The Ladies Who Bake (and organize, lobby, raise funds & volunteer) come out against coal seam gas exploration, mining and production

The Country Women’s Association (CWA) of New South Wales came together for its annual conference on 22-25th May 2017 for the 95th time and debated policy.

Photograph: The Land, 25 May 2017

At this conference the CWA passed the following motion:

Maules Creek Branch (Namoi Group):

Preamble: The results of hosting unconventional gas on farms are properties devalued, mortgages refused, insurance covers rejected, destroys families, divides communities, drains aquifers and turns land into dead zones, sick children, suicide and mental breakdowns.

“That the policy of CWA of NSW shall be to support a ban on unconventional gas exploration, extraction and production”.

With the largest women’s organisation in Australia now having this policy endorsed by one of its founding chapters, NSW Nationals leader and MP for Monaro John Barilaro’s statement that he saw no reason why the coal seam gas industry should not be supported in areas of the state where it would not affect prime agricultural land is not looking as robust a proposition as he perhaps thought two weeks ago.

Pictures that tell a 1,000 words - Part Two

Left to Right: 
Ivanka Marie Trump, Melania Trump (née Melanija Knavs), 45^th U.S. President Donald John Trump with 266^th Catholic Pope His Holiness Francis (born Jorge Mario Bergoglio), Apostolic Palace, Vatican City, 24 May 2017

Holy See Press Office Communiqué

The Pope's enthusiasm for this official visit is apparently underwhelming.

Pictures that tell a 1,000 words - Part One

Former sceptic tells climate change denialists to put up or shut up

US WRAL TV meteorologist and weatherman on Facebook:

Greg Fishel

21 May at 18:18 · 

PUT UP OR SHUT UP

You know everybody reaches their breaking point and quite frankly I have reached mine with the folks who post all over the internet about the scientific fallacies of man induced climate change. All of them are guest bloggers or essayists. None of this stuff has ever been published in a peer reviewed atmospheric science or climate journal. But we live in an age today where higher education and research are no longer respected. Heck, think of all the money my parents wasted on my education when I could have waited for the age of twitter and Facebook and declared myself as an expert in the field of my choice. That's sarcasm to illustrate asininity.

But wait! Let's say one of these guest essayers is a modern day Galileo, and has that critical piece to the puzzle that no other scientist has. Then they should submit their findings to one of the American Meteorological Society's peer reviewed journals for publication. If they are rejected, and the author feels unfairly, then make public each and every one of the reviewers' comments for the entire world to see. If there is bias and corruption in the peer review process, everyone needs to know about it so this flawed process can be halted and corrected. But ya know what? I doubt any of these folks has the guts to do this, and they'll continue on with their pathetic excuse for science education.

So prove me wrong bloggers and essayists. Submit your work the way real scientists do, and see where it takes you. Uncover that bias and corruption you're so convinced is present. If you end up being correct, society will owe you a huge debt of gratitude. If you're wrong, stop muddying the scientific waters with ideological trash.

BACKGROUND

Indy Week, 21 October 2015:

You might assume that your local meteorologist believes in climate change.

Certainly if he graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Meteorology from Penn State in 1979 and began working at WRAL-TV as the station's first meteorologist in 1981. Especially if he was promoted to chief meteorologist in 1989, a post he has held ever since. And without a doubt, if your local weatherman was the first American

Meteorological Society-certified broadcast meteorologist in the United States, who then chaired the board that developed the 100-question exam used for broadcast certifications, he'd have to embrace the overwhelming scientific consensus. Right?

For Greg Fishel, accepting that reality took time. An avid churchgoer and Rush subscriber (that's Limbaugh, not the band), Fishel has been slower than most scientists to recognize the fact that the planet is warming and we're to blame. Last week, the meteorologist penned a blog post titled, "Choose science, stewardship in understanding climate change," a public admission of his previous ignorance and a plea for people like him—Republicans, churchgoers, Fox News fanatics—to approach the topic scientifically rather than ideologically.

Australian case law has a Minties Moment

The applicant appeared in person, having declined the opportunity to be represented by a solicitor funded by a grant of legal aid. Her stated reason for having done so is that as “a Druid (Celtic Pagan Priest) … being represented by a solicitor in Court is not an option.” According to Strabo, druids were once held in such high regard that they could quell any private or public dispute, including a stand-off between opposing armies: Geographica at 4.4.4. Their jurisdiction was divine and limitless. By contrast, and fortunately for the applicant, the jurisdiction of Australian inferior courts is statutory and limited. [Morgan v District Court of New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 105, 23 May 2017]

Quotes of the Week

Why do so few make it out of poverty? I can tell you from experience it is not because some have more merit than others. It is because being poor is a high-risk gamble. The asymmetry of outcomes for the poor is so enormous because it is so expensive to be poor. Imagine losing a job because your phone was cut off, or blowing off an exam because you spent the day in the ER dealing with something that preventative care would have avoided completely. Something as simple as that can spark a spiral of adversity almost impossible to recover from. The reality is that when you’re poor, if you make one mistake, you’re done. Everything becomes a sudden-death gamble. [Christian H. Cooper writing at Nautilus on Why Poverty Is Like A Disease, 20 April 2017]

The total rate paid by a high earner on $200,000 is nothing like 50 per cent. The first $18,200 isn't taxed at all because of the tax-free threshold, the next $18,000 is only taxed at 19 per cent, and so on, meaning the total tax taken works out at $71,232 including levies – a rate of 35.6 per cent. [Economic Editor for The Age, Peter Martin, writing on 24 May 2017]

Trump offers proof of 'no Russian ties'

And here it is…………….

Images via Twitter