Great Barrier Reef "cooked" to death

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Here’s a case study describing how hard it can be to clearly communicate science to the public, especially when it involves a hot-button topic like climate change. Unpacking this episode offers a chance to examine how scientific data is collected and interpreted, and what can go wrong when the results go mainstream.
➥ Communicating Climate Change and Scientific Research | Research

Good article, thanks Gord.

People believe it when they see it.
Scientists believe when they see data
Car dealers believe it when they hold the cash.
Non scientists believe it when you show floating trash and smell stinky stuff.

If scientists want us to believe, then its stupid for them to force more 'data' down our throats because we never believe data. Show us the Stinky stuff!




(Ps, I do believe there's global warming. I just think its been exaggerated. If it were really really bad and really really true scientists would be bringing out feasible solutions instead of only blaming the White Males of the Western World.)

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

An increased tax might well cause people to really want to cut back on the energy they use and some undoubtedly would, but most Americans have virtually no savings or retirement plan and can barely afford to pay for their kids college and they have to use their car or pickup truck to get to work so can't cut back much on the miles they drive and they have to heat their houses and turn on the lights at night, etc. I don't know where you think the money will come from to pay this tax. Just how miserable are you willing to make these peoples lives in order to accomplish your goal of decreasing the amount of CO2 being released?

While I sympathise with the people you describe, and understand how politically difficult it would be to make a carbon tax or a cap and trade scheme anywhere near palatable to them, their current plight is the result of governing decisions wholly unrelated to climate change, in fact the decisions made by people also most likely to oppose action on climate change. You can't rely forever on cheap energy to prop up an ailing economy.

Anyway, I get it that it's a hard sell to most Americans.

Also, the above quote might as well read " a tax on consumers and another tax on consumers" because any tax on car manufacturers will surely be passed on to consumers in higher car prices.

Remember all the talk a decade or more ago about climate change causing increasing severe weather conditions such as hurricanes, only to have hurricane frequency in the US drop to an all time low over the next decade? That sort of thing only hurts your cause.

I believe that most Americans would appreciate that storms and weather disruptions globally have gone up, even if hurricane frequency in the US has decreased. Assuming they receive the information.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by leftbrainstuff

My issue is not with scientists or the scientific method. Quite the opposite.

The media has totally distorted scientific evidence.

No-one would disagree that media has a distorting effect. But you and I, being clever types, can view better information, even the scientific papers themselves. It's not a closely guarded secret.

There is also an entire ecosystem around science sucking off the funding and professing to being experts. Particularly think tanks and other pseudo science groups.

It's my impression that the pseudo-institutions are primarily on the anti-AGW side.

The media fud is the whole reef is dying or dead. That's bs.

It's funny. As per the map posted yesterday, in the north part of the GBR, you've got between 26% to 67% coral dieoff. It's like the Black Knight in Monty Python's "Life of Brian".

In a couple of years you may have ...35% to 80% dieoff in the north GBR. Will you be back to say "media fud" again? There's about a 20 year lag in the CO2 increase and its full climate effect. The GBR is not going to be getting better for quite a while. Worse is more likely. No FUD.

As for the best people in the climate business. These are the people doing science not the ones peddling fud.

...and what are they saying?

We need to fix real problems first. The public understand these very well. Over fishing, pollution, etc

I wish... unfortunately, even where they do understand, action is not forthcoming very fast, especially when it's not in one's face.

[Juho]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

Good article, thanks Gord.

People believe it when they see it.
Scientists believe when they see data
Car dealers believe it when they hold the cash.
Non scientists believe it when you show floating trash and smell stinky stuff.

If scientists want us to believe, then its stupid for them to force more 'data' down our throats because we never believe data. Show us the Stinky stuff!




(Ps, I do believe there's global warming. I just think its been exaggerated. If it were really really bad and really really true scientists would be bringing out feasible solutions instead of only blaming the White Males of the Western World.)

The key problem with this problem is that best solutions are not popular. If there was a machine that would fix the climate, all people would love to build it and use it. But if the best solution includes reducing the consumption level that people are used to, then they tend to find all kind of excuses, refer to those few remaining scientists that still try to seek alternative explanations, and support whatever alternative philosophies, in the hope of getting rid of the terrible nightmare of having to sell one of their BMWs . People want new stuff and more of it. They don't like losing something they are already used to. As simple as that. If scientists do not have any nice stories to tell (eternal growth with unlimited resources or something else in that direction), better find some other messengers .

[kmacdonald]

Yep, I'm certainly not going to give up any amenities.

[jackdale]

Poignant cartoons.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

No-one would disagree that media has a distorting effect. But you and I, being clever types, can view better information, even the scientific papers themselves. It's not a closely guarded secret.

In the era of fake news, it is downright cringe-worthy when an ostensibly reliable source — a House of Representatives committee, for example — tweets out misleading information. In the era of rapidly increasing climate change, it’s also dangerous.

That’s what happened on Thursday, when the official, verified House Science Committee account spread an article based on bad science through their Twitter feed. Not only does the article peddle misinformation in order to deny the reality of climate change, but it was published by Breitbart news — which is notorious for its links to white nationalism, misogyny, and antisemitism. The site also has a long history of insistent climate change denial.

https://twitter.com/HouseScience/sta...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

[Lake-Effect]

Exile! Wow. It's homecoming week. Hope you had a good summer.

Originally Posted by Exile

Imho, this disconnect is often attributable to how not to go about trying to influence people and win converts, and that approach has been repeatedly displayed as backfiring throughout these threads. Like it or not, proponents of policy changes always have the burden of persuasion, and it's hardly persuasive let alone convincing to blame those who disagree with them as ignorant, wrong, conservative, Republican, uncultured, parochial, religious, anti-science, ill-informed, environmentally insensitive, or the host of other slurs that have already started to pop up in this latest thread. Has the recent election not taught people how counterproductive this approach is, or is everyone who disagrees simply another "deplorable"??

I'm going to agree. There's definitely been a disconnect, a failure, especially in the US, of communicating moderate, middle-of the road, cooperative policies, let alone progressive goals... and there is a lot of soul-searching going on because of it. So your point is not without merit.

Still, kind of a shock, that election. Are you familiar with the term "Pyrrhic victory"?

There are a lot of very smart, educated people on these forums, and those with a high level of command of the "scientific evidence" may want to consider taking on credible contrary scientific evidence on its merits rather than trying to avoid, manipulate or obfuscate.

There are a few open minds in this thread; I've had a good engagement with at least one.

If someone steps up to the plate with:

• actual warming stopped some years ago
• ...is a scam!
• fudged data!
• grant whoring!

... and of course Al Gore the anti-Christ... you just know that you've got a troll, a partisan, or someone who's misinformed.

No-one in this thread has yet posted anything near credible as contrary evidence. I feel confident predicting that no one will present anything of that nature, that hasn't already appeared in previous threads, and has been pretty thoroughly discredited already. But Jack seems up for some whack-a-mole, if it comes to that.

AGW, climate change... is a fact. It's a done deal. Sane deniers have long since walked it back to skepticism, and now to quibbling about the potential severity, which is closer to the discussion that needs to be happening. We're moving in the right direction, but oh so slowly.

[kmacdonald]

The whole idea of a global economy is killing the planet. Spreading the wealth and the associated fossil fuel consumption that entails to the entire world will destroy the planet. I don't claim to know how to fix the problem and it's not going to kill me anyway. It's our children's problem to deal with. Now lets get out and get some much needed sailing done.

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Exile! Wow. It's homecoming week. Hope you had a good summer.



I'm going to agree. There's definitely been a disconnect, a failure, especially in the US, of communicating moderate, middle-of the road, cooperative policies, let alone progressive goals... and there is a lot of soul-searching going on because of it. So your point is not without merit.

Still, kind of a shock, that election. Are you familiar with the term "Pyrrhic victory"?

There are a few open minds in this thread; I've had a good engagement with at least one.

If someone steps up to the plate with:

• actual warming stopped some years ago
• ...is a scam!
• fudged data!
• grant whoring!

... and of course Al Gore the anti-Christ... you just know that you've got a troll, a partisan, or someone who's misinformed.

No-one in this thread has yet posted anything near credible as contrary evidence. I feel confident predicting that no one will present anything of that nature, that hasn't already appeared in previous threads, and has been pretty thoroughly discredited already. But Jack seems up for some whack-a-mole, if it comes to that.

AGW, climate change... is a fact. It's a done deal. Sane deniers have long since walked it back to skepticism, and now to quibbling about the potential severity, which is closer to the discussion that needs to be happening. We're moving in the right direction, but oh so slowly.

One of many possible explanations that the "grant-whores" (your words not mine) have difficulty dealing with is the changing contribution of the sun itself. It could explain most or even all the claimed changes.

Having said that I really prefer to focus on the original topic, the Great Barrier Reef. I see little evidence that explains the segmented die off. "Cooked" just does not do it as a stand alone. There seem to be many theories and hypotheses, but little real data on cause. Historical data is missing except in scattered anecdotal rather than scientific form. I recognize that global warming (aka climate change) is an easy target, but even accepting that it is occurring, and putting its cause aside, placing the blame as to the GBR does not make sense as far as the location are concerned. I'd much prefer to see facts as they exist than multi paragraph rants about politics and Al Gore and lying money hungry "scientists" no matter what their credentials or anyone's opinions of them, including my own. To the extent I can determine such things the pro-climate folks are satisfied with the "cooked" explanation, maybe augmented by runoff, but I, and I think others, do not think the available facts fit the explanation, and vice versa. Unfortunately, for me, I depart tomorrow for a place with doubtful to non-existent reception by my equipment, so I will miss developments and can fly hope for future enlightenment.

[buzzstar]

[QUOTE=jackdale;2270335]Poignant cartoons./QUOTE]

More accurately, mocking, but funny nonetheless.

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

The whole idea of a global economy is killing the planet. Spreading the wealth and the associated fossil fuel consumption that entails to the entire world will destroy the planet. I don't claim to know how to fix the problem and it's not going to kill me anyway. It's our children's problem to deal with. Now lets get out and get some much needed sailing done.

I am about to follow you advice. Thanks.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by buzzstar

One of many possible explanations that the "grant-whores" (your words not mine) have difficulty dealing with is the changing contribution of the sun itself. It could explain most or even all the claimed changes.

... or, maybe they actually do know what they're doing, and have reasonably taken the solar component into account? This has come up before. But you're welcome to try and make the case.

(btw the whole grant-whoring argument - there was climate to study before AGW, there will still be climate to study after AGW. If you want to see some real whoring, look for the rent-a-scientists who have shilled for corporations and the anti-agw pop-up institutions)

Having said that I really prefer to focus on the original topic, the Great Barrier Reef. I see little evidence that explains the segmented die off. "Cooked" just does not do it as a stand alone.... To the extent I can determine such things the pro-climate folks are satisfied with the "cooked" explanation, maybe augmented by runoff, but I, and I think others, do not think the available facts fit the explanation, and vice versa.

"Cooked" is hype that both you and I can do without, but I think it's been fairly well proven that warming ocean is the biggest contributing factor. You can look up more of the info, or you can wait a year or three, see a warmer ocean, and see that more coral has died off.

(have a nice trip)

[tuskie]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

If scientists want us to believe, then its stupid for them to force more 'data' down our throats because we never believe data. Show us the Stinky stuff!




(Ps, I do believe there's global warming. I just think its been exaggerated. If it were really really bad and really really true scientists would be bringing out feasible solutions instead of only blaming the White Males of the Western World.)

I can send GPS co-ords of extensive areas of very dead coral reef, due to a huge bleaching event that has never happened before.

If you, or any of the right wing, Gore hating, Trump voting, climate change denying, White Males wish to see the actual damage for themselves. Any takers? Didn't think so.

The dying coral is just the first, sensitive, inducator of the future effects of climate change. A "canary in the coal mine". It is happening now, but I have no doubt that it will be ignored.

There are feasible solutions, just that most people aren't prepared to change anything about their lifestyle so that these solutions can be inacted.

[Reefmagnet]

The recent bleaching event was caused by a weather related phenomenon. Not climate change. This whole thread is a waste of finite energy resources.