The Reef Ain't Dead

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I object to being called strident Gord ...

Fair enough. As applies to you, I completely withdraw the adjective, swith apologies.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by boatman61

The knowledge already exists, just no one is prepared to use it.

So... you are in effect saying that science isn't really the problem, it's what people are choosing to do with it, or not. Agreed! I'll settle for that.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Fair enough. As applies to you, I completely withdraw the adjective, swith apologies.

No worries Gord..
Call me what you like.. my strident objection was not a serious one..

[StuM]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Re the question 2, it is much, much more than 'dubious computer models'. A fundamental attribute of all biologic systems is homeostasis and buffering. All organisms and more complex biologic systems have a built in tendency to adjust to environmental changes. The degree to which an organism/system can adapt to* or buffer varies a lot for different stressors, but as far as I am aware, it is an intrinsic attribute of biology. The trouble arises when the stressor is outside the range that is compensable by the biologic/ecologic system. The organism dies or the ecosystem collapses. That this is a universal attribute of biology and biologic systems means that the burden of proof shifts - one doesn't need much data to support it but you would need a lot to refute it.

So what "not much data", apart from those computer models, do you have that anthropogenic CO2 additions are a stressor that will lead to death or ecosystem collapse?
In what way does it stress the environment?

(RPC8.5 et al are not evidence)

<irrelevant discussion of other environmental problems snipped>


There are many reasons to think we can crack this nut and plenty of data to suggest that lowering (not eliminating) CO2 emissions can allow the system to homeostatically adjust and give our species a shot at longer term survival.

Again, where is this "plenty of data" that says the environment cannot homeostaically adjust and that "longer term survival" is at risk because of CO2 emmisions.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

So... you are in effect saying that science isn't really the problem, it's what people are choosing to do with it, or not. Agreed! I'll settle for that.

Give the man a KitKat...

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Michael Shellenberger is neither, a scientist, nor an environmentalist.

“On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare” by Michael Shellenberger
“On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem ..."
➥ https://environmentalprogress.org/bi...-climate-scare

“Article by Michael Shellenberger mixes accurate and inaccurate claims in support of a misleading and overly simplistic argumentation about climate change”
Six scientists analysed the article and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be 'low'.
A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Cherry-picking, Misleading.
“... In the article, Shellenberger, who is promoting a new book, outlines a series of claims about climate change. As the reviewers describe below, several of these claims are accurate or partially accurate. However, others are inaccurate and mislead readers by lacking context and cherry-picking data while overlooking other relevant scientific studies ...”
Here ➥ https://climatefeedback.org/evaluati...limate-change/

“The Stories Michael Shellenberger Tells” ~ by Sam Bliss
A review of Shellenberger’s book, “Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All”
➥ https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/...nberger-tells/

Not aware of any claims by Shellenberger nor anyone else that he's a scientist. He does have a scientific background, both by education and experience.

By who's definition is he not an environmentalist? Certainly not the dictionary app on my laptop:

en·vi·ron·men·tal·ist | inˌvīrənˈmen(t)ələst |

noun

1 a person who is concerned with or advocates the protection of the environment: [as modifier] : the environmentalist movement.

From reading his lengthy dossier on desmogblog, his pro-environmental ideals and goals have remained the same over the course of his career but at some point he came to oppose the means by which the modern environmental movement were using to get there. He has been referred to as an "eco-pragmatist" (among other things) for rejecting alarmism as unsupported by much of the science, and believes that using it to instill fear is a poor motivator for encouraging activism. He has never wavered from his belief that AGW exists, is happening, and is a serious environmental problem, but doesn't believe it to be the most serious problem. He has become a strong advocate for the development of safe, reliable nuclear energy as the best and perhaps only means of addressing climate change, and has consistently pointed out that, not only are renewables unreliable and create more environmental problems than they solve, but they impose a disproportionate penalty on poorer people who can least afford their higher energy prices. (Probably just "hiding behind the poor," right L-E? ). He has been critical of advocates for renewables, claiming they are consumed by their antipathy towards the fossil fuel industry, are therefore not considering the viability of renewables objectively, and are unrealistically dismissing or ignoring the obvious environmental benefits of fracking and natural gas in reducing CO2 emissions.

And for all this "blasphemy" he's no longer welcome in the clubhouse?? The articles you list are no surprise, of course, and I have no doubt he's received a lot of pushback, some more constructive and therefore worthwhile than others I'm sure. But "not an environmentalist" seems like quite a stretch given his consistent intentions, his goals, and the nature of his career. Next thing you know he'll be called a "Denier." Oh wait . . . he already has. I don't think such superficial attempts to marginalize (cancel?) him do anything to improve understanding of the complexities surrounding the issue, or to promote consensus. Whether one agrees or not, I think he brings a perspective to the issue that is worth thoughtful consideration.

[RaymondR]

Let me give you folks a breakdown of how petroleum exploration and extraction works and who's responsible for what.

The geologists and geophysicists (scientists) say "The keros (oil and gas) is here.

The drilling and production engineers say "We need this iron in the hole to allow us to get down to and get out the kero.

The drillers (a bunch of pragmatic and practical roughnecks) drill the hole and put the iron in it.

Now, I was a driller for about fifty years and if you blokes had drilled as many dry (hydrocarbon free) holes in as many nasty places as I had you would not be near as unquestioning and lack confidence as I am, and do, about the opinions and assertions of scientists.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Yes, but [Shellenberger]'s one of the very few quotable 'names' who happen to sort of agree with Exile. So he must be right.

Nah, trying to tell other people what's "right" (or wrong) on complex, emotionally charged topics such as this ain't how I like to roll. Seems to me how humans as a species have gotten themselves in an awful lot of conflict over the eons. Best to just discuss, maybe debate, but definitely not preach. It's kinda like telling people which anchor, keel configuration, or self-steering mechanism is "best" (and of course why the others suck ). We see such intolerance for what are usually just opinions on CF all the time. I guess some people just like convincing themselves they're smarter, wiser, or (worst of all) morally superior. Usually leaves a negative impression on others, imho.

But since you seem to be in denial or indifferent , here's what desmogblog claims Shellenberger's retort is to what he views as environmental "alarmism." And don't worry, I haven't studied enough of these things to tell you which ones are "right" or "wrong."

• “Humans are not causing a 'sixth mass extinction'”
• “The Amazon is not 'the lungs of the world'”
• “Climate change is not making natural disasters worse”
• “Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003”
• “The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
• “The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California”
• “Carbon emissions have been declining in rich nations for decades and peaked in Britain, Germany and France in the mid-seventies”
• “Adapting to life below sea level made the Netherlands rich not poor”
• “We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter”
• “Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change”
• “Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels”
• “Preventing future pandemics requires more not less 'industrial' agriculture”

[Tillikum]

Originally Posted by boatman61

We'll they tried that at the Capitol.. did not work..

Not sure what you mean by that, nor by the previous "Semper Fi" reference? What's in that glass on the table, or has it been emptied a few times today?

The question remains, why do nations and their leaders hand over control of their economies and all that follows from that, to a small coterie of global bankers. That they have done so is irrefutable, but what force impels them to do so? (Disclaimer: some self-education will be required)

Or you can peck at the global warming scratch thrown down on the floor for you, like most of the chickens do.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

... here's what desmogblog claims Shellenberger's retort is to what he views as environmental "alarmism."

[list]

And how is that relevant to your constant criticism of me? Are you claiming that I'm an alarmist? I'm just anti-denial, and against the attacks on science and its practitioners that are a prerequisite for trashing their work in order to give much weaker hypotheses some legs.

[Tillikum]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

And how is that relevant to your constant criticism of me? Are you claiming that I'm an alarmist? I'm just anti-denial, and against the attacks on science and its practitioners that are a prerequisite for trashing their work in order to give much weaker hypotheses some legs.

Your response is emotionalism plain and simple, always an essential, indeed the core ingredient of propaganda.

When "scientists" run around shouting about "the debate is over!" we know they're denying the essential tenet of science: constant and honest inquiry for the sake of knowledge and understanding, rather than grant money, peer approval, and plum jobs.

The fact that a scientist would even publish a claim (earlier cited by you IIRC) that there was 100% consensus in peer-reviewed literature, which was swiftly proven to be wrong, shows the decline in intellectual honesty, not to mention common sense! Pravda and the People's Daily have 100% consensus - we haven't quite got there yet.

Of course the fact that obtaining a degree in a science does not automatically confer honesty, objectivity or fair-mindedness only comes as a surprise to you-know-who.

And then there's The Dan Factor.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

And how is that relevant to your constant criticism of me? Are you claiming that I'm an alarmist? I'm just anti-denial, and against the attacks on science and its practitioners that are a prerequisite for trashing their work in order to give much weaker hypotheses some legs.

Oh, I see . . . must have mistaken you for the other Lake-Effect who has been endorsing various examples of alarmism all this time. So it wasn't you who recently posted a science piece stating that all coral bleaching events beyond a few days result in coral death? And as far as Shellenger's list of alarmism goes, are you saying it's not you who, for e.g., supports the widely reported but unsupported conclusion that CC is making natural disasters worse, forest fires more frequent, and is accelerating species extinction? But what about the sinkholes in Fla., the big piece of the Antarctic ice sheet that's about to fall off, and of course the plight of the polar bears? Not you?

It is you, apparently, who views himself as a defender of the "science." Would that include, by chance, the National Academy of Sciences who predicted the death of almost the entire GBR by 2022? Or the IPCC who stated that CC would soon be "past the point of no return?" Or does "science" for you simply mean, as I strongly suspect, whatever it takes to enact the Green New Deal? Otherwise, I'm afraid I don't understand what "science" you're defending from all those internet "deniers" you find so objectionable. At best, much of the science beyond the existence of AGW and it having some level of impact remains unsettled (to varying degrees), no less so when it comes to the GBR as your own posted article (cited above) points out:

"Unfortunately, our present knowledge of the physiology of these creatures is too insufficient to predict whether corals will be able to adapt to rapid changes in the environment, especially since earlier studies suggest that the combined effects of the decrease in the pH with the increase in temperature of the sea seem to have cumulative effects."

So how exactly does one "defend" something which hasn't been established as scientific fact? And if not settled, then why doesn't your valiant and selfless defense of the "science" include, for e.g., the views of Michael Shellenberger and Prof. Ridd? Are their views not also part of the science, or is the problem that it's not the science you happen to like? This must be why you and others resort to use of labels such as "denier" or "anti-environmentalist," or how about just "anti-science?" If that doesn't fly, then how about calling them Conservatives, Repubs, or maybe followers of a religious faith. Heck, I bet they're colluding with the likes of Curry, Spencer & Christie who we know are channeling the Heartland Institute and Sen. Inhofe. Or maybe just getting paid off by the evil fossil fuel industry to promote right-wing conspiracy theories like QAnon. This cancel culture thingy can get so involved it's hard to know what derogatory terminology is best used to discredit and defame! Maybe we should have a little censorship instead and ask the mods to disallow these discussions altogether. Yeah, that's it. After all, who needs alternative points off view in our society when we already know what's good for everyone else?

[aqfishing]

Our biggest problem is non of the above issues(climate change, fossil fuels etc...), it is population growth. Until we slow this down or go into a negative our problems will just keep escalating. So all you people who have more than 2 kids per couple, i.e one child per person, you have done more damage to the planet than any petrol head with a roaring V8 and no kids!

I laugh at these hippy greenies who live off the earth with hemp this and biodegradable that and a 0 carbon off the grid lifestyle....with their 5 children!

The earth has only so many resources....the more we breed the worse its going to get.

Pity its not politically viable to tell people to stop breeding!!!

I call it the Dinosaur in the room no one wants to talk about!

[StuM]

Originally Posted by aqfishing

Pity its not politically viable to tell people to stop breeding!!!

You've got it all wrong. It's perfectly OK to tell other people to stop breeding, especially if they are furriners.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

Y
When "scientists" run around shouting about "the debate is over!" we know they're denying the essential tenet of science:

Name one climate scientist who says "the debate is over." Make sure your provide a citation.