A prime example of the complete dumbing down of science and the proliferation of wokeness, which seems to be an affliction most acutely felt in the English speaking Five Eyes nations of US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Peter Ridd (who was hounded and persecuted by the academic establishment for daring to question Great Barrier Reef apocalypticism) has this written
Just skimmed the report in question. Peter Ridd’s report is disingenuous. The AAS report has no figures because it’s not a scientific paper it’s more a discussion, “Roundtable” in the title sort of suggests that, it’s a brain storming session or SWAT analysis, Why mention the make up of the group? Because it’s in the Appendix under participants, the goal was to get a diverse group together for a “Roundtable” discussion so reporting on the make up of the group would probably be of interest to the reader. Some were scientists other were not. “Out of the box thinking” was encouraged. I’m surprised they only got one stupid solution i.e. the shading he cherry picked to make them look stupid.
I’m not defending the AAS they may well be a bunch of woke dip-shits but the report is not what Peter Ridd makes it out to be.
I disagree. It is primarily a scientific report on the impacts of climate change on the GBR under different emissions scenarios and a discussion of possible interventions to reduce those impacts, plus an assessment of possible GBR futures resulting from those impacts and interventions.
"The project brought together three multidisciplinary expert-led roundtables to understand the compounding impacts of climate change on the ecosystem, to identify gaps and to understand the applicability of interventions in a changing climate."
"The environment that formed the GBR is changing at a scale and pace never before experienced. Global warming, elevated ocean temperatures, extreme weather events, ocean acidification, coastal development, land clearing that changes the rivers and streams that flow into the GBR waters, fishing, pollution and more all have an impact on what is a delicate, extraordinarily complex and vulnerable ecosystem. Most of this has occurred within the last 200 years. There are intricate and interdependent ecosystems that comprise the GBR. These remarkable ecosystems require detailed understanding of the sensitivities and vulnerabilities of the multiple components if the most effective evidence-based actions are to be designed and implemented. The Australian Academy of Science (the Academy) convened groups of experts to assess the likely outcomes for the GBR in three climate scenarios (near-term, and both low-emissions and high-emissions trajectories in the medium-term) to provide advice to the Independent Expert Panel (IEP) for the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan (Reef 2050 Plan)."
As Ridd says, the report offers no facts or figures which would quantify those impacts and justify any interventions. The only facts and figures it provides are those in Appendix A where it obsesses in detail about the gender identity and indigenous origin of the 'expert' participants.
Now I think you’re being disingenuous. I’d assumed you hadn’t read it and were just repeating Peter Ridd’s schtick. I believed his reporting until I read the actual report. It’s a report about a discussion about what to do about climate change. The report is being portrayed as being produced by expert scientists. It’s not, it’s experts AND scientists. Some of these experts are not experts in science, maybe even the scientists aren’t experts in science, some are experts in law, social science and suprise, suprise experts in indigenous matters. It’s a great way to show inclusion. I’m surprised they didn’t have experts in the effects of reef degradation on the LGBTQ+ community. It’s a report about a gab fest, probably conducted in a nice resort somewhere proximal to the reef. Nice work if you can get it. Global warming degradation and poor land management are baked in from the beginning. The UNESCO threat of putting it on the “in danger list” probably also has something to do with it, the Australian government has practically been begging UNESCO not to put it on the list. They need a “plan” to show they are doing something about it otherwise it will be put on the list. GBR is already on the under “serious threat” list. Whatever that means. I agree that this is all part of the climate agenda, climate change is a simplistic mechanism. The report has lots of discussion about land use but that’s not being highlighted because changes might impact farmers and the mining industry, impacting farmers and miners is not a good political move in Australia better to make our urban population feel bad and switch to electric cars and 15 minute/smart cities. I agree with you this agenda is mostly bullshit but Peter’s article comes across (to me) as disingenuous.
Sep 4, 2023·edited Sep 4, 2023Liked by Jaime Jessop
Fair enough. My read of the report is different to yours. If you agree with Peter Ridd’s interpretation that’s fine, no hard feelings. I thought he made some good points till I actually read the report and thought he was twisting the report to suit his own narrative. Maybe his criticism of other scientific work is valid (per your link), I don’t know, I hadn’t heard of him till I read your post. Having his book published by the IPA (also in the link) makes me even more inclined to believe he is spinning a political narrative rather than purely calling out the science.
The problem is, we live in an age where calling out 'The Science' by reference to real data, real science and undeniable facts, is implicitly political because The Science itself is political. It then becomes open to interpretation as to whether the author of the 'calling out' places more emphasis on the science or the politics.
This decay started in 1946 when government started funding most of science. All the Deepstate tentacles were founded at the same time. NIH, WHO, CDC, NSF, UN. The takeover was accelerated in 1970 when the tenure system became the sole measure of career advancement. The only way to get tenure and promotions is to publish lots of peer-reviewed pieces, and the only way to publish lots of peer-reviewed pieces is to get government grants.
Tenure guarantees orthodoxy. The common idea that tenure "protects freedom" is nonsense.
Before the 1946 takeover, academic science and published papers were VASTLY more open to varied ideas. Even official government experts were able to think and write openly.
I've read that this started with a bang - the Manhattan Project which employed hundreds of thousands of theoreticians and engineers. Its 'success' if we can call it that paved the way for 'Big Science'. My relatively brief scientific career showed me that the people who got on best (apart from the Stephen Hawkings of this world) were those who were skilled at publishing mountains of mediocre material - good enough to impress funding bodies - and good at networking. The huge volume of publications in just about every field now is evidence that quantity has become King.
Makes the oncoming technocracy even more frightening, when the "experts" who will rule over the rest of us are not even technical. The good news is that they can't control the rest of us when they are a laughing stock.
Well said, Jaime. The disintegration of the scientific method in academic institutions in Australia goes hand-in-hand with the collapse of the education system - which is increasingly shortchanging the education of young Australians. The objective of the unworthy people who now run academia is to provide a bigger labour pool to work in a rapidly de-industrialising Australian economy which is increasingly made up of burger-flipping joints and tattoo parlours.
Just skimmed the report in question. Peter Ridd’s report is disingenuous. The AAS report has no figures because it’s not a scientific paper it’s more a discussion, “Roundtable” in the title sort of suggests that, it’s a brain storming session or SWAT analysis, Why mention the make up of the group? Because it’s in the Appendix under participants, the goal was to get a diverse group together for a “Roundtable” discussion so reporting on the make up of the group would probably be of interest to the reader. Some were scientists other were not. “Out of the box thinking” was encouraged. I’m surprised they only got one stupid solution i.e. the shading he cherry picked to make them look stupid.
I’m not defending the AAS they may well be a bunch of woke dip-shits but the report is not what Peter Ridd makes it out to be.
I disagree. It is primarily a scientific report on the impacts of climate change on the GBR under different emissions scenarios and a discussion of possible interventions to reduce those impacts, plus an assessment of possible GBR futures resulting from those impacts and interventions.
"The project brought together three multidisciplinary expert-led roundtables to understand the compounding impacts of climate change on the ecosystem, to identify gaps and to understand the applicability of interventions in a changing climate."
"The environment that formed the GBR is changing at a scale and pace never before experienced. Global warming, elevated ocean temperatures, extreme weather events, ocean acidification, coastal development, land clearing that changes the rivers and streams that flow into the GBR waters, fishing, pollution and more all have an impact on what is a delicate, extraordinarily complex and vulnerable ecosystem. Most of this has occurred within the last 200 years. There are intricate and interdependent ecosystems that comprise the GBR. These remarkable ecosystems require detailed understanding of the sensitivities and vulnerabilities of the multiple components if the most effective evidence-based actions are to be designed and implemented. The Australian Academy of Science (the Academy) convened groups of experts to assess the likely outcomes for the GBR in three climate scenarios (near-term, and both low-emissions and high-emissions trajectories in the medium-term) to provide advice to the Independent Expert Panel (IEP) for the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan (Reef 2050 Plan)."
As Ridd says, the report offers no facts or figures which would quantify those impacts and justify any interventions. The only facts and figures it provides are those in Appendix A where it obsesses in detail about the gender identity and indigenous origin of the 'expert' participants.
Now I think you’re being disingenuous. I’d assumed you hadn’t read it and were just repeating Peter Ridd’s schtick. I believed his reporting until I read the actual report. It’s a report about a discussion about what to do about climate change. The report is being portrayed as being produced by expert scientists. It’s not, it’s experts AND scientists. Some of these experts are not experts in science, maybe even the scientists aren’t experts in science, some are experts in law, social science and suprise, suprise experts in indigenous matters. It’s a great way to show inclusion. I’m surprised they didn’t have experts in the effects of reef degradation on the LGBTQ+ community. It’s a report about a gab fest, probably conducted in a nice resort somewhere proximal to the reef. Nice work if you can get it. Global warming degradation and poor land management are baked in from the beginning. The UNESCO threat of putting it on the “in danger list” probably also has something to do with it, the Australian government has practically been begging UNESCO not to put it on the list. They need a “plan” to show they are doing something about it otherwise it will be put on the list. GBR is already on the under “serious threat” list. Whatever that means. I agree that this is all part of the climate agenda, climate change is a simplistic mechanism. The report has lots of discussion about land use but that’s not being highlighted because changes might impact farmers and the mining industry, impacting farmers and miners is not a good political move in Australia better to make our urban population feel bad and switch to electric cars and 15 minute/smart cities. I agree with you this agenda is mostly bullshit but Peter’s article comes across (to me) as disingenuous.
Well, what can I say? I can only comfort myself in the fact that I am being disingenuous in such good company!
https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/high-courts-ruling-against-former-james-cook-university-professor-peter-ridd-is-an-assault-on-freedom-of-expression/news-story/7dbb8ce846400da754c251fa846c438b
Fair enough. My read of the report is different to yours. If you agree with Peter Ridd’s interpretation that’s fine, no hard feelings. I thought he made some good points till I actually read the report and thought he was twisting the report to suit his own narrative. Maybe his criticism of other scientific work is valid (per your link), I don’t know, I hadn’t heard of him till I read your post. Having his book published by the IPA (also in the link) makes me even more inclined to believe he is spinning a political narrative rather than purely calling out the science.
The problem is, we live in an age where calling out 'The Science' by reference to real data, real science and undeniable facts, is implicitly political because The Science itself is political. It then becomes open to interpretation as to whether the author of the 'calling out' places more emphasis on the science or the politics.
That’s true but when it becomes more political than scientific I find it as off putting as “Trust the Science”.
This decay started in 1946 when government started funding most of science. All the Deepstate tentacles were founded at the same time. NIH, WHO, CDC, NSF, UN. The takeover was accelerated in 1970 when the tenure system became the sole measure of career advancement. The only way to get tenure and promotions is to publish lots of peer-reviewed pieces, and the only way to publish lots of peer-reviewed pieces is to get government grants.
Tenure guarantees orthodoxy. The common idea that tenure "protects freedom" is nonsense.
Before the 1946 takeover, academic science and published papers were VASTLY more open to varied ideas. Even official government experts were able to think and write openly.
I've read that this started with a bang - the Manhattan Project which employed hundreds of thousands of theoreticians and engineers. Its 'success' if we can call it that paved the way for 'Big Science'. My relatively brief scientific career showed me that the people who got on best (apart from the Stephen Hawkings of this world) were those who were skilled at publishing mountains of mediocre material - good enough to impress funding bodies - and good at networking. The huge volume of publications in just about every field now is evidence that quantity has become King.
I live in Canada. Our coral has been gone for a long time, at least as long as I can remember. We have gotten too hot for coral to survive here.
Good point me too never thought of that!😀😂
Makes the oncoming technocracy even more frightening, when the "experts" who will rule over the rest of us are not even technical. The good news is that they can't control the rest of us when they are a laughing stock.
Well said, Jaime. The disintegration of the scientific method in academic institutions in Australia goes hand-in-hand with the collapse of the education system - which is increasingly shortchanging the education of young Australians. The objective of the unworthy people who now run academia is to provide a bigger labour pool to work in a rapidly de-industrialising Australian economy which is increasingly made up of burger-flipping joints and tattoo parlours.