The Reef Ain't Dead

[JebLostInSpace]

For those saying the current warming is part of a natural and well-established cycle, I'll post this link:

https://xkcd.com/1732/

It's a webcomic. It's couched in humor. But the author uses peer-reviewed data and has a doctorate in physics. The physics part doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about here, but the fact he got a doctorate means he knows how to read and understand academic journals, which is nice.

One of his favorite things is to stubbornly refuse to use log scales for charts where most publishers think they are necessary. This one is a great example of that. He gives a super long scrollable timeline to avoid using a log scale to show temperature changes over a very long period. Doing it this way really highlights how sudden the current warming cycle started, and how quickly it has accelerated.

Plus I think it's fun.

[Tillikum]

Pour yourself a drink and sit back for a read.

This earliest email of note in the Climategate collection reminds us that—as with many things in life—money plays a key role in this saga. Let me emphasize that Climategate is not riddled with financial scandals of Madoff magnitude. Rather, we are reminded of the fact that the entire industry of “climate science” was created out of virtually nothing, by means of a massive influx of funding that was almost universally one-sided in its requirement that its recipients find evidence for man-made climate change—rather than investigate whether or how much mankind had caused climate change

[john manning]

I began my working life as a scientist. Back then, mid 1970's, the President of our Association of Scientists was also the President of the local skeptics society. Scientific method was about challenging theories and only accepting those you could not disprove.

While you were always more successful confirming a positive as opposed to disproving something, times have changed. Parts of science are becoming religious. There are lines you cannot cross and debate is only accepted from those who have been sufficiently educated in the deeper truth.

A conspiracy, NO, a modern problem, NO.

"Man has such a prediliction for systems and deductions that he is ready to distort the truth, intentionally, is ready to ignore the evidence of his own senses, only to justify his logic." Dostoyevsky circa 1890.

The problem for me who does not study this topic is that I cannot rely on science, cannot be confident about what is really happening.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by john manning

The problem for me who does not study this topic is that I cannot rely on science, cannot be confident about what is really happening.

So, you are going to rely on what - palm readers, political bloviators, a Ouijia board, Tarot cards, Priests? Science is not perfect, is not absolute truth, is not infallible, but it is the best way to move from ignorance and superstition toward what is true.

Especially amazing to hear a sailor say such nonsense. Everything on your boat was developed by the scientific method. Empirical trial and error and refinements of technology and methods. I am pretty confident you believe in your boat. But when faced with an inconvenient truth, you pretend to not believe in science.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

... No wonder scientists cannot decide on what is or is not true...

Ironically, that's 'scientifically true'.

There’s a tendency to make a binary distinction between something that is true, in an absolute sense, and something that's false or a lie. With science, it's more of a continuum.
One big difference between science and pseudo-science, is a difference in attitude. Sometimes, when we think we’re reasoning like a scientist, we may instead be rationalizing, like a lawyer. Our “reasoning” is a means to a predetermined end—winning our “case”, and is shot through with biases. They include “confirmation bias,” in which we give greater heed to evidence and arguments that bolster our beliefs, and “disconfirmation bias,” in which we expend disproportionate energy trying to debunk or refute views and arguments that we find uncomfortable.
While a pseudo-science is set up to look for evidence that supports its claims, a science is set up to challenge its claims, and look for evidence that might prove it false.

In other words, pseudo-science seeks confirmations, and science seeks falsifications.
Scientific claims are falsifiable. That is, they are claims where you could set out what observable outcomes would be impossible if the claim were true, while pseudo-scientific claims fit with any imaginable set of observable outcomes. What this means, is that you could do a test that shows a scientific claim to be false, but no conceivable test could show a pseudo-scientific claim to be false.
This sets up the central asymmetry in the picture of what we can know.
We can find evidence to establish with certainty that a claim is false. However, we can never (owing to the problem of induction) find evidence to establish with certainty that a claim is true.
So scientists realize that the best hypotheses and theories are always tentative. Some piece of future evidence could conceivably show them false. While the pseudo-scientist is sure as sure as can be that their theories have been proven true. (Of course, they haven't been - the problem of induction again.)
Scientists assume that even if there is no way to secure complete and absolute truth, increasingly accurate approximations can be made to account for the world and how it works. Although scientists reject the notion of attaining absolute truth, and accept some uncertainty as part of nature, most scientific knowledge is durable. The modification of ideas, rather than their outright rejection, is the norm in science, as powerful constructs tend to survive, and grow more precise, and to become widely accepted.

For a layman like me, that has to approximate "truth".

[BigBeakie]

Thank you Gordon, well said[emoji106]

I always bear in mind Richard Feynman's quote,

"Science is what we have learned about how to stop fooling ourselves. "

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by lestersails

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.

Actually, very common for new studies to be set up to confirm old studies or look at minor variations on the assumptions.

Coming up with something novel sounds great but outside quacks almost never happens.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by lestersails

the truth is that only a tiny fraction of published scientific reports are ever shown "falsely report their data and findings".

Very true but....Rarely do the reviewers have the full underlying data set and the time to dig thru it in the same level of detail.

Even then, I think outright false information is rare. The issue is in the gray areas where results can be presented to imply things that support an agenda.
- Find a subset of the data that supports your position, highlight it strongly when reporting.
- Find a subset of the data that doesn't support your position, omit it or downplay it.

Net result is in many ways worse than outright lies because false assertions based misrepresentation is much harder to demonstrate and get a larger audience to understand.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Actually, very common for new studies to be set up to confirm old studies or look at minor variations on the assumptions...

More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research.

“1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility” ~ by Monya Baker
➥ https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-sc...bility-1.19970

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by lestersails

So, you are going to rely on what - palm readers, political bloviators, a Ouijia board, Tarot cards, Priests? Science is not perfect, is not absolute truth, is not infallible, but it is the best way to move from ignorance and superstition toward what is true.

Especially amazing to hear a sailor say such nonsense. Everything on your boat was developed by the scientific method. Empirical trial and error and refinements of technology and methods. I am pretty confident you believe in your boat. But when faced with an inconvenient truth, you pretend to not believe in science.

I think you missed the point. I don't believe the prior poster was suggesting we ditch science. If anything you are using Reducto Ad Absurdem.

Many of the so-called scientists pushing the eco-faith are no better than the palm readers and political bloviators. Simply calling them "scientists" doesn't infer any special knowledge or impartiality.

So with a highly flawed "science", where do you look for truth? (question, not a statement as you took the prior post.)

[Nicholson58]

Originally Posted by rmlarson1098

So. As the coral reefs of the world may or may not be breathing their last, it's perfectly fine to keep pumping our atmosphere full of toxins? To use the air we breath as a 'sewage dump', just like allowing pesticides, herbicides and the like into the water (fresh or salt) is just a damn shame. Whether climate change/global warming is caused by humans or is a natural phenomenon doesn't really matter. It wouldn't take that big an effort to do the right thing and at least slow the dumping of pollutants into the sea, and the air we breath. And it would be nice to try and rein in some of the millions of tons of garbage that goes into the oceans every year, too. Especially the plastic. It's sickening. Make it stop!
All that said, I have to think of your post as positive news, and look forward to visiting your Great Barrier Reefs. Thanks for the update.

There is plenty of reasoned logic to curtail dumping without lies. Real facts supported by unadulterated data carry weight. Tainted crap argued in courts and wrongful termination of competent scientists by those seeking free money does nothing to forward any cause.

We live aboard in the Caribbean. The reefs are not dead. They appear to suffer most from locals stripping off key species for food and general over fishing as well as excessive fertility around harbors. There are no pesticides there.

[barnakiel]

I do not think an 'overwhelming agreement' of an 'overwhelming number' of scientists counts for much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)

Relevant chapter: Framing in environmental discourse.


(note that the statement 'overwhelming agreement' IS framing too)



It is very easy to find historical evidence that some overwhelming agreements of the past prove nothing but mass illusions in due course.

The more overwhelming the agreement, the more cautious we should be. Ask any scientist.




In any case, scientists are not about an overwhelming agreement. Nor about absolute truth. Scientists are about strong data and a valid proof. They are all about providing today the best possible answer to any question we can have. Every good scientist will tell you: tomorrow, with more / new data, with better processing and better scientific methods, we may come to completely different conclusions! And they will be 100% fine with that. (Bastards! ;-)


Now, historically, scientists were found to be an instrument of many a government. There are the most drastic cases of 3rd Reich and of the Soviet Union. But also more recent cases of scientists providing apparently democratic governments with data and theories as required by the dominating narrative.

So that you do not think I am all talk no proof: very recently a top Spanish virus scientist, a world respected Ebola expert, claimed there would be only very few cases of Covid in Spain. As time showed, he was absolutely wrong (Spain has most cases per capita in the EU and one of the highest in the world).

" ... “Spain will only have a handful of cases,” said Dr Fernando Simón, the head of medical emergencies in Madrid, on 9 February. Six weeks later he gives out daily figures of hundreds of deaths. The number of dead per capita is already three times that of Iran, and 40 times higher than China. ..."

source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ponse-analysis

Why did he make such a ghastly mistake in judgement? Well, ask the government that pays his salary. He is still in office today.


So ...

Let's not jump up in anger and claim scientists are objective and trustworthy, and people who state otherwise are Alt-R blind ignorants. Some may be ignorants. Others may be well read.

We are better off listening to all arguments and learning from what has happened in our past. The future is not going to be much different (scientifically proven).

In my book, the world is changing, it has always been - also before we were noticeably present around. And now that we are so many, we are making huge and probably irreversible impact on our environment. I do not need no biased scientists to tell me that much. I simply look, listen and think.


barnakiel

[StuM]

Originally Posted by GordMay

While a pseudo-science is set up to look for evidence that supports its claims, a science is set up to challenge its claims, and look for evidence that might prove it false.

In other words, pseudo-science seeks confirmations, and science seeks falsifications.
Scientific claims are falsifiable. That is, they are claims where you could set out what observable outcomes would be impossible if the claim were true, while pseudo-scientific claims fit with any imaginable set of observable outcomes. What this means, is that you could do a test that shows a scientific claim to be false, but no conceivable test could show a pseudo-scientific claim to be false.

You've just described "climate science" to a T and established that it is indeed "pseudo-science"

[RaymondR]

Security of tenure is a concept come to acceptance in democratic societies as being necessary to ensure persons in positions of authority are able to express their opinions on the matters bought to their attention without fear of retribution. An example of this is the appointment of Supreme Court justices in the US for their life.

It is also a mechanism used in higher education to protect the most respected practitioners in their educational capacity from the adverse whims of the administrators of tertiary education institutions.

What has occurred in Australia is that an industrial relations mechanism called "enterprise bargaining" founded to allow workers and management in an enterprise to agree on the employment conditions most beneficial to the prosperity of both the commercial success and longevity of the enterprise and the remuneration of the employees has been used to negate the freedom of thought and expression of the academic practitioners.

The provision of higher education services has been commercialized to a very high degree in Australia and foreign students has become a major source of revenue to many of the higher education institutions. Many of these students come from countries where free thinking and freedom of expression is vigorously discouraged and suppressed by the governing elite and the administrations of many of the subject institutions do not want any perceptions of indoctrination adverse to the wishes of this elite to thrive in any way. Consequently, commercial considerations have overwhelmed any respect for the independence of thought and expression believed necessary for the progress of science as contributed to by the higher education institutions.

Unfortunately, as is very often the case in Australia, the enterprise agreement process has been enlisted by the administration of our tertiary institutions to nullify the freedom of thought and expression implicit in security of tenure in the higher education sector and professor Ridd was a victim of this corrupted process. Conditions written into an enterprise agreement have been used to both silence one critical of the corruption of the scientific method in it's use in relation to the health of the Great Barrier Reef and to be an example of the consequences to anyone else so imprudent as to voice concerns regarding the integrity of the any research not fully in support of the CC/AGM meme which is where the grants are going at the moment.

An extant and interesting development in this part of the culture wars was the attempt by certain members of the Federal Parliament of Australia to have freedom of thought and expression enshrined in the legislation governing the activities of the higher education sector. Unfortunately the left of politics in Australia has no respect for these fundamental rights and is opposing the measure and it appears doubtful that in this instance freedom of thought and expression in Australia's universities will prevail.

[kbad]

Happy to take who ever wants to go to the "White Lady" large coral bommie on a close inshore reef that is most certainly dead. Whether by climate change, aliens, or a mystical coral hating swimming unicorn it is dead. Has been dead now for long enough for it's name to be widely excepted by local fisherpersons. I know dosen't prove it is all in trouble but something is happening.



Would suggest ever so kindly to wake the %$^& up minimize as much as you can any pollution, and if you have them appoligise to your grandkids.


Currently the world produces 380 million metric tonnes of plastic per year we recycle 9%, with a slightly higher amount being incinerated, we are producing more than we are dealing with so it is an ever increasing problem, over 61% of marine debris is reported as plastic. Cut back as much as you can on single use plastics, please.


My two cents worth



Enjoy your next feed of plastic.