The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

This is total BS. The 'political agenda' is demonstrably and unequivocally a product of a concerted, highly-funded effort from entities whose interests are heavily invested in consumer-driven profit, and their personal desire to maximize their short-term gains over those who make those ill-gotten gains possible, to the ultimate detriment of themselves, those they're taking advantage of, and the planet as a whole.

The fact that GHGs produced by man are warming the planet at an historically unprecedented rate is a not disputed by any data.

Deniers are called such because they deny facts that are, as far as they can be, proven. AGW is no less proved that the Holocaust, the oblate sphericity of appropriately-sized masses rotating in space, the landing of humans on the moon, evolution, the relativistic effect of gravity on time, or a myriad of other scientific notions that are normally beneath the scope of the average, spoiled individuals who reap their benefits.

That you remain mired in the fantasy that there is a 'debate' among scientists about the reality of MMGW only illustrates how far you've been taken in by the Bernaysian propaganda so well utilized by the afore-mentioned vested interests.

The real debate is not is it real but how much and how fast. So far, the IPCC's predictions, as scientific policy making should be, for good reason, have been very, probably far too much so, conservative.

And, of course, whilst the hoi polloi bicker about media-driven conspiracy theories, the nuts and bolts keepers of 'civilization' plan for the inevitable future. Taking a look at what defense departments, civil engineering interests, re-insurance companies, medical-response interests, food security specialists, and a plethora of other organizations (whose ability to function [they know] will be affected by the rapidly approaching changes) are doing will convince any but the most media-blinded of the reality of the challenge facing humanity, and, by extension, earth as we know it.

The only thing you forgot were the comparisons between mobilizing against the threats to the planet from CC and the landings at Normandy. Only 12 years away. Ooops, I'm confusing all those scientists politicians again. Hard to keep track with all of them talking about existential threats.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

But rather than attempting to reformulate the "identities" of those on each "side" of the debate, I'd suggest you simply acknowledge there are many facets to the positions scientists & non-scientists have taken, and so focusing more on the science (as best we laymen can that is) as opposed to the people, personalities, groups who support or are skeptical of the mainstream position would be more accurate & realistic. This is exactly why the denier label is so distorting, but then that's also exactly why it's used.

The fact that there are one or two or three (or similar statistically insignificant) qualified dissenters out of a field of tens of thousands does not confirm that there is a serious scientific debate or disagreement over what we're doing to the climate and what the likely effects will be. Maintaining that there is, and lavishing attention on those very few outliers, while ignoring and slagging the rest - the vast majority (and ALL their institutions) - is a "denial" tactic. And kind of telegraphs that one isn't going to really be swayed by scientific arguments.

The "contrary" position from Professor Ridd is quoted in posts 24 & 26, along with information about Ridd himself.

As I asked reefmagnet - where can we look to find credible information about the GBR? Like with CC, we have just one identified contrary expert - Prof Ridd, and from this expert all we have so far are one "paper" and an opinion piece from a politically-biased source. Oh, and TripAdvisor

btw - I do accept the point that CC is not the only driver of reef death.

I will ask again - Reefmagnet: can you direct us to what you believe is a credible and accurate source for information on the state of the GBR, if the Australian government or JCU are not telling the truth?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The fact that there are one or two or three (or similar statistically insignificant) qualified dissenters out of a field of tens of thousands does not confirm that there is a serious scientific debate or disagreement over what we're doing to the climate and what the likely effects will be. Maintaining that there is, and lavishing attention on those very few outliers, while ignoring and slagging the rest - the vast majority (and ALL their institutions) - is a "denial" tactic. And kind of telegraphs that one isn't going to really be swayed by scientific arguments.

How do you know this is a "fact," that is the numbers break down as disproportionately as you suggest? Otherwise it's just an assumption based on your own, personal inclinations and dominant exposure to mainstream views? Have you researched how many credibly skeptical & dissenting views are out there and, critically, what part of the many-faceted components of the science they disagree with or are skeptical about? How about, for the sake of easing the discussion (for a change), we stick with supporting & opposing scientific views about catastrophic events & dire predictions, especially since this particular CC thread is focused on the GBR.

Hint: Any published "study" of a "consensus" that includes noted skeptics such as Spencer, Christy, Curry et al. should be excluded, right? After all, the only feature of CC these scientists "deny" is the doomsday stuff. Arguably, they're merely skeptical about that one too.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Peter Ridd’s court case against James Cook University is scheduled for March 26-28Th (2019) in Brisbane.

➥ https://independentaustralia.net/env...e-denial,11352

➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...25326X18301425

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, is that the Great Barrier Reef is doing just fine, and is not threatened by global warming or industrial activity.
He has been fired for alleged multiple breaches of his university’s code of conduct*. Some of his earlier breaches that led to James Cook University’s disciplinary action did relate to comments about his colleagues, but that’s not quite it. JCU started disciplinary action because the way Ridd chose to go about that “criticism” breached aspects of the university’s code of conduct. We know this because Ridd posted all the “strictly private and confidential” letters from his university onto his public website.
Of course Ridd criticised published work, but that’s not what got him fired. Ridd did recently pull together his criticisms of published work in a “viewpoint” article in a journal. But the scientists at AIMS who responded, pointed out that Ridd was simply repeating criticisms that had already been discussed in the academic literature. They questioned why Ridd had ignored those published critiques of his own work, and instead just repeated the claims. If you want to see the “charge sheet” where JCU lists in its termination letter the reasons why they fired him , then look below. You won’t find anything about “criticising published work” in the full termination letter.
The echo chamber of conservative media, websites, and think tanks, that push climate science denial, swung into action, urging readers to visit Ridd’s crowdfunding page. Rather than focus on the alleged breaches of the code of conduct, Ridd and his supporters are attempting to reframe the case around academic freedom, free speech, and scientific integrity.
I doubt that his court case will address these larger philosophical questions, but will adjudicate the narrow legal questions:
Is the Code of Ethics legal & binding?
Did he breach them?
If so, so egregiously as to justify:
- Censure?
- Termination?

Charge Sheet ➥ James Cook’s termination letter to Peter Ridd – Graham Readfearn

*Code of Conduct ➥ https://www.jcu.edu.au/policy/corpor...ersity-council

I doubt the court case will not address the "larger philosophical legal questions." As far as I know, it's a wrongful termination case. So even if the university's Code of Ethics is upheld as valid, and even if the court determines that Ridd breached them, there remains the question whether the firing was pretextual, namely an excuse to fire him based merely on his contrary scientific opinions in violation of his rights to free speech, etc. In the US, the burden would generally lie with the university to prove that the firing was not pretextual and therefore illegal. But not sure how this might play out in the Australian courts.

Of course you won't find anything in the termination letter about "criticizing published work!" That would likely constitute a "smoking gun" and there'd be little left to go to trial on. But that doesn't "prove" that Ridd wasn't fired for that very reason!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

How do you know this is a "fact," that is the numbers break down as disproportionately as you suggest? Otherwise it's just an assumption based on your own, personal inclinations and dominant exposure to mainstream views?

I think it's incumbent upon you to prove whether and how much genuine scientific dissent there really is, since it's your assertion that despite all evidence to the contrary, it's there.

I am of course also reassured by the fact that if there really was significant scientific dispute, all those institutions and organizations of scientists would not have endorsed the prevailing conclusions. And that the opponents of any AGW response would have already ferreted it out.

And that the fossil-fuel industry would not have had to create bogus "institutions" and go in search of rent-a-scientists.

Could it simply be an assumption based on YOUR own personal inclinations and dominant exposure to US right-wing views? We don't want to drag this political/personal like that, but you went there first.

How about, for the sake of easing the discussion (for a change), we stick with supporting & opposing scientific views about catastrophic events & dire predictions, especially since this particular CC thread is focused on the GBR.

That would be playing to the sensational, not the scientific. How about we stick to the science - what is happening to the GBR (including but not limited to CC), and what the net effect is predicted is likely to be, absent any intervention?

If the Australian government can't be trusted to speak honestly about the condition and future of the GBR... where should we look?

Hint: Any published "study" of a "consensus" that includes noted skeptics such as Spencer, Christy, Curry et al. should be excluded, right? After all, the only feature of CC these scientists "deny" is the doomsday stuff. Arguably, they're merely skeptical about that one too.

Even most of those dissenters believe that some bad stuff will likely happen if we don't change. Why haven't they convinced you of that?


If your case(s) are so fragile that they require extensive lawyering and rationalization over a tiny number of outliers like Spencer and Ridd...

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by WingRyder

Why aren't people referred to as "dark matter deniers" or "expanding universe deniers"?

They just have not gotten around to it yet, give them time.

There is no evidence for dark matter, it's just a theory so far.

The expanding universe theory is supported by the phase shift of the light from distant stars so there is supporting evidence for that theory.

Because the claimed warming of the atmosphere on earth is still within the bounds of normal variation and statistical noise there is yet no confirmation of the theoretical models although this has not stopped the AGW proponents claiming unequivocal and overwhelming proof for the theory.

The one thing about it that you can be certain of is that as the success of the parasites who use this sort of thing for their own enrichment and gratification becomes more apparent there will be many more who climb onto the band wagon. And, as is always the case, it will again be the wealth creators who pay for the party.

It's an old pattern, Sun gods in ancient Egypt with the peasants supporting a religious aristocracy in leisurely splendor to keep the gods from destroying the peasantly lay folks by withholding the annual flood, Christian churches supported by the labour of the peasants to keep the peasants souls from burning in hell etc, etc,etc.

It's an oldy but a goody which always works and in scope extends from minor sects with a few adherents to massive state sponsored, heavily resourced efforts.

[GordMay]

Who Decides What Is True?
“There’s no Supreme Court of Truth, no supreme authority that affixes an imprimatur of “scientific fact”.
Yet we believe many things to be true which we could not have known about without science. It’s obvious that science can draw conclusions which are effectively certain, but it’s less than obvious how this happens.
For example, we believe that the Milky Way is the vast cloud of solar systems of which our own is a member, itself one of a vast number of galaxies in the universe. If you encounter someone whose beliefs about reality require this to be false, (a flat earth for instance) you are justified in dismissing those beliefs without further consideration. A worldview based on something contradictory to established fact is one that is not viable.
But this fact, though common knowledge nowadays, was unheard of two centuries ago (when, apparently, Immanuel Kant first proposed it). How did what was once a wild speculation turn into an established fact?
It Matters
It turns out that this isn’t merely an academic question.
We’re in an increasingly complex world, which requires increasingly complex collective decisions. If we avoid magical thinking, it seems clear that getting the facts right is, while hardly sufficient, at least necessary ...”

“How Does Science Proceed from Hypothesis to Fact to Common Knowledge?” ~ by Michael Tobis
Much more ➥ https://medium.com/@mtobis/who-decid...e-b6d9057489cd

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

As I asked reefmagnet - where can we look to find credible information about the GBR? Like with CC, we have just one identified contrary expert - Prof Ridd, and from this expert all we have so far are one "paper" and an opinion piece from a politically-biased source. Oh, and TripAdvisor

btw - I do accept the point that CC is not the only driver of reef death.

I will ask again - Reefmagnet: can you direct us to what you believe is a credible and accurate source for information on the state of the GBR, if the Australian government or JCU are not telling the truth?

But first you need to define what you are wanting disproved. Your ramblings disguise it.

[Puddleduck]

http://https://www.portoconference2018.org/uploads/1/1/7/3/117342822/14._ridd.pptx

The Great Barrier Reef, Climate Change and the need for better quality assurance processes in science. Professor Peter Ridd

“For 99% of the corals of the GBR,
there is an 11% increase since the 1940’s”

http://https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/45011/

Ridd, P. (2014) Should the pre-1986 coral cover record be used to determine system-wide long-term trends for the Great barrier Reef? Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences.

“Trends in GBR coral cover based on the pre-1986 data should not be used.”

Setting the bench mark in quality assurance!

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

http://https://www.portoconference2018.org/uploads/1/1/7/3/117342822/14._ridd.pptx


http://https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/45011/


Setting the bench mark in quality assurance!

He does say "should not be used", not "shall not be used" which has somewhat of a legal distinction.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Who Decides What Is True?
“There’s no Supreme Court of Truth, no supreme authority that affixes an imprimatur of “scientific fact”.
Yet we believe many things to be true which we could not have known about without science. It’s obvious that science can draw conclusions which are effectively certain, but it’s less than obvious how this happens.
For example, we believe that the Milky Way is the vast cloud of solar systems of which our own is a member, itself one of a vast number of galaxies in the universe. If you encounter someone whose beliefs about reality require this to be false, (a flat earth for instance) you are justified in dismissing those beliefs without further consideration. A worldview based on something contradictory to established fact is one that is not viable.
But this fact, though common knowledge nowadays, was unheard of two centuries ago (when, apparently, Immanuel Kant first proposed it). How did what was once a wild speculation turn into an established fact?
It Matters
It turns out that this isn’t merely an academic question.
We’re in an increasingly complex world, which requires increasingly complex collective decisions. If we avoid magical thinking, it seems clear that getting the facts right is, while hardly sufficient, at least necessary ...”

“How Does Science Proceed from Hypothesis to Fact to Common Knowledge?” ~ by Michael Tobis
Much more ➥ https://medium.com/@mtobis/who-decid...e-b6d9057489cd

It is interesting, what's truth and what's not. On an absolute grass roots level. Everything could be a lie. I have imagined for most of my life it is just as possible that this version of a world is just as likely as a world where I am an entity drowned in a Petri dish which is capable of nothing but thought and I have created my entire life so far in the blink of time.

So what is truth. Perception maybe.

[Dave_S]

In science there are some "spooky" things such as entanglement which cast some doubt in my mind on the world being the nice simple world we know. The path of least resistance seems to be the measure of natural events so far but things like other dimensions and worm holes to explain theories seems to be running off that road.

Either we are missing something simple or we have accepted an incorrect theory as fact or there is a god or the truth is not simple and will seem to be science fiction or magic when we hear it.

I hope it really confronts our reality.


How did I get here........ as you were, anyway it's my Petri dish.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

But first you need to define what you are wanting disproved. Your ramblings disguise it.

I don't want anything "disproved".

It's my understanding (possibly wrong, but it's based on your writings in this thread) that you think the GBR is doing just fine, the gov't of Australia is out to lunch about the GBR, and it will do just fine in a warming ocean. And that Prof Ridd is a swell guy.

But you haven't put much here to back that. One "paper" from the esteemed prof, and one rant about his dismissal from a right-wing blog.

I accept without question that you're at ground zero of the GBR and in a position to know much more about it than me. But I don't know if your familiarity extends to a proper survey of the whole GBR and whether in fact it's doing great or dying off. For whatever reason.

Once again (fourth time?) - if the government of Australia is not giving us the unvarnished truth of the health and future of the Great Barrier Reef, then what/where should we look for a more honest and realistic appraisal?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I don't want anything "disproved".

It's my understanding (possibly wrong, but it's based on your writings in this thread) that you think the GBR is doing just fine, the gov't of Australia is out to lunch about the GBR, and it will do just fine in a warming ocean. And that Prof Ridd is a swell guy.

But you haven't put much here to back that. One "paper" from the esteemed prof, and one rant about his dismissal from a right-wing blog.

I accept without question that you're at ground zero of the GBR and in a position to know much more about it than me. But I don't know if your familiarity extends to a proper survey of the whole GBR and whether in fact it's doing great or dying off. For whatever reason.

Once again (fourth time?) - if the government of Australia is not giving us the unvarnished truth of the health and future of the Great Barrier Reef, then what/where should we look for a more honest and realistic appraisal?

I already mentioned it copped a hit in 2016/17 with el nino and 2 cyclones and COTS (all of which have occurred in the past) in conjunction with issues caused by coastal populations that have been around since the land was first permanently settled. The "government" is telling us the same thing if you bother to read the various assessments correctly. Mention of climate change is, as usual, in the future tense. This hasn't stopped the climate change doomers and gloomers from promptly jumping on the bandwagon and declaring aka Michael Mann style that CC is "destroying 95% of the reef" (as opposed to Ridd's "should not..." ) and the only resolution is to stop burning fossil fuels immediately. I can't help but note that if the phrase "business as usual" occurs in an assessment, paper or report you can pretty much bet the house that it isn't based on unbiased research.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I don't want anything "disproved".

It's my understanding (possibly wrong, but it's based on your writings in this thread) that you think the GBR is doing just fine, the gov't of Australia is out to lunch about the GBR, and it will do just fine in a warming ocean. And that Prof Ridd is a swell guy.

But you haven't put much here to back that. One "paper" from the esteemed prof, and one rant about his dismissal from a right-wing blog.

I accept without question that you're at ground zero of the GBR and in a position to know much more about it than me. But I don't know if your familiarity extends to a proper survey of the whole GBR and whether in fact it's doing great or dying off. For whatever reason.

Once again (fourth time?) - if the government of Australia is not giving us the unvarnished truth of the health and future of the Great Barrier Reef, then what/where should we look for a more honest and realistic appraisal?

Simply Pollitions of all persuasions often respond to the loudest voices often minority groups and they play politics to be seen to be acting such as they will be re-elected. The climate chance brigade certainly is making plenty of noise whether proven or not.