The Reef Ain't Dead

[jimbunyard]

One of the more common problems here is the use of words. And the putting of words into other's mouths, i.e. "scientists believe".

Uh --- no, they don't. Scientists (at least those that haven't sold out to the highest bidder [Peter Ridd, Roy Spenser, John Christy et al., ad nauseam]), operate as such from a careful, methodical, statistical consideration of the evidence at hand; the more robust the evidence, the more trust is put in hypotheses and eventually, theories, resulting from that evidence.

Anthropogenic climate change and its many negative effects on the current biosphere has long been confirmed and becomes more so every day --- because of ever-accumulating, overwhelming evidence that human-produced CO2 is the cause. Which is easily available to almost everyone, even the most ardent of Koolaid aficionados (though weaning themselves from the sickening sweetness and attendant sugar rush of 'rebelling' against the spherical-earthers, moon-landing affirmers, and yes, MMGW cultmembers is apparently too much to bear...).

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

One of the more common problems here is the use of words. And the putting of words into other's mouths, i.e. "scientists believe".

Uh --- no, they don't. Scientists (at least those that haven't sold out to the highest bidder [Peter Ridd, Roy Spenser, John Christy et al., ad nauseam]), operate as such from a careful, methodical, statistical consideration of the evidence at hand; the more robust the evidence, the more trust is put in hypotheses and eventually, theories, resulting from that evidence.

Anthropogenic climate change and its many negative effects on the current biosphere has long been confirmed and becomes more so every day --- because of ever-accumulating, overwhelming evidence that human-produced CO2 is the cause. Which is easily available to almost everyone, even the most ardent of Koolaid aficionados (though weaning themselves from the sickening sweetness and attendant sugar rush of 'rebelling' against the spherical-earthers, moon-landing affirmers, and yes, MMGW cultmembers is apparently too much to bear...).

Aha the old Bellman's technique as expounded by Lewis Carroll (the Alice in Wonderland bloke).

"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."

And the "so called" ploy is not an original it is regularly practiced by Australia's Australian Broadcasting Commission in it's current affairs programs and I borrowed it..

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Rob_P

I don't usually join in conversations like this, but feel compelled this time to lend my voice to the mix.

Perhaps it would be better to learn a bit before "adding your voice".

...Is the world changing? Certainly. Is that change bad? Who knows. Can we do something about it? Probably not.

Of course, anyone who's been paying any sort of attention knows very well that the changes are bad for the vast majority in the short run (now to 25 years) and everyone (including those few who are profiting from destroying what's left of the biosphere) in the long run. And they'd also know what can be done about it.

The world is bigger than any one of us. It's bigger than any single group of us. For us to try and alter the current climate trajectory would require everyone to act in the same direction at the same time. Which is impossible because the needs of certain individuals require actions which are antithetical to the needs of others.

Hard to imagine a more myopic view. The world is certainly "bigger than any one of us", but is also quite finite (not to mention incomparably small in respect to almost any other universal body). To say that requiring everyone to act in the same way is impossible is just wrong; we're in this predicament precisely because 'everyone' is acting in the same way. Did you know, for instance, that since around the turn of the century, human activities have moved more earth annually than natural erosion does annually? All because almost 'everyone' is acting (conspicuously consuming) at the same time.

Almost equally myopic is the 'idea' that "the needs of certain individuals require actions which are antithetical to the needs of others", simply because of the fact that homo sapiens sapiens are eusocial animals. What you're doing is conflating 'needs' with 'wants'.

For example: Modern medicine requires plastics. You cannot outlaw all plastics without affecting those who rely on them for life. There are other areas of society which also require specific uses of fossil fuels, plastics, toxins, pesticides, and so on. We cannot halt all production of those things just so that we, who care about the small segment of the overall environment we reside in/near/on/prefer can continue to do what we like to do. We are not "more important" than others just because we think we're morally superior due to our efforts to conserve.

Typical strawman argument. No-one is advocating 'outlawing' anything outright. What is being suggested, and advocated (correctly) for by many, is an accurate accounting-of for the true costs of resource-usage (externalities) and an intelligent application of policies regarding those costs and usages. This is not something that "should" be done, but one that "must" be done.

What we're witnessing now is just prelude...

The world evolves. It changes constantly. That doesn't mean we get a free pass to abuse the environment, it means that we have to keep an open mind and stop vilifying each other out of ignorance over the reason why the world is different today than yesterday.

And yet more conflation. Sure, "the world evolves". But not instantly, which on a geologic time scale (the one evolution generally operates at) is the rate we're seeing now. If these 'others' you speak of feel vilified, I suggest they quit using the "free pass to abuse the environment" they seem to think they possess. There is no question "why the world is different today than yesterday". Unregulated free-market corporate capitalism combined with human nature.

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Aha the old Bellman's technique as expounded by Lewis Carroll (the Alice in Wonderland bloke).

"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."

And the "so called" ploy is not an original it is regularly practiced by Australia's Australian Broadcasting Commission in it's current affairs programs and I borrowed it..

Aha, the old Trumpsterian trick of embracing one's faux pas as a mode of --- well I don't know what, because it certainly doesn't make for a more credible case. (The Trumpster is that Donald Trump bloke).

Of course the misapplication of Charles Dodgson's (who, by the way, would by, say, "The Australian"'s rubric, be pedophile, epilectic, author, mathematician) 'The Hunting of the Snark' is classic denier-mode sillyness; I've said nothing's true, the truth just is; the facts speak for themselves. Because you don't believe them doesn't alter those facts one iota.

Thanks for the comparison (no matter how inaccurate) anyway, though.
Carroll, despite his human shortcomings, was still a formidable talent, who'll long be remembered for his contributions to humanity.

The polar opposite of what the Trumpster will be remembered for...

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

What "agenda"? Be specific.


(I would have thought that "not wallowing around or suffocating in our own filth" or "not sticking our kids and grandkids with a big cleanup and a hotter world" were enough to serve as the agenda, but apparently not.)

Feel free to do a little research on how Al Gore made his money.

Your second comment is classic Reducto Ad Adsurdum.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Complete nonsense. You are yourself violating one of the fundamental rules of science - data selection. Some scientific papers have been shown to not be valid or reproducible. The number is actually quite small and those are exposed to be invalid by the scientific process itself. It works.
The point you seem to want to ignore is that climate change is supported by an overwhelming amount of the data. That there might be a paper here or there that has shown to be invalid has nothing to do with that. You are just distorting the science to grind a political axe.

You missed the point. Very few studies will outright lie or fabricate data (we already discussed this up thread).

They are very selective in which data they report and highlight to create that "overwhelming amount of data". Then they take correlation and add cause and effect theories as if they are fact...no logical person denies that the climate does change. We have millions of years of data supporting climate does change. The important questions are:
- How much is caused by human activity?
- And even more importantly, how much can we change it?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

... - And even more importantly, how much can we change it?

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
~ Edmund Burke

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ...
It’s a government surveillance drone.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

- How much is caused by human activity?
- And even more importantly, how much can we change it?

Great questions.
1. Of the slow, geologic time scale changes, nil. Of the rapid, recent steep changes, essentially all.
2. Essentially all.
Here's an article of faith I hold - which is not evidence-based, but which I hold dear. I think that humans, if they put their collective minds to it, can change the world. We created a lot of CO2 -who'd a thunk 100 years ago that we could change the climate? Contrary to the old saw, 'Everyone talks about the weather, but no one ever does anything about it' - we have indeed done something about it, it is not good, and we can undo it. I believe in human ingenuity and I also believe in the free market of ideas and incentives. What we have done is say that for energy source A, you only pay part of the costs and you just pay as you go, for energy source B, you pay all of the costs, and the costs are heavily front loaded. Diesel vs. solar. Hoping that people will choose option B has never worked, never will. We have, through our own inadvertent design of the system, essentially forced people to do what is not in their long-term interests. That structure has to be changed. The interesting, challenging, and difficult argument is how we tackle and solve this problem.
The deniers say there is no problem, the nihilists say there is a problem but there is nothing we can do about it, and the optimists wrestle with how we can correct it. I'm with the optimists.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by GordMay

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
~ Edmund Burke

We can trade empty platitudes all day if you like.

We can do lots of things and throw trillions of dollars at the concern but how much impact can we have and at what cost?

This is a variation on the false, "if it saves one life..." justification and the reality is the costs have to be considered.

[Rob_P]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

There's a world of difference between what the great medieval unwashed believed, and what a preponderance of scientists still think is true, based on evidence and modelling.

Socrates was one of the "great medieval unwashed"? He had no formal education other than being trained as a stone mason like his father yet he was arguably one of the most profound philosophers of his time. Plato and Aristotle followed in his footsteps on the path he created to higher learning. To say that his teachings and ideas are basically worthless because he didn't go to a university or get some piece of papyrus to hang on the wall as proof of his "intelligence", thus rendering hims "hairy unwashed", refutes and diminishes the contributions he gave to mankind.

Thus, your dismissal of counter theory is based on snobbery rather than fact. There are plenty of great thinkers who have never been formally educated. Many have been, but not all.

Even among the educated, dissent has always taken place. Galileo was found guilty of heresy for not supporting the theory of Heliocentrism (the sun revolves around the earth) as held by the "great thinkers" of the Church at the time. Were those "great thinkers" part of the "hairy unwashed" too? Many of them went to university either before or during the time when they swore their oath to God.

Science starts with what is known today, then posits a speculative theory on top of it. Those who wish to believe the speculative theory will use whatever data supports that belief. Those who don't wait until the theory is either proven or dis-proven by cold hard facts. In this case, the facts don't lie. We know through math and science that in the past the earth was much warmer than it is today. We also know it was much colder at times in the past than it was 100 years ago.

This is not speculation, it is fact.

You have no basis for drawing that conclusion, other than the noise that a bunch of skeptic sites have put out.

I have searched for and looked at the raw data that "scientists" are using to tell us we're doomed. Have you?

Have you looked beyond just the recorded ocean temps for the past 100 years?

Have you considered the core analysis from ice cores from Antarctica that show plants frozen deep in the ice as part of your belief that global warming is a "modern" phenomenon caused by mankind?

Have you petted a woolly mammoth lately?

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Great questions.
1. Of the slow, geologic time scale changes, nil. Of the rapid, recent steep changes, essentially all.
2. Essentially all.
Here's an article of faith I hold - .

1. Plenty of historical times when the change was far faster than what we've seen recently, so the rate of change doesn't prove it's human created.
2. Odd, you assessment doesn't line up with what even the "consensus" claims we can do.

The rest is true eco-faith in action. To heck with science and facts, the truth police have spoken.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Rob_P

Even among the educated, dissent has always taken place. Galileo was found guilty of heresy for not supporting the theory of Heliocentrism (the sun revolves around the earth) as held by the "great thinkers" of the Church at the time. Were those "great thinkers" part of the "hairy unwashed" too? Many of them went to university either before or during the time when they swore their oath to God.

Actually, if you do a little research on it, it had almost nothing to do with his theory. In fact, there is evidence that even the Pope agreed with his theory.

The issue was he was being disruptive and then made the mistake of attacking the Pope in a paper (or at least writing a paper that appeared to attack the Pope)...At that point it really had nothing to do with science.

Of course, the old saw about how the Church is anti-science is hard to break, which is odd because up until very recently, if you wanted to learn or do research...science was largely confined Church institutions. Even today, the majority of our institutes of higher learning have a strong history of being started and funded by the Church.

If there is anything to learn from the story, it's how scientists are not immune to petty bickering and attacks that have little to do with actual science.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Feel free to do a little research on how Al Gore made his money.

... I have, actually. If you had, you wouldn't have mentioned it. Algoraphobia is curable.

Your second comment is classic Reducto Ad Adsurdum.

No, it was stating the obvious.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Rob_P

Socrates was one of the "great medieval unwashed"?

Socrates wasn't a medieval anything. The rest of that argument is even further off-point.

I have searched for and looked at the raw data that "scientists" are using to tell us we're doomed. Have you?

Have you looked beyond just the recorded ocean temps for the past 100 years?

Have you considered the core analysis from ice cores from Antarctica that show plants frozen deep in the ice as part of your belief that global warming is a "modern" phenomenon caused by mankind?

Your last point suggests pretty strongly that you haven't actually looked at enough raw data, or understand the differences between eras, or considered continental drift. But fine, having studied the raw data, present your findings to us.

[barnakiel]

There are bad welders and corrupt businessmen around.


Ergo there are bad and corrupt scientists too.


"Scientists are like any other profession, they are either a benefit or a hazard. When they are a benefit, that's not my problem."


b.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

There are bad welders and corrupt businessmen around.

Ergo there are bad and corrupt scientists too.

Well, sure. To protect society from bad welders, there are training, standards, inspections, and disciplinary mechanisms. To protect us from corrupt businessmen... sorry, what were we talking about, again?

Anyway, the secret sauce of science is supposed to be the process. The practitioners of science ("scientists") are expected to do research and perform experiments to a high standard and in a manner that makes their work repeatable, because a bunch of their peers are going to do just that, and bring up any objections or quibbles they have with the work or the results and conclusions. It's the best system we have for minimizing the effects of error, bias or other corrupting influences in such work. It kind of works; just look around. And the times that there were errors, distortion or fakery in science stand out because they are so rare, all things considered.

But attacking scientists and portraying them as just tenure-seeking grant-magnets is the only way deniers have of knocking down the widely-held conclusions about AGW and its effects on climate.