Harpodom Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 Scientists from Unesco and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, that is. They advised against pressing ahead with plans to dredge and dump 5m tonnes of sand on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Thankfully, again, he resolutely pressed on despite their 'advice'. Or was it Hunt? Either way, great result for Australia, the reef and the planet! Way to go, Tones! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Did you watch four corners last night Harpo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted August 19, 2014 Author Share Posted August 19, 2014 Did you watch four corners last night Harpo? No I didn't but the Guardian article makes reference to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Enlightening it was. They choose their "experts" well though and only just show both sides of the story. Show lots of pictures of pristine reef then dead reef and then talk as if they are going to dump tons of crap on top of the reef. Always two sides to every argument and I don't know enough about it to know who is right and wrong. There's a lot of money involved though so a potential for bribery and "gifts" to sway decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted August 19, 2014 Author Share Posted August 19, 2014 Enlightening it was. They choose their "experts" well though and only just show both sides of the story. Show lots of pictures of pristine reef then dead reef and then talk as if they are going to dump tons of crap on top of the reef. Always two sides to every argument and I don't know enough about it to know who is right and wrong. There's a lot of money involved though so a potential for bribery and "gifts" to sway decisions. Are you saying the 'scientists' were bribed Paul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Are you saying the 'scientists' were bribed Paul? If there are scientists on the Barrier Reef board that made the decision that it's OK then possibly. I'm sure there are some scientists that thought it was OK, or persuaded that it was OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Has 'The Guardian' ever done a pro-Tony Abbott story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted August 19, 2014 Author Share Posted August 19, 2014 Has 'The Guardian' ever done a pro-Tony Abbott story? I'm sure they must have done once at least. Is that a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 I'm sure they must have done once at least. Is that a problem? I like to read both sides of an issue, and to The Guardian, climate change is no longer a question, or an issue, but a 'dogma' to which you either accept, or you are an 'infidel.' The trouble with newspapers like The Guardian is that they have no room for dissent on any question. Hate Tony Abbott, Hate Joe Hockey, Hate George Brandis, everything they do is wrong, wrong, WRONG! All good if that is what you believe, but I want to hear both sides. Even The (much maligned) Australian was this week sticking up for the Sydney Morning Herald on an issue concerning press freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starlight7 Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 The Guardian and The Age are both very biased towards a certain viewpoint. Fair enough but what annoys me is they pretend not to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 The Guardian and The Age are both very biased towards a certain viewpoint. Fair enough but what annoys me is they pretend not to be. Same with the ABC, which is supposed to be presenting a neutral point of view, but is nearly always biased in favour of the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londongal76 Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 it's a world heritage site. No matter what or who or how much money is involved, it shouldn't even be an option to potentially damage it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy1 Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 As a diver I have seen other much smaller reefs suffer from a lot less interference by man. This has nothing to do with politics in one sense. The politics come in when there is money to be made by someone. Greed never changes and the only thing the Queensland Government and Tony Abbott will be remembered for is for letting it go ahead. The coal will run out at some time The price will change and people will no longer want it even in India or China The Reef could be there for the rest of humanity to enjoy for ever but it looks like a select few in Australia with blinkered visions will destroy it for everyone Tourism and the Reef in Australia are unique and will provide more jobs over the long term in Australia than any Coal mine will ever produce. I am no scientist or anything but if the coal proposal goes ahead on the Reef you better book your trip because it will die and anyone who thinks otherwise has their head in the sand When diving you realize just how fragile the ecosystem is and it is only frightening what they seem to be proposing. No amount of studies or environmental conditions attached to this will protect the reef. The mine owners are only interested in one thing and that is money. They don't care about Australia or its reef and truly sad to see Australia being sold out like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted August 19, 2014 Author Share Posted August 19, 2014 so, apart from attacking the Guardian and the ABC for being unAustralian, what is your view on the issue at hand? I like to read both sides of an issue, and to The Guardian, climate change is no longer a question, or an issue, but a 'dogma' to which you either accept, or you are an 'infidel.' The trouble with newspapers like The Guardian is that they have no room for dissent on any question. Hate Tony Abbott, Hate Joe Hockey, Hate George Brandis, everything they do is wrong, wrong, WRONG! All good if that is what you believe, but I want to hear both sides. Even The (much maligned) Australian was this week sticking up for the Sydney Morning Herald on an issue concerning press freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eera Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Something that has been completely overlooked in this Abbot Point debate is the fact that the same sort of thing has been done about 150km south near Mackay. A new jetty has been installed at an existing coal port, has any damage been done? Not according to the monitoring efforts of which I have been directly involved. We monitor turbidity and if there's anything there we stop the job. If any oil or grease is discharged we stop the job; we pulled up the piling operations because green grease was discovered on the sea floor and didn't let the piling start again until it was tested to determine the source (a fishing boat). If whales come within 500m the job is stopped. There have been no environmental incidents, damage or anything else on this job on my watch and there is no reason to think that Abbott Point would be any different. I haven't got the time, patience or probably client release to tell of all the other things we've had to deal with to make this job best practice. There was an online petition sent around a while back by a global organisation trying to stop the expansion. They claimed that new shipping channels were going to be blasted through the reef, implied dumping spoil directly on coral (misleading as the marine park starts at the waterline so they can truthfully claim that activity is occurring within the marine park) and other things that could charitably be called misinformation, though downright lies are a better description. They are putting a new jetty adjacent to an old one, that is all. Dredge operations are monitored closely and there are massive penalties for infringing environmental conditions which is why third parties like myself and my enviro scientists colleagues do independent audits and monitoring. Reading the articles there has very much been the implication that they are going to get happy with the explosives and go out of their way to put mud over reefs, it really isn't the case at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robfromdublin Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 I think the thrust of the argument against it is not necessarily that the construction of the terminal itself will cause issues, but that there will be increased shipping traffic through the reef and will obviously bring increased risks of an incident. As for the media, as I see it only the ABC or the BBC are truly neutral. None of the papers are and so they must be read with that in mind. I don't see how the ABC are somehow Left MARYROSE02, except that the current government don't like them so they try to paint them in that light. Can you present an argument as to why they are Left-leaning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 I think the thrust of the argument against it is not necessarily that the construction of the terminal itself will cause issues, but that there will be increased shipping traffic through the reef and will obviously bring increased risks of an incident. As for the media, as I see it only the ABC or the BBC are truly neutral. None of the papers are and so they must be read with that in mind. I don't see how the ABC are somehow Left MARYROSE02, except that the current government don't like them so they try to paint them in that light. Can you present an argument as to why they are Left-leaning? Watch 'Q and A' any week and see how the panel is usually stacked in favour of the left, and of course the compere is a leftie. On just about any issue, the ABC is never neutral and takes any allegation as 'fact', eg, trumpeting about RAN sailors deliberately burning asylum seekers without checking the allegations first. They are not neutral when it comes to the climate change 'debate', not neutral when it comes to the asylum seeker 'debate.' The ABC, as a tax payer funded organisation is not supposed to support the government of the day, but it IS supposed to present issues from a neutral position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted August 20, 2014 Author Share Posted August 20, 2014 Watch 'Q and A' any week and see how the panel is usually stacked in favour of the left, and of course the compere is a leftie. On just about any issue, the ABC is never neutral and takes any allegation as 'fact', eg, trumpeting about RAN sailors deliberately burning asylum seekers without checking the allegations first. They are not neutral when it comes to the climate change 'debate', not neutral when it comes to the asylum seeker 'debate.' The ABC, as a tax payer funded organisation is not supposed to support the government of the day, but it IS supposed to present issues from a neutral position. Get over it FFS. When Gillard/Rudd were in power they were fair game. It's called news. Abbot got hours of air time when in opposition. You couldn't switch on the ABC between 2007 and 2013 without seeing Abbottt in a hi viz top pretending to be a tradie, or screaming 3 word slogans. Now Abott is in power, the shoe is on the other foot, though bizarrely you hardly see the current opposition on the ABC. And Abbbott still acts paranoid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robfromdublin Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Watch 'Q and A' any week and see how the panel is usually stacked in favour of the left, and of course the compere is a leftie. On just about any issue, the ABC is never neutral and takes any allegation as 'fact', eg, trumpeting about RAN sailors deliberately burning asylum seekers without checking the allegations first. They are not neutral when it comes to the climate change 'debate', not neutral when it comes to the asylum seeker 'debate.' The ABC, as a tax payer funded organisation is not supposed to support the government of the day, but it IS supposed to present issues from a neutral position. You've basically just argued that the ABC is biased because the ABC is biased. Have you any facts to backup your argument or is it all just conjecture or your own opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Get over it FFS. When Gillard/Rudd were in power they were fair game. It's called news. Abbot got hours of air time when in opposition. You couldn't switch on the ABC between 2007 and 2013 without seeing Abbottt in a hi viz top pretending to be a tradie, or screaming 3 word slogans. Now Abott is in power, the shoe is on the other foot, though bizarrely you hardly see the current opposition on the ABC. And Abbbott still acts paranoid! Rudd and Gillard were certainly 'fair game' for the likes of 2GB, but not the ABC. 'News' should be presented by the national broadcaster from a neutral position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 You've basically just argued that the ABC is biased because the ABC is biased. Have you any facts to backup your argument or is it all just conjecture or your own opinion? Watch 'Q and A'. See the way the panel is usually stacked in favour of the left, as is the audience. A few months back, Tony Jones allowed three questions from a radical student faction, the same mob which later demonstrated their love of democratic values by staging a demo in the audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.