Climate change, denialism and lobbying – fueled by coffee
top csgo gambling sites
The Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CSGO) scene has seen a remarkable growth in betting sites, designed to fulfill the appetites of players keen to place bets on a broad range of game outcomes using their in-game items. These sites provide everything from classic betting on game outcomes to more innovative csgo sites, including coin toss, and thrilling case openings. Each platform adds its own flair to the gambling scene, aiming to attract players with exciting betting options, the chance to win coveted skins, and a sense of community.
The Attraction of CSGO Gambling Sites
CSGO gambling sites have become increasingly popular for several reasons. Firstly, they offer a means for players to obtain rare skins without having to purchase them through the game's store. Secondly, they add to the excitement of CSGO matches by enabling players to bet on the outcome of professional games or the results of various casino-style games. Furthermore, they act as a social gathering point, where like-minded individuals can gather, share strategies, and experience the excitement of gambling.
Critical Features to Consider in CSGO Gambling Sites
When exploring CSGO gambling sites, it's important to consider multiple aspects to ensure a safe, pleasurable, and potentially profitable experience:
Reputation and Reliability: Look for sites with a strong reputation in the gaming community, favorable feedback, and a history of equitable practices.
Safety Protocols: Ensure the site has strong security measures in place to safeguard your items and personal information.
Range of Betting Options: The best sites offer a broad range of gambling options, from jackpots and match betting to case openings, ensuring a diverse gambling experience.
By focusing on these essential characteristics, players can discover a CSGO gambling site that not only provides thrilling betting options but also ensures their security and fosters a supportive community environment.
After five and half years and about 160 posts, I’m more than a bit sad to announce that my Guardian blog – Planet Oz – has officially closed.
The decision to shut down the Guardian’s global environment blog network was made back in July in London, with the pin being pulled at the end of August.
However, there was an oversight (a pretty bad one) and some of us – including Dana Nuccitelli and John Abraham of Climate Consensus – the 97% blog – weren’t told until very recently. That meant that even after the official end date, some of us were still posting, totally oblivious of the decision.
James Cook University has fired marine scientist and climate science contrarian Professor Peter Ridd and as predictably as night follows day, Andrew Bolt is all upset.
As a very brief summary, Ridd has long been associated with groups that have misrepresented the state of climate science, he has been speaking openly for more than a decade about his views which, to give you an even shorter summary, is that the Great Barrier Reef is doing just fine and is not threatened by global warming or industrial activity.
But back to Bolt, who devoted his editorial on his Sky News show to Ridd’s case. In his trademark righteous tone, Bolt began: “A scandal in one of our universities,” before weaving the case into the politics of energy prices and free speech.
In some ways, the way the climate science denial community and the conservative echo chamber has rallied around Professor Peter Ridd is impressive.
In other ways, it is entirely predictable given the James Cook University academic is serving up two of their favourite dishes in one serving- a supposed fight for “freedom of speech” against the establishment, and a rejection of the science linking human activity to climate change and, in this case in particular, the Great Barrier Reef.
Since then, Ridd has continued to claim that fellow JCU scientists should not be trusted, leading to allegations of serious misconduct from JCU that Ridd had repeatedly breached their code of conduct . Ridd hit back and filed a case against them. It’s ongoing.
I’ve launched a new podcast called Positive Feedback that will look at “climate science, denial, and all that stuff in between.”
Right now, it’s an entirely independent operation.
I’m drawing on the few radio skills I gained from a couple of years at BBC Radio more than a decade ago (mostly forgotten) to produce the whole thing myself. Should I feel like I need some help marketing it in the future, I know I can go to people like Lower Street to help me out with this but, for now, my focus is getting the first few episodes up and running, and get used to just talking.
I’m hoping to be able to cover both ends of climate change – from the hard science to the way I think it gets mangled and misrepresented in the minds of the public.
The latest instalment came earlier today from the newspaper’s environment editor Graham Lloyd, under the print headline “The bleaching of parts of the reef is dividing the scientific world” and online under the headline “Great barrier battleground over coral bleaching.”
Lloyd seems to be trying to construct a narrative that the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef and the subsequent death of about a quarter of all the corals has opened some sort of schism among scientists.
The bleaching, writes Lloyd, has “unleashed long-simmering tensions over the quality of reef research.”
Remembering for a minute the reef has just gone through its worst bleaching event on record leading to the death of a quarter of the corals – a huge and historic deal that will impact the reef for the rest of our lifetimes.
But anyway, over the weekend The Australian published a story about Professor Peter Ridd, of James Cook University, who had apparently been disciplined for criticising colleagues and the the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) for using some old pictures of reef near Stone Island to show how coral cover had declined over time.
According to Graham Lloyd, The Australian’s environment editor, Ridd said the pictures – from between 1890 and 2012 – didn’t show for sure the reefs were declining. Scientists needed to be more sceptical, he said.
For kicking up a stink, Ridd was reportedly almost fired.
The Australian also reported that Ridd had sent scientists out to check on the reef in question – valiantly displaying the kind of scientific skepticism that was so lacking in others. Some areas were OK, The Australian said.