Aussie Enviro
An Australian community for everything from your backyard to beyond the black stump.
🐢
Topics may include Aussie plants and animals, environmental, farming, energy, and climate news and stories (mostly Aus specific), etc.
🐧 Want a news or information source? Try one of these links below!
News
The New Daily
(Life, Sci, Envt)
John Menadue
(Pub Pcy/Climate)
National Indigenous Times
(Envt)
Science
Online Library.Wiley
(Srch Earliest)
Conservation
Australian Conservation Foundation ACF
Biodiversity Council
(Stories)
WWF, World-Wide Fund for Nature
WWF, World-Wide Fund for Nature
(Blogs)
Nature Conservation Council for NSW
Queensland Conservation Council
(Blog)
Environmental Defenders Office
Education Institutions
University of the Sunshine Coast
University of Technology, Sydney
Queensland University of Technology
University of Southern Queensland
University of New England
(Connect)
University of Western Australia
Misc
Takvera (J,Englart)
(Climate Citizen Blog)
Australian Youth Climate Coalition
🐫
Trigger Warning: Community contains mostly bad environmental news (not by choice!). Community may also feature stories about animal agriculture and/or meat. Until tagging is available, please be aware and click accordingly.
🪲
Aussie Zone Rules.
- Golden rule - be nice. If you wouldn’t say it in front of your ~~grandmother~~ favourite tree, don’t post it.
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. You are allowed to denigrate invasive plants or animals.
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here. Except invasive plants or animals.
- No porn. Except photos of plants. Definitely not animals.
- No Ads / Spamming. Except for photos or stories about plants and animals.
- Nothing illegal in Australia. Like invasive plants or animals. Exotic microbes and invasive fungi also not welcome.
- Make post titles descriptive with no swear words. Comments are a free for all using the above rules as a guide. Fuck invasive plants and animals.
🐝
/c/Aussie Environment acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land, sea and waters, of the area that we live and work on across Australia. We acknowledge their continuing connection to their culture and pay our respects to their Elders past and present.
view the rest of the comments
I feel that. There have been a couple of articles by science communicators or journalists I've respected, but tempered my awe after they say something negligent on a topic I'm more familiar with.
One trivial but illustrative example was a science communicator you'd all know informing the public about secure data wiping (great! don't sell unwiped devices online, some people do search for those) but recommending a 35-pass Gutmann wipe, which Gutmann dismisses in their own epilogue to their paper, "In the time since this paper was published, some people have treated the 35-pass overwrite technique described in it more as a kind of voodoo incantation to banish evil spirits than the result of a technical analysis of drive encoding techniques. As a result, they advocate applying the voodoo to PRML and EPRML drives even though it will have no more effect than a simple scrubbing with random data. In fact performing the full 35-pass overwrite is pointless for any drive [since it covers everything back to 1970s methods]". It will basically just put unnecessary wear on the disk and waste your time.
But even then, I haven't had examples like this, where you've been able to utterly demolish their opinion piece like that.
I'd suggest reading my reply. But the TL;DR is that the article doesn't really get "demolished" in quite that sense, because it's very careful to make sure nothing it says is actually wrong per se. It just brushes over its excuses for avoiding best-practice, creating the effect that a casual reader will likely come away with entirely the wrong conclusions, while having something like plausible deniability on "corrections" (because the real problem isn't with it being incorrect, it's undue emphasis on one particular point).