The pond was aghast … gob-smacked, in a manner of Tamworth speaking …
How was it possible for the pond to construct a blog out of this muck?
Rove roving down under yet again, the hypocritical four flushing nogoodnik? The pond would rather pluck out its eye than be offended by the Rove …
Swiss bank account Gra Gra urging us to emulate the Donald? What, do a one night stand with a hooker, and then do a payoff, and then cover it up? Would the pond have to go to the Gold Coast to use its Swiss bank account?
The bromancer blathering about Tindale - as if the pond knew where Tindale was? - and the parrot attacking the rugger buggers yet again (she's a woman, there's the problem), as if anyone gave a tinker's curse about the fate of the bum sniffers …
Throw in encryption, and Holdens in Marvel movies, when the pond absolutely refuses to watch another movie based on comics, and it was desperation times - though speaking of encryption, the pond did enjoy a Cnet story, Why Rudy Giuliani's Twitter typos are a security fail.
Yes, Gra Gra, this was the loon at one point named by the Trump administration as its cybersecurity tsar … so why don't you shove your emulation in a damned place?
And speaking of enjoyable stories, the pond just loved this one by Luke Beck, in L'Age, here.
It turns out that Beck is an associate prof of constitutional law at Monash University, and inter alia, he promised the pond a nirvana of Xian bashing …
The pond thought it might be helpful to strip out all the Nine visual distractions to concentrate on the Prof meat, as the good Prof celebrated the impact of the religious discrimination bill ...
Employers will be able to ridicule Christians in the workplace. For example, an atheist boss could put a poster above a Christian worker’s desk saying "Christianity is superstitious nonsense". The boss could also say things like "Christianity is like a mental disorder" to a Christian during a job interview.
Doctors will be able to humiliate Christian patients. For example, a Buddhist doctor could tell the Christian parents of an unwell child, "If you spent less time praying and more time caring about your child’s health, your child wouldn’t be this sick."
Shopkeepers will be able to intimidate Christian customers. For example, a Muslim butcher will be allowed to intimidate a Christian customer. The butcher could tell the customer, "You Christian infidels better watch out: you will suffer punishment."
Under existing anti-discrimination laws in most states and territories these examples would likely be unlawful discrimination. The Christians on the receiving end of this nastiness would be able to lodge complaints or even sue in the courts.
Scott Morrison’s religious discrimination bill changes this. The bill overrides state and territory laws and makes being nasty to Christians lawful. The bill also includes a mechanism to allow a federal minister to override any other federal, state or territory laws, such as work health and safety laws, that might prevent people making "statements of belief" like these.
The bill also harms Christians in other ways. The bill attempts to prevent Christians being discriminated against on the basis of their beliefs in hiring and firing decisions. Bosses can use "statements of belief" to be nasty to Christians, but technically won’t be allowed to refuse to hire them.
What matters is real life. In practice, the bill actually encourages employers to refuse to hire Christians.
The bill includes provisions that allow Christians to ignore workplace codes of conduct in certain circumstances. For example, Christian workers will not have to comply with some workplace codes of conduct that prohibit making comments on social media like those made by Israel Folau.
The reality is that many businesses take such codes of conduct seriously. Businesses have brands and reputations to think about. And many businesses genuinely want to create inclusive workplaces where gay people and other minorities feel welcome.
Under Scott Morrison’s religious discrimination bill, life will be easier for businesses if they simply do not hire Christians. That would avoid all the hassles, all the commercial impacts and the expensive lawyer fees involved in Christians not having to comply with workplace codes of conduct.
Of course, technically it will be unlawful to refuse to hire someone because they are a Christian. But the Christian has to prove that the reason they didn’t get the job was because they are a Christian. Actually proving that was the reason is extremely hard to do. And it is expensive, usually involving lawyers.
On the other hand, it is very easy for an employer to say that someone didn’t get a job because of a poor interview performance or because there was a better candidate.
The bible cautions people against making life difficult for others. Psalm 7:16 says "The trouble they make for others backfires on them."
The religious discrimination bill was supposed to be a consolation prize for conservative Christians unhappy with the law allowing same-sex marriage. The bill was meant to give conservative Christians the right to be nasty to gays.
Oh sweet irony, oh bible-quoting Beck …
At last the pond can talk of delusional loonatic Xians with imaginary friends, speaking in tongues in the howling Cronulla wind to empty vessels, and enjoy the full protection of SloMo's atheist-friendly government. Oh, rapture, rapture, the rapture has come early …
Phew, it's been awhile since the pond trotted out that lot … more here …
And speaking of the new world coming, the pond turned to good old Lloydie for some more good news …
The pond only turned to Lloydie because of the splendid irony provided by the reptiles' juxtaposition of those two stories.
There was Brownie berating Albo for having an uncosted climate goal - despite all the pressure from the reptiles and coal lovers everywhere, it seemed certain he was going to announce a zero emissions target by 2050 - and yet just above him was Lloydie, promising a boron nirvana …
Yes, not that climate science is a matter of theology, but it seems there's a holy grail …(and possibly an ark worth raiding) ...
Look, it's all science to the pond, but the pond immediately knew that Lloydie was guilty of at least a dozen thought crimes …
Firstly the talk suggested there might be some sort of problem with the climate and carbon dioxide emissions, when every reptile worth his scientific salt knew that climate science was a religion, and per the Bolter, a planet with abundant carbon dioxide would be good for everyone.
Secondly, this heretical love of boron posed a dire threat to the reptile love of clean dinkum Oz coal. How dare Lloydie and those bludgers at UNSW pose a threat to sweet, loveable coal? Whither Queensland, wither if you will ...
The pond could go on and on about the many Lloydie thoughtcrimes buried in the piece - has he finished saving the Amazon yet? - but instead went on with the "genuine moonshot on the pathway to a low-emissions world" … because there's nothing like calling something a genuine moonshot to inspire confidence … (except maybe calling it rolled gold) ...
Oh that's handy … "The announcement by UNSW of progress on its fusion research coincides with a new focus by the Morrison government on technology to combat climate change."
And the reptiles were on the job, revealing that technology would sort out net zero emissions. Ya sucks boo, Albo!
As if net zero emissions mattered. As if we should abandon coal …
Never mind, there was a final gobbet of hope, of the rapture to come, of the great snatch, and the salvation by SloMo ...
Uh huh, well good luck with all of that, and no doubt Lloydie will be back within the week with another solution for a problem that doesn't exist, because the planet will be much better off if we just keep trundling along …
How does the pond know? The Bolter tells the pond so …
Conclusion: the reptiles really don't know whether they're coming or going with Arthur or Martha, and they're carrying on like a pork chop …(a bit of click bait here).
And now, as the pond started off by mentioning Gra Gra and the Donald, what joy to see that the immortal Rowe has recently been on a Donald kick, with more Rowe here ...
"Work is also progressing on a coal-to-hydrogen project based on Victoria’s brown coal reserves, with delivery of a hydrogen refining plant to AGL’s Loy Yang facility in the Latrobe Valley."
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't all gloom and doom for good old oz coal. They still dream of burning it to make hydrogen. Wouldn't want the rotten technology of the CSIRO that doesn't use coal and is truly green.
Yeah - maybe he thinks any mention of a clean tech, however speculative, should be matched by some filthy old tech.
DeleteIt looks like they are going down the CCS rabbit hole again. This is old news but I don't think much has changed
https://www.tai.org.au/content/carbon-capture-storage-fails-again-international-energy-agency-report
As far as producing hydrogen, this seems to make more sense
https://reneweconomy.com.au/could-hydrogen-be-the-answer-to-wind-and-solar-curtailment-woes-92174/
The way to do it is really simple, Bef:
Delete1. Set up solar voltaic/wind generator near sea/ocean.
2. Use Stanford electrodes to perform electrolysis of seawater (Stanford electrodes can do that without suffering rapid corrosion).
3. Form hydrogen from electrolysis into ammonia (NH3) which can be compressed into more concentrated liquid at higher temperatures than just hydrogen.
4. Transport the ammonia (pipes, road tankers, sea tankers)
5. Feed into required processes by extracting hydrogen via the CSIRO's catalysed membrane
6 Consume the hydrogen to produce heat and water (eg fuel cells for road transport, combustion engines for anything bigger - eg big trucks, trains, planes, ships, electricity generation plants etc).
I have written about all this several times before.
The reptiles don't seem to be coming up with any new ideas, do they?
ReplyDelete"Nothing to see" and "something to see but we are arguing about what it is" are not used much anymore. "What difference can we make" and "where's the money coming from" (my dad would have loved this one) are very much in vogue.
Today's offering is more along the lines of "promising research on curing cancer, we can continue smoking". We will just sit here for a few years while we wait for a miracle.
The funny thing is that if that miracle happened and this process was close to commercial implementation it would be a deadly threat to the reptiles sponsors. No vast mining infrastructure, not even a large steam turbine and generator setup - how would they wet their beaks?
More power to the good professor however. I don't believe in miracles but one would be useful about now.
The good "Emeritus Professor" Bef and he and his litlle "Not Very Hot Fusion" has been around for quite a while now without visible progress. You get a patent for the idea, you know, you don't actually have to have achieved anything concrete.
ReplyDeleteOld wise rule: if it sounds too good to be true, it most likely is too good to be true. You should look up Peter Thonemann some day:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/peter-thonemann-australian-fusion-pioneer-20180410-h0ylc8.html
Loved the little Bolter intrusion today, DP. It illustrates the pitifully simplistic reasoning of reptiles: the Bolter "knows" that additional CO2 is good for photosynthesizing plants so it all must be good, goody good !.
ReplyDeleteThe thought that there might be any negatives at all is just unthinkable. So the possibility that global warming might intensify and prolong droughts ? Nah, that could never happen - just ask the Australian farmers: they're all experiencing "record grain ctops and fewer cyclones". More unpredictable and frequently very heavy rain leading to floods that wipe out crops ? Nah - just ask the Australian farmers: they're all experiencing "record grain crops and fewer cyclones".
Maybe the warmer, and sometimes moister, environment could aid in the breeding and maturation of massive swarms of vegetation consuming insects (locusts anybody ? They are in Australia too, you know). Nah, never ever happened.
All way too esoteric and recondite for a simple "one idea is enough for anybody" chap like the Bolter.
So I won't go on to even more esoteric and recondite ideas like: more and bigger plants can only grow in the right environment: not too hot (oops !), not too cold, just enough moisture in the air and nitrogen and fertiliser (etc) in the ground. Just way too complicated for a simple-minded Bolter.
Just a bit like 'Boron fusion' is way too complicated for a simple-minded Lloydie.
Fascinating. While waiting for the maladroit malware to reconnect the 'pond, I encountered a term for the likes of the Bolter: He's a "high-decoupler", defined by Tom Chivers as "people ... who are good at isolating ideas from all those troublesome things like implications and consequences and even meaning. They can take a complex sociological phenomenon, for instance, and reduce it to “A → B” without fussing about over the messy antecedents that produce A, or that the relationship also produces C, D, E, F…Z and a few letters beyond that."
DeleteYep, that's our beloved reptiles alright, and most of our politicians as well.
Is there any chance some Australian scientists might be tantalisingly close to developing a reliable NBN? In our patch it has been 'off' more than it has been 'on' for the last couple of days. I have no idea why, because no part of the system admits that there has been a problem here, let alone offer an explanation.
ReplyDeleteOther Anonymous
Ah, it's good for the psyche to have a developed sense of the absurd, OA. The CSIRO folks invented wi-fi and isn't that enough for Australian scientists to have done ?
Delete