientists are having to do in their own time on their own dime because the they can't get funding, but it is OK if you have a closed mind, millions do.
It is a shame because she is a real live conservationists who worked on the Murray Basin issues for the Institute of Public Affairs.
If nothing else you could have read her bio. |
Maybe you should consider that it's you that has the closed mind. Presenting opinion from a scientist accused of cherry picking data to suit her arguments, who (as scotia points out) workd for a right wing think tank. She is a genuine scientist yes but even genuine scientists tell lies, specially when they need to present an opinion that guarantees their funding.
You perpetually put up links to people who are discredited by the majority of experts in those fields but you insist they are right. You deny every other source as not credible.
A closed mind indeed. | |
| |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 22:35 - Dec 4 with 1395 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 13:29 - Dec 4 by Catullus |
Maybe you should consider that it's you that has the closed mind. Presenting opinion from a scientist accused of cherry picking data to suit her arguments, who (as scotia points out) workd for a right wing think tank. She is a genuine scientist yes but even genuine scientists tell lies, specially when they need to present an opinion that guarantees their funding.
You perpetually put up links to people who are discredited by the majority of experts in those fields but you insist they are right. You deny every other source as not credible.
A closed mind indeed. |
Let's see about a closed mind.
One of us looks at claims, papers, graphs and data from both sides of any argument and then uses as many sources as possible to accept or challenge those claims.
The other one refuses to look at any data from anywhere other than "consensus" sources and those approved by scotia. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 23:17 - Dec 4 with 1390 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 22:35 - Dec 4 by A_Fans_Dad |
Let's see about a closed mind.
One of us looks at claims, papers, graphs and data from both sides of any argument and then uses as many sources as possible to accept or challenge those claims.
The other one refuses to look at any data from anywhere other than "consensus" sources and those approved by scotia. |
Let's straighten this out. You've said one particular scientist has disproved another's work. The original scientist has gone on record to say that isn't the case and clearly and simply explained why. That reason being the questioning scientist considered a completely different reef in a different location. A completely different (and potentially cherry picked) scenario.
Mahorasy's work in that case is irrelevant. This challenge to the original research was put on YouTube whereas the original research was published, peer reviewed, in a scientific journal. Surely this is obvious? Are you really that gullible?
It's not consensus or conspiracy its complete nonsense. But it is nonsense you want to believe. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 09:32 - Dec 5 with 1369 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 23:17 - Dec 4 by Scotia |
Let's straighten this out. You've said one particular scientist has disproved another's work. The original scientist has gone on record to say that isn't the case and clearly and simply explained why. That reason being the questioning scientist considered a completely different reef in a different location. A completely different (and potentially cherry picked) scenario.
Mahorasy's work in that case is irrelevant. This challenge to the original research was put on YouTube whereas the original research was published, peer reviewed, in a scientific journal. Surely this is obvious? Are you really that gullible?
It's not consensus or conspiracy its complete nonsense. But it is nonsense you want to believe. |
You have this rosy misunderstanding that anyone within the concencus that publishes a peer reviewed paper must be publishing the truth.
Unfortunately since climategate that is no longer true, but it is not just climate and environmental papers, it applies just as much if not more to medical ones.
If you don't believe me try looking at retractionwatch. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:29 - Dec 6 with 1345 views | A_Fans_Dad |
"Extreme Cherry Picking", yes you are correct, she chose one of the supposedly most severely damaged areas of the Barrier and showed that they were not dead.
But she is not the only one is she?
Julia Sumerling has shown exactly the same thing at the Northern Direction Island, which is supposedly 60% dead is in fact not at all.
Of course she is not a so called climate scientist on the Australian dime.
Plus of course the Australian Minster for Environment Sussan Ley also went snorkeling on the reef and said the same.
The original 2016 study requested a $10Billion commitment during the federal election campaign to improve water quality.
Note nothing to do with Lowering CO2 or the temperature (Impossibilities).
So how would "improving water quality" overcome excessive bleaching by High water temperatures caused by CO2 induced global warming? | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 14:27 - Dec 6 with 1335 views | Catullus |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:29 - Dec 6 by A_Fans_Dad |
"Extreme Cherry Picking", yes you are correct, she chose one of the supposedly most severely damaged areas of the Barrier and showed that they were not dead.
But she is not the only one is she?
Julia Sumerling has shown exactly the same thing at the Northern Direction Island, which is supposedly 60% dead is in fact not at all.
Of course she is not a so called climate scientist on the Australian dime.
Plus of course the Australian Minster for Environment Sussan Ley also went snorkeling on the reef and said the same.
The original 2016 study requested a $10Billion commitment during the federal election campaign to improve water quality.
Note nothing to do with Lowering CO2 or the temperature (Impossibilities).
So how would "improving water quality" overcome excessive bleaching by High water temperatures caused by CO2 induced global warming? |
Now where you've gone wrong there is Julia Summerling. She has accepted that there was a great bleaching event, what she says is that the reef has recovered,
http://www.divephotoguide.com/underwater-photography-special-features/article/no
Mother Nature is very resilient but that doesn't mean we should keep on with our destructive behaviour because one day the damage won't be undone, there'll be no comeback.
You presented it as if these events never happened but one of the experts you named says it did! | |
| |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 14:41 - Dec 6 with 1334 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:29 - Dec 6 by A_Fans_Dad |
"Extreme Cherry Picking", yes you are correct, she chose one of the supposedly most severely damaged areas of the Barrier and showed that they were not dead.
But she is not the only one is she?
Julia Sumerling has shown exactly the same thing at the Northern Direction Island, which is supposedly 60% dead is in fact not at all.
Of course she is not a so called climate scientist on the Australian dime.
Plus of course the Australian Minster for Environment Sussan Ley also went snorkeling on the reef and said the same.
The original 2016 study requested a $10Billion commitment during the federal election campaign to improve water quality.
Note nothing to do with Lowering CO2 or the temperature (Impossibilities).
So how would "improving water quality" overcome excessive bleaching by High water temperatures caused by CO2 induced global warming? |
Ah you've finally had a reply to copy from one of your denier forums I see. Which is where I suspect your last sentence comes from.
Anyway, she didn't visit the same site as the original study. She didn't even study the same type of reef, one was intertidal and the other subtidal. Complete and utter cherry picking making her study worthless.
Corals are highly susceptible to poor water quality, caused from agricultural run off in many cases. The study wasn't solely related to climate change and bleaching. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 14:55 - Dec 6 with 1333 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 14:27 - Dec 6 by Catullus |
Now where you've gone wrong there is Julia Summerling. She has accepted that there was a great bleaching event, what she says is that the reef has recovered,
http://www.divephotoguide.com/underwater-photography-special-features/article/no
Mother Nature is very resilient but that doesn't mean we should keep on with our destructive behaviour because one day the damage won't be undone, there'll be no comeback.
You presented it as if these events never happened but one of the experts you named says it did! |
Everybody accepted that ther was a bleaching, but the Scientists predicted that unless something was done it would be the death of the whole Reef in 5 years.
So as they couldn't do anything and neither could anyone else accorduing to them it will dead next year.
Except of course it is not, it has recovered as it has done thousands of times in the past.
You judge how good scientists are by their predictions.
You are correct about not destroying things and I agree that they should control human pollution of the Reef.
When you say "You presented it as if these events never happened but one of the experts you named says it did! "
i think you have just lied, point to where I said it never happened.
I was arguing about the extent and the propaganda of the scientists not that there was never any bleaching, which happens all the time, from cold as well as heat. [Post edited 6 Dec 2020 14:58]
| | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 15:01 - Dec 6 with 1331 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 14:41 - Dec 6 by Scotia |
Ah you've finally had a reply to copy from one of your denier forums I see. Which is where I suspect your last sentence comes from.
Anyway, she didn't visit the same site as the original study. She didn't even study the same type of reef, one was intertidal and the other subtidal. Complete and utter cherry picking making her study worthless.
Corals are highly susceptible to poor water quality, caused from agricultural run off in many cases. The study wasn't solely related to climate change and bleaching. |
What reply? On what denier forum?
At last we agree on something, human pollution of the Reef.
Which is something that they should do something about. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 15:14 - Dec 6 with 1325 views | Catullus |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 15:01 - Dec 6 by A_Fans_Dad |
What reply? On what denier forum?
At last we agree on something, human pollution of the Reef.
Which is something that they should do something about. |
I haven't lied, you said,
"Extreme Cherry Picking", yes you are correct, she chose one of the supposedly most severely damaged areas of the Barrier and showed that they were not dead.
But she is not the only one is she?
Julia Sumerling has shown exactly the same thing at the Northern Direction Island, which is supposedly 60% dead is in fact not at all.
Showed they were not dead you said, it didn't say had died back but recovered but simply "were not dead" which could be read as not happened.
Quoted wrong post of yours but you get my drift. [Post edited 6 Dec 2020 15:15]
| |
| |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:22 - Dec 6 with 1317 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 15:14 - Dec 6 by Catullus |
I haven't lied, you said,
"Extreme Cherry Picking", yes you are correct, she chose one of the supposedly most severely damaged areas of the Barrier and showed that they were not dead.
But she is not the only one is she?
Julia Sumerling has shown exactly the same thing at the Northern Direction Island, which is supposedly 60% dead is in fact not at all.
Showed they were not dead you said, it didn't say had died back but recovered but simply "were not dead" which could be read as not happened.
Quoted wrong post of yours but you get my drift. [Post edited 6 Dec 2020 15:15]
|
No, I am not letting you off the hook.
At no time have I said it never happened, I have said that they are not dead and they are not, where the Scientists said by 2021 it would be too late to save it. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:50 - Dec 9 with 1282 views | Scotia |
I don't know much about the place, but cutting down an ancient woodland for a windfarm isn't usually a good idea. It is very unlikely to happen in most of Europe.
It seems to state that a number of red list species would be impacted, so it won't have an easy time getting consent if that is the case. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 21:45 - Dec 9 with 1255 views | Catullus |
I can't agree with chopping down vast areas of forestry to be "green" it's ridiculous really. It happened in Scotland too. | |
| |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 21:50 - Dec 9 with 1254 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Hands up all those that believe that big battery backup is getting cheaper.
Price for a 14 KWh Tesla Powerwall unit in 2017 was £5900 + Fitting
Price now £8000 + Fitting.
A 36% price increase.
Information courtesy of Paul Homewood, the guy scotia thinks doesn't know what he is talking about.
Except of course he took a snapshot of the Tesla Powerwall page back in 2017. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 22:13 - Dec 9 with 1247 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 21:50 - Dec 9 by A_Fans_Dad |
Hands up all those that believe that big battery backup is getting cheaper.
Price for a 14 KWh Tesla Powerwall unit in 2017 was £5900 + Fitting
Price now £8000 + Fitting.
A 36% price increase.
Information courtesy of Paul Homewood, the guy scotia thinks doesn't know what he is talking about.
Except of course he took a snapshot of the Tesla Powerwall page back in 2017. |
He's an accountant, I'm MCIWEM C.WEM I'll happily tell him he knows very little about climate change and meteorology. It's quite obvious if you read his posts and look at the photos he posts. If I started a blog about tax I'd probably make the kind of mistakes he does but could convince the gullible I was an expert.
I don't know much about batteries really, and I would have thought a chartered electrical engineer could have a decent conversation with him about them. He'd probably learn something, because he's an accountant. [Post edited 9 Dec 2020 22:15]
| | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 22:54 - Dec 9 with 1242 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 22:13 - Dec 9 by Scotia |
He's an accountant, I'm MCIWEM C.WEM I'll happily tell him he knows very little about climate change and meteorology. It's quite obvious if you read his posts and look at the photos he posts. If I started a blog about tax I'd probably make the kind of mistakes he does but could convince the gullible I was an expert.
I don't know much about batteries really, and I would have thought a chartered electrical engineer could have a decent conversation with him about them. He'd probably learn something, because he's an accountant. [Post edited 9 Dec 2020 22:15]
|
Yes, so he knows about whether one price is bigger than another price and how to calculates percentage increases.
I bet he knows a lot more about Climate Change than you do, because as I proved you know SFA about it apart from what you read in the Guardian. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 06:56 - Dec 10 with 1229 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 22:54 - Dec 9 by A_Fans_Dad |
Yes, so he knows about whether one price is bigger than another price and how to calculates percentage increases.
I bet he knows a lot more about Climate Change than you do, because as I proved you know SFA about it apart from what you read in the Guardian. |
Well clearly his accountancy skills know no bounds.
As I've said before I'd be happy for you to put me in direct contact with him. But I think he's happy with his version of events. It's a shame because it is completely wrong and often self incriminating.
He should stick to calculating percentages and counting, he obviously has a natural talent for that. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:18 - Dec 10 with 1214 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 06:56 - Dec 10 by Scotia |
Well clearly his accountancy skills know no bounds.
As I've said before I'd be happy for you to put me in direct contact with him. But I think he's happy with his version of events. It's a shame because it is completely wrong and often self incriminating.
He should stick to calculating percentages and counting, he obviously has a natural talent for that. |
You are making it up now, why would you possibly need me to get in contact with someone with a Forum which you have links to which I have posted on here?
So why don't you go on his website and challenge him, much more experienced Climate Change proponents than you have tried it in the past and lost.
So go on give it a try, put your money where your mouth is, I will watch his Forum comments with great interest. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 13:10 - Dec 10 with 1207 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:18 - Dec 10 by A_Fans_Dad |
You are making it up now, why would you possibly need me to get in contact with someone with a Forum which you have links to which I have posted on here?
So why don't you go on his website and challenge him, much more experienced Climate Change proponents than you have tried it in the past and lost.
So go on give it a try, put your money where your mouth is, I will watch his Forum comments with great interest. |
That sounds very much like you are trying to divert my attention from yourself? I'm not surprised you've said you "were out" about five times previously.
I only asked because you clearly spend a lot of time on these sites. Honestly, the quality of his "work" is so poor, probably worse than Mr Watts, as the accountant fella seems to do it himself. I very much doubt any serious environmentalist has bothered looking at his forum.
Edit - I seem to have found it. You clearly spend a lot of time trawling it and know how to use copy and paste? I particularly like his self incriminating thread "No Lizzie, Summer Rainfall Is Not Getting More Extreme" Where he posts (very cherry picked graphs) that actually show rainfall getting more extreme. The problem is he doesn't understand climate v weather and obviously neither do his readers. [Post edited 10 Dec 2020 13:26]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
