The Reef Ain't Dead

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by S/V Adeline

I tend to believe the politicizing of the climate issue is its own downfall. Where the term *so-called* climate change is used, most that I know are referring to the cause, and not actually the climate itself. In the 1970s and 1980s, at least in the US there were television documentaries on the science and research done on the planet's climate. It was verified by scientists at the time the planet has gone through some 14 or 15 significant climate shifts in roughly the last million years. Evidence shows those shifts were on a regular pattern, plus or minus a few thousand years. According to the established pattern, the planet was actually past due for such a shift by a few thousand years.
Now we are being told this *climate change* is caused by man. Anyone who does not agree is labeled a *science denier* and ridiculed.
It seems to me, if anyone is denying science, it would be those who ignore the established pattern revealed by science.
As a species, man has done a terrible job preserving our planet. We have created what I imagine other intelligent life would call the *cesspool* of the universe. However true that may be, I would consider it arrogant as well to think man is capable of stopping the planets natural life cycle.. Either way, I agree we are f****d

People say climate change is a terrible thing for the planet... BS, it's a terrible thing for those on the planet. If we get wiped out, so what. 100,000 years and there will be no sign of us (except for Keith Richards of course) and the earth can continue with next roll out.

We're not sustainable, so we can't stay forever. I don't think it is possible regardless of any efforts we make to be sustainable in our numbers. Any efforts we make are only delaying the inevitable.

I think almost everybody believes in climate change, I think almost everybody believes we have been going through a warming period, I don't think everybody believes it is caused by us.

There has been so much arguement and selective reproduction of facts from both sides that the truth is burried so the most compelling piece for me is the long term data of climate cycling and as you say the earth is pretty much just doing it's thing. If we weren't here I think the climate would be almost just the same except for all the crap lying around.

[RaymondR]

Decades ago I cruised to the Abrolhos Islands off the Western Australian coast. An interesting observation was how a number of the islands were formed. The seaward side of the island was constituted from coral reef. The contiguous beach was formed pretty exclusively from broken coral, this course detritus had broken down into smaller pieces until it became fine calcareous sand on the beach on the lagoon side. Of the total area of the island, which appeared to have been completely formed by living coral, I would estimate that the area of live coral would not constitute more than 5-7% of the total area. If you flew over this island in an aircraft it would appear that large portions of it were "bleached" when actually just normal reef building processes were at work.

I suspect that similar processes are occurring on the Great Barrier Reef and that flying over in an aircraft is not a good way to make a survey of the reefs condition.

I can also remember the headlines when the first crown of thorns infestation was discovered STARFISH EATING THE REEF. Back in those days we did not have TV but the Movietone News at the picture theater included diver taken films and it was predicted that the damned things would have the entire reef eaten in a few years. It has since been found that the infestations are regular occurrences and the reefs still there.

[lockie]

I agree with HeinSdL: this a very unfortunate and misplaced thread.

I thought CF was about sailing, not a forum for legal argument about some guy getting the sack, nor for a pissing contest about the agenda-driven denial of broadly accepted science.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by lockie

I agree with HeinSdL: this a very unfortunate and misplaced thread.

I thought CF was about sailing, not a forum for legal argument about some guy getting the sack, nor for a pissing contest about the agenda-driven denial of broadly accepted science.

The premier cruising ground on the entire Australian coast is the area contained between The Great Barrier Reef and the Australian coast. The boating infrastructure which exists within this area is the most comprehensive on the Australian coast and is largely dependent upon the tourist industry and the major tourist attraction is the reef.

As a citizen of northern Queensland one of professor Ridd's concerns was the damage being done by the adverse "The Reef is Dead' publicity given to the poor quality, headline seeking junk science papers by a fellow travelling, catastrophe seeking media.

I don't know what your boating consists of but I have lived aboard and cruised through this area since 2002 and I find the details and progress of this affair very interesting.

[Talbot]

Originally Posted by japawil

On the other hand.....
https://www.abc.net.au/
https://www.theguardian.com/
https://www.theguardian.com/

You are quoting the Guardian - really You think that is an infallible source?
To me it seems as if they seem to get most of their data from CNN - and if you think that is a true source, then I have a bridge over the Thames to sell you!

[Stormsignal]

Australia’s Great Barrier Reef,
At times may get bleached, but its brief,
And for eons it has survived,
More than bleaching and thrived,
Which causes alarmists some grief.

In what types of water do corals live?
Because of strict environmental restrictions, coral reefs generally are confined to tropical and semi-tropical waters.
The warmer world alarmist fear will be coral heaven.
They will go forth and multiply.

Corals propagate very quickly. The 15GT thermonuclear test site at Bikini is full of very healthy corals, after a one million degree temperature increase in the 1950s.

🚨The Great Barrier Reef Is Apparently Indestructible….. But Still Doomed🚨
Coral adapts. Coral moves. Coral has a far better handle on climate change than NOAA ever will. More👉 http://tinyurl.com/y7o8jsne

[Lizzard]

Originally Posted by joelhemington

Too many scientists scrambling for grants out there looking for problems that don't exist.

That is the absolutely the problem. My wife is a Marine Biologist and has numerous examples of this happening. There are many “studies” that purposely falsely report their data and findings. Like Joel said...”grants” are the goal of many if not the huge majority of most scientists. You gotta eat right?

[barnakiel]

The consensus in itself is a most interesting subject to study.


I discovered this only after I took up blockchain study.


So who decides on what is true? How is the deciding process altered if found inefficient? How do we know it IS inefficient? Etc.


No wonder scientists cannot decide on what is or is not true. Nobody else can.


(This much said, some consensus methods are better than others, in some applications.)



b.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by gonesail

they are paid to find something so they do. problem is they usually find what they are told to find.

The notion that scientists are lemmings following each other around is absurd. Want to get a paper rejected from a publication or your grant not get funded? Simply describe experiments or data that is the same as what other people have previously published and shown to be true. The peer reviewers and editors will say 'not novel' and reject the paper or grant.

A surefire way to become a famous scientist is to overturn accepted wisdom or the prevailing view on any topic. The challenge here is, as it should be, that you need more robust data to overturn an accepted theory than to corroborate it.

The overwhelming majority of scientists support the theory of a significant, major, anthropogenic climate change model. This is based on an overwhelming body of evidence in spite of trivial contradictory evidence. All the armchair quarterbacks, conspiracy theorists, and petrochemical industry lobbyists in the world cannot change that.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Lizzard

... There are many “studies” that purposely falsely report their data and findings. Like Joel said...”grants” are the goal of many if not the huge majority of most scientists. You gotta eat right?

Originally Posted by joelhemington

Too many scientists scrambling for grants out there looking for problems that don't exist.

The anti-science climate denial movement is a powerful political force. They've got to be, too, to outweigh, in the public's mind, the opinions of pretty much every relevant scientist.

Cui bono, Argumentum ad Aurum, "Follow the money"

Don't like a scientist's research? Follow the money!
Don't like a journalist's opinion? Follow the money!
In this bizarre worldview, there are only two types of people: truth-tellers and paid shills.

When following the money, it’s important to look at what each group stands to gain from their position (this is a task that the anti-science climate change counter-movement tend to utterly fail at).

Money from research grants isn’t making people rich. It just covers basic costs (such as to pay graduate students the princely sum of about $25k per year), sometimes just barely.

Let’s look at who really has the most to lose when it comes to weaning ourselves off the old, dirty ways of getting energy.
Take the 10 richest corporations in the world.
Eight of them depend partially or even totally on the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels for their bottom line. Yes, 80% of the richest corporations in the world have everything to lose from giving up fossil fuels.

So, the question that you really have to ask yourself is this:

which actually seems more plausible,

that bankrupt governments and cash-strapped environmental groups have paid off 97% of climatologists, without any clear motive for doing so,
or
enormous and powerful oil companies have paid off 3% of climatologists, in order to protect their bottom line?

So yes, I absolutely agree: let’s follow the money. I think we can see where it leads!

There is a very well-funded, well-orchestrated climate change-denial movement, one funded by powerful people with very deep pockets. In a study, Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle took a deep dive into the financial structure of the climate deniers, to see who is holding the purse strings.

“Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations” ~ Robert J. Brulle
“This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States...
... An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies...”
➥ https://link.springer.com/article/10...584-013-1018-7

“Instrument of Power: How Fossil Fuel Donors Shaped the Anti-Climate Agenda of a Powerful Congressional Committee”
➥ https://insideclimatenews.org/news/0...ence-committee



But, you are absolutely right that money can corrupt science. That’s one of the reasons I try to get my information from a wide variety of sources.
It's not that the researchers are being induced or compelled to some sort of biased interpretation of the data. Reality just happens to have a bias.

Which science sources do you think are most trustworthy?

[japawil]

Are you suggesting that the panel of experts chaired by Ian Chubb did not warn that Dr. Ridd is misrepresenting science about the reef and
compared his claims to the strategy used by the tobacco industry to raise doubt about the impact of smoking?
Or that the university did not win the appeal in the dismissal case; regardless of what site printed it?
Are you suggesting that the fact that it is printed at particular site determines if it is factual or not?
While I am aware of the fact that news outlets may have a idealogical leaning, is it often pushed by emphasis or omission, .....thus the lead in of “On the other hand”.
I was merely pointing out that there are more than one point of view.
In the immortal words of
Paul Harvey; “and now you know the rest of the story.”

[japawil]

Originally Posted by Talbot

You are quoting the Guardian - really You think that is an infallible source?

To me it seems as if they seem to get most of their data from CNN - and if you think that is a true source, then I have a bridge over the Thames to sell you!

Sorry I forgot the post I was replying to.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Lizzard

That is the absolutely the problem. My wife is a Marine Biologist and has numerous examples of this happening. There are many “studies” that purposely falsely report their data and findings. Like Joel said...”grants” are the goal of many if not the huge majority of most scientists. You gotta eat right?

No idea what 'many' is supposed to mean but the truth is that only a tiny fraction of published scientific reports are ever shown "falsely report their data and findings". Here is an excellent overview of the issue of reproducibility in science and how this 'reproducibility crisis' is manipulated by people with agendas that motivate them to try to undermine science generally.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...sound-science/

[Bill Seal]

Originally Posted by Talbot

then I have a bridge over the Thames to sell you!

Sorry, but Robert McCollough already bought it about 50 years ago.

[Tillikum]

Climate change? Yes, the climate is changing. The latest change, generally called the "Mini Ice Age", ended the "Medieval Warm Period" around 1350, and itself ended about 1830, when the climate began to warm up again. We know this because glaciers in many places began to recede around 1830, long before the age of oil or even the age of coal began.

Big berms of glacial till don't lie; when glaciers start to recede they leave them behind.

Amazingly, people do lie though, especially when fortune and fame are involved.

If things keep going like this, we may be able to grow grapes in Scandinavia just like we did before the Mini Ice Age.

How did the polar bears survive the Medieval Warm Period without human intervention I wonder?!

"The debate is over!", "the science is in!".

If the debate is over, science is over and religion has taken over.