The Reef Ain't Dead

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

The Ridd case assumes a much greater significance when places in the context of a number of other political developments related to free expression and intellectual exploration and development in Australia's tertiary education system.

The Ridd case is of no little significance whatsoever, except as a foil for specious arguments against AGW itself. It is a classic technique used by propagandists - if you can't attack the truth of the opposing idea, instead just keep nipping at its heels with distracting side arguments. The intent is to falsely impugn the opposing argument, without the actual ability to do so.
The deniers ranting and raving about poor Dr. Ridd's academic freedom victimhood is just a trick to try to undermine acceptance of the reality of AGW. The same playbook used by the tobacco industry.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

Have a read.

Oh my, that is so impressive. Here is the wikipedia summary of your hero Bechamp:

"In the modern day, Béchamp's work continues to be promoted by a small group of alternative medicine proponents (also known as germ theory denialists), including advocates of alternative theories of cancer, who dismiss Pasteur's germ theory and argue that Béchamp's ideas were unjustly ignored. They accuse Pasteur, as did The French Academy of Sciences, of plagiarising and then suppressing Béchamp's work, citing work such as Ethel Douglas Hume's Béchamp or Pasteur: A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology from the 1920s."

Another silly diversion. I was amused however, that wikipedia describes them as 'denialists'. That is pretty fitting!

[Tillikum]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Oh my, that is so impressive. Here is the wikipedia summary of your hero Bechamp:

"In the modern day, Béchamp's work continues to be promoted by a small group of alternative medicine proponents (also known as germ theory denialists), including advocates of alternative theories of cancer, who dismiss Pasteur's germ theory and argue that Béchamp's ideas were unjustly ignored. They accuse Pasteur, as did The French Academy of Sciences, of plagiarising and then suppressing Béchamp's work, citing work such as Ethel Douglas Hume's Béchamp or Pasteur: A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology from the 1920s."

Another silly diversion. I was amused however, that wikipedia describes them as 'denialists'. That is pretty fitting!

And there I was thinking you might find something in that book that raised a teensy-weesny little doubt in your mind about the absolute and universal truth of "Germ (not a) Theory" and the utter and complete veracity and disinterestedness of our friend Louis.

But no! You quickly digested the whole book and discerned that there was not a shred of evidence that Louis, well fudged things a little!

Wiki to the rescue eh? I thought Wiki was the last resort of the ignorant layman etc. etc.?

Actually, Wiki in my observation is sadly often the soapbox of fanatics and doctrinaires who "have to" make sure their version of truth is the one presented. Anyone who's viewed the edit and chat columns of controversial topics will spot these personalities right away - well, except maybe those who agree with them!

Those with an emotional predisposition to absolutes (real or imagined) and a love of expounding and enforcing them, are always attracted to occupations where they can trumpet their "laws" and of course preen themselves on their intellectual, not to say moral superiority. This by no means implies that all they trumpet is false, it merely reflects the fact they are trumpeters, not composers.

Like a lot of people who've lived a while, I know a fanatic when I see one. I also know that the more tenuous the collective delusion, the more fanatically it is defended, because its adherents are often trying to not only suppress their own doubts, but suppress dissent that if allowed to spread might destroy their reputations and all that that goes with them.

As Dr. Semmelweis, and millions of women and children found out to their cost.

And no, we haven't "evolved" since 1850; I'm so sorry.

As that fella from Liverpool said," you say you got a real solution, well you know, we'd all love to see the plan".

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

And there I was thinking you might find something in that book that raised a teensy-weesny little doubt in your mind about the absolute and universal truth of "Germ (not a) Theory" and the utter and complete veracity and disinterestedness of our friend Louis.

But no! You quickly digested the whole book and discerned that there was not a shred of evidence that Louis, well fudged things a little!

Wiki to the rescue eh? I thought Wiki was the last resort of the ignorant layman etc. etc.?

Actually, Wiki in my observation is sadly often the soapbox of fanatics and doctrinaires who "have to" make sure their version of truth is the one presented. Anyone who's viewed the edit and chat columns of controversial topics will spot these personalities right away - well, except maybe those who agree with them!

Those with an emotional predisposition to absolutes (real or imagined) and a love of expounding and enforcing them, are always attracted to occupations where they can trumpet their "laws" and of course preen themselves on their intellectual, not to say moral superiority. This by no means implies that all they trumpet is false, it merely reflects the fact they are trumpeters, not composers.

Like a lot of people who've lived a while, I know a fanatic when I see one. I also know that the more tenuous the collective delusion, the more fanatically it is defended, because its adherents are often trying to not only suppress their own doubts, but suppress dissent that if allowed to spread might destroy their reputations and all that that goes with them.

As Dr. Semmelweis, and millions of women and children found out to their cost.

And no, we haven't "evolved" since 1850; I'm so sorry.

As that fella from Liverpool said," you say you got a real solution, well you know, we'd all love to see the plan".

No idea what you are rambling' about, my friend. Why on earth should I care about someone who got it so fundamentally wrong? And I don't care that much about Louis Pasteur either. The germ theory of disease has overwhelming evidence for its validity. Does it explain everything? No. Is it a perfect theory of disease? No. But it doesn't much matter. It is fundamentally correct and works exceedingly well as a model of disease pathogenesis.

You are really digging a hole for yourself by analogizing climate change denialists with germ theory denialists. They are both silly distractions from the real problem. Bacteria and viruses cause disease. CO2 heating up the planet.

You wouldn't swig a vial of Vibrio cholerae. Help us stop
pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. It's not that hard.

[Tillikum]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Help us stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. It's not that hard.

Not that hard? Oh good! Say, have you got to a link to the Great Leap Forward plan, and maybe a breakdown on why it will stop global warming?



True, the world isn't as warm as it was in the Medieval Warm Period, but hey, why let a detail like that get in the way a good career?



So which Amish community are you going to join in the interests of saving Gaia, and moral consistency?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

True, the world isn't as warm as it was in the Medieval Warm Period, but hey, why let a detail like that get in the way a good career?

That is nt what the data rom 692 datasets from 648 locations worldwide say

There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between AD 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period AD 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._two_millennia

"why let a detail like that get in the way"

[StuM]

> higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.

Yep, let's not mention the Roman War Period, or the Holocene Climate Optimum
(optimum: "the most favourable situation or level for growth, reproduction, or success.")

Or , heaven forbid, previous interglacials



While you're at it, why don't you tell us who were the lead authors of that "Pages 2K Network" synthesis

[RaymondR]

"the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature"

Now there's a term which will set alarm bells ringing in the mind if anyone attempting objectivity.

[StuM]

Cherry pick much ? You missed this bit:
"we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century."

So with regard to the
"higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years."

Yep, let's not mention the first 600 years of that two millenia?

So after falling for around 2 millenia, it is getting back towards what the temperatures were at the time of the Roman Warm Period? Colour me scared

[Reefmagnet]

How bad was coral bleaching back then? It's lucky we've still got modern reefs if the experts are to be believed.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

>

Yep, let's not mention the Roman War Period, or the Holocene Climate Optimum
(optimum: "the most favourable situation or level for growth, reproduction, or success.")

The Roman Warm Period was not warmer than today.

Available climate records show that recent global temperatures are likely the highest of the last 2,000 years and there is no data supporting the claim that, globally, the Earth was warmer during the Roman or Medieval eras.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...gregory-rummo/

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

>


While you're at it, why don't you tell us who were the lead authors of that "Pages 2K Network" synthesis

Some info on Page 2K. PAGES - Past Global Changes - News

A nice poster for you that summarizes Page2K work

http://pastglobalchanges.org/images/...oster_2019.jpg

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

Not that hard? Oh good! Say, have you got to a link to the Great Leap Forward plan, and maybe a breakdown on why it will stop global warming?

Classic propaganda technique - try to falsely associate the opposing side to a widely discredited concept. As Click and Clack would say "boooooooogus!" Free market approaches and realigning subsidies would do wonders. Just eliminating the innumerable subsidies for fossil fuel production and use would lead to massive changes for the better.

True, the world isn't as warm as it was in the Medieval Warm Period, but hey, why let a detail like that get in the way a good career?

Wrong. The Medieval Warm Period was a local phenomenon. The overall global temps now are significantly higher than then. But hey, if you don't have an argument, why not just make up some stuff?

So which Amish community are you going to join in the interests of saving Gaia, and moral consistency?

Another specious argument based on a bogus premise to distract folks.

It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with morality. It's just the same rationale of why you don't poop in your water well. Bad idea in the literal and figurative senses.

And, BTW, fossil fuels are not going away. I don't think anyone foresees a replacement for jet fuel for a good while. There are plenty of other fossil fuel replacements that are feasible and economical.

Overall, you have this argument completely wrong. The deniers are the backwards thinkers - your argument is that we have been extracting energy from fossil fuels in the past, and therefore we cannot change. The solution to this problem is technological. We created transistors, went to the moon, measured gravitational waves, made a COVID vaccine in 9 months, but you think we can't generate electricity without carbon? You think that James Watt's technology is where progress stops? What a sad, defeatist view of humanity you harbor.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

How bad was coral bleaching back then? It's lucky we've still got modern reefs if the experts are to be believed.

The crux of the matter.

My understanding is that the previous accepted method was to take core samples of very long lived corals and in a process analogous to counting tree rings count back to arrive at a chronological history then measure the thickness of the individual rings to arrive at a sound inference of the amount of annual growth which was taken as a measure if the suitability of environmental conditions for enhanced or degraded annual growth periods.

Ridd got into trouble for defending this, which appears to be a method based on objective measurements, against a new method where a short term damaged section of reef was used as a proxy for all the reef.

This raises the question of why the former more objective method was changed and if it was in pursuit of a non scientific agenda why should we trust both the new science and/or the scientists producing it?

It also raises the issues of how widespread these subjective scientific practices are.

[Reefmagnet]

Interesting novella.

Originally Posted by lestersails

Classic propaganda technique - try to falsely associate the opposing side to a widely discredited concept. As Click and Clack would say "boooooooogus!" Free market approaches and realigning subsidies would do wonders. Just eliminating the innumerable subsidies for fossil fuel production and use would lead to massive changes for the better.

Please let me know where all these fossil fuel subsidies are because I don't seem to receive any.

Wrong. The Medieval Warm Period was a local phenomenon. The overall global temps now are significantly higher than then. But hey, if you don't have an argument, why not just make up some stuff?

Aside from the pro CC community, that isn't a universally held opinion.

And the regional theory has a number of holes. Not least is that a 300 year period of "regional" warmth is somewhat difficult to explain, even with today's knowledge of the climate; Especially in an era when two or three regions experiencing summer forest fires or coral reef bleaching is considered conclusive evidence of global climate change by that same pro CC community.

Then there's also the proceeding two century (or so) little ice age which is generally considered to have been a global phenomenon. How does that relate?

Overall, you have this argument completely wrong. The deniers are the backwards thinkers - your argument is that we have been extracting energy from fossil fuels in the past, and therefore we cannot change. The solution to this problem is technological. We created transistors, went to the moon, measured gravitational waves, made a COVID vaccine in 9 months, but you think we can't generate electricity without carbon? You think that James Watt's technology is where progress stops? What a sad, defeatist view of humanity you harbor.

By your own admissions, current technology allows us to create vaccines when faced with dire urgency within 9 months and yet we still cannot displace the internal combustion engine (or even steam driven turbines) with "carbon neutral" technologies despite a century of technological development inclusive of 25 years of doom saying.



Want to take a stab at guessing why this is?