The Reef Ain't Dead

[Tasmania1]

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.

Your comment is a breath of Fresh Air and should be the narrative taken.

[john manning]

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.

The point I was making was that once science looses its objectivity it may well be confirming ignorance instead of removing it. If you cannot challenge theories then you may as well just be superstitious. Being a scientist isn't about accepting ideas because they are popular or politically correct.

If you are studying an issue as complex as climate change it is possible to make judgements about it. Without that background you rely on others. I have a brother who was on the IPCC committee and a nephew who is also a climate scientist. They have not been able to answer several of my questions nor resolve the discrepancy of data trends which are contrary to the warming theory. Scientifically there is still a place for debate. Unfortunately it often results in the sort of vitriol present in your comment.

[rocks]

Visited the reefs off Townsville last year, for three weeks doing at least one scuba dive a day and hours of snorkelling. We were wondering what JCU were on about. The reef seemed to be in very good condition.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by GordMay

So, if not to scientists, where do you look for scientific information?

That's the $64,000 question. If it was an easy answer, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But simply saying "consensus" and anyone who brings up conflicting information is demonized as a denier, is certainly not the scientific method.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by ozsailer

"60 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef bleached this year
Partially true. Of the 1036 reefs surveyed by scientists in a plane, 60% had either moderate or severe bleaching. However, this doesn’t mean all the corals on those reefs were bleached, nor does it equate to 60% of the entire Reef. The aerial surveys accurately record bleaching to only a five metre depth, and bleaching severity generally declines with increasing depth."

An excellent example of the earlier discussion about using data sets that support the agenda.

If someone claims the 60% number is "false", they won't be able to prove it.

But the message that went out is very much misleading.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

. . . simply saying "consensus" and anyone who brings up conflicting information is demonized as a denier, is certainly not the scientific method.

No, but it is useful for showing a proponent's lack of objectivity, and willingness to use (if not abuse) science for political and personal agendas. The use of the wholly non-scientific label "denier," with all of its historically negative and derogatory connotations, is no accident. Among other things, it's a useful tool for shifting the focus away from the scientific issue and onto the person expressing skepticism. Of course, this is all irrelevant a far as the actual science is concerned, yet the use of the "denier" label is favored amongst the same people who cite the "science" the most often. But their inability to sway more skeptics is all the fault of oil co. propaganda? Huh.

Originally Posted by valhalla360

An excellent example of the earlier discussion about using data sets that support the agenda.

If someone claims the 60% number is "false", they won't be able to prove it.

But the message that went out is very much misleading.

This has been pointed out quite clearly before (thanks StuM & others). The irony is those who have sincere and justified concerns could just play it straight and probably win over many more skeptics than they lose from simply repeating canned talking points that aren't factually credible. But with an area as vast as the GBR I suppose 60% bleaching of areas that were actually surveyed doesn't sell as well. It also requires some sort of historical comparison, something which either doesn't exist or is too complex for the media to decipher.

Not unlike most highly politicized issues these days, the much fabled "consensus" has a certain amount of truth to it but has been distorted to fall in line with political rather than scientific objectives. Scientists themselves should not be blamed; only partisans who have politicized the science. Those who believe their reading and study of the topic is well-rounded should be sure to include this on their list:

https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Ne.../dp/0063001691

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Cliffhanger

Evidence? Yeah heaps. This is a good, balanced resource: GBRMPA - Coral bleaching 101

There is also a truckload of other research papers published in the most reputable journals such as Nature. Prof Terry Hughes is a good one to look up.

As for the ridiculous notion that researchers routinely distort findings to get grants is laughable. Only someone who has no idea about research would suggest this.

Originally Posted by ozsailer

If you are going to identify a paper to support your assertions I suggest you read it carefully before stating this as fact. This is what is actually stated in document you supplied.

"60 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef bleached this year
Partially true. Of the 1036 reefs surveyed by scientists in a plane, 60% had either moderate or severe bleaching. However, this doesn’t mean all the corals on those reefs were bleached, nor does it equate to 60% of the entire Reef. The aerial surveys accurately record bleaching to only a five metre depth, and bleaching severity generally declines with increasing depth."

Read it carefully. No where does it stated that the 60% of the reef is bleached only a varying percentage of the 60 % reefs which were checked. That is a huge difference.


Greg H
Lagoon 440
Oz

Indeed, one should certainly "read it carefully before stating this as fact".

Would also 'suggest' one includes points relevant to the premise, rather than cherrypicking one that seems to support the 'fake news' agenda.

Perhaps the pseudo-conservative deniers so prevalent on this forum could gain a tiny bit of credibility by doing so.


Here's a brief, more relevant excerpt from the article linked to above;


Most reefs used for tourism aren’t severely affected

True. Most recognised tourism areas had no, negligible or moderate bleaching. High Standard Tourism operations contribute regularly into the Eye on the Reef system that provides the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority with excellent real-time awareness of Reef health at high value tourism sites.

So many anecdotal 'reports' of 'healthy reefs' are probably inaccurate. How surprising...

Coral reefs worldwide are being affected

True. Coral Bleaching is not just an Australian or Great Barrier Reef issue, it is a global problem affecting coral reefs world-wide as a result of changes to the Earth’s climate.

Bleaching is a natural process, the Reef recovers and it is all natural behaviour

True and false. Coral bleaching is a stress response and individual coral colonies will suffer from a degree of bleaching in any given summer. This is a natural process and not of particular concern. Large-scale marine heatwaves create mass coral bleaching events in which very large numbers of corals bleach severely, on many different reefs over a wide area. These events are typically associated with high levels of coral mortality. As the Earth and its oceans warm with climate change, marine heatwaves and associated coral bleaching events are becoming more severe and frequent, and the Reef’s natural recovery processes are unable to keep up.

Nothing can be done to stop bleaching, and the Reef doesn’t need any help, it’s adapted successfully for thousands of years without interference

False. This mass bleaching reaffirms that climate change remains the single greatest challenge to the Reef and the strongest possible global efforts to reduce emissions are essential, along with local actions in the Marine Park and its catchment. Everyone everywhere can do their bit to protect the Great Barrier Reef for future generations to enjoy.

So 'come on down, the water's fine' is definitely not a responsible suggestion, as doing so will exacerbate the conditions that are causing the problem in the first place.


Perhaps more to come, especially concerning the falsehood-ridden first post.

[barnakiel]

The reef is troubled (we know it, we have seen it).


The scientists are troubled (we have read it).


We have to protect the scientists !!!!!!


???


Or, should we rather stop damaging the reef ?


barnakiel

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

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.)

The answer to your question is obvious. Spend the time to learn about the methods of a field and read a broad and representative range of scientific publications from reputable outlets (e.g., Science, Nature, PNAS, Physical Letters). Most of us can't read primary literature outside of our own field (if one is scientifically trained) so focus instead on review articles. Doesn't matter what the newspapers and media say.

But there is a certain strain of people who just won't accept an extraordinarily robust theory or model and they won't directly address the body of evidence that supports it. Instead, they make potshots, insinuations, promote conspiracy theories, and flaunt ridiculous logical fallacies to smear the data and the enormous body of talented and ethical researchers who generate it.

In the US we have a very long tradition with this kind of thinking regarding evolution. Same bogus arguments as are being flouted here "science is highly flawed", et al. They would be inconsequential except for the strain of politicians who exploit them for their own purposes. Like creationists, climate change deniers are puppets of many of the same politicians not to mention the petroleum, coal, and other industries who are making money by using the atmosphere as a garbage dump.

What I also find hilarious is that the deniers are sure the science is wrong. But why is it that they are so certain that the scientific consensus is wrong in overestimating anthropogenic effects? If they understood anything about probability, they would know that it is equally likely that the scientists are wrong by the same degree in the opposite direction - that anthropogenic climate change is much worse than it is currently thought to be. But, oops, guess not, because that would conflict with their underlying belief.

You earn the privilege of contradicting scientific consensus if you can master the methodology, the body of evidence, and present an alternative model that better explains the observations. But that requires devoted effort, which none of these people are actually willing to exert.

You are welcome to have opinions that denies the overwhelming body of science that supports climate change, but the truth is that those opinions are worthless in most cases, actually dangerous in some.

[Rob_P]

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

Consensus? Give me a break. At one time the "consensus" was that the world was flat. That man could not go faster than 50 MPH. That minorities "weren't people." That we've "already discovered everything mankind could possibly discover" "Man cannot survive in space."

Each of those things has been proven to be false because "consensus" is not truth, it is only agreement. Which is a long way of saying that consensus is an echo chamber.

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

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.

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.

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.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

"Science" is a name given to a sphere of human activity. Like every other human activity it is guided and shaped by all that messy, emotional and ego-driven stuff that determines human conduct; what the Ancients used to call our "passions" as opposed to our "reason".

Sadly there is no congruence between high intelligence and high character, I suspect in fact that the reverse is true; if only because those of high intelligence have a greater capacity for more sophisticated and often less obvious mischief than those of lesser intelligence.

Anyone who has spent any time in academia should have had the wits to notice that all the impulses of the schoolyard are as present there as anywhere, only wrapped up in more sophisticated and to some more deceiving, glitter. The juvenalia on display in the Climategate emails demonstrated that clearly enough.

The icing on the cake of illusions is the extreme vanity and self-conceit that often quietly afflicts those of high intelligence, the pinnacle of which is their self-conception as being above all these ugly little impulses of "the common herd".

"Scientism" is a new kind of religion and its devotees often seem to worship themselves as much as anything else.

In simple terms, tell me who paid for your "scientific study" and we can pretty much guarantee what the results will be, because someone paid.

Oh yes, you might make the mistake of thinking you could just follow the data, but generally mistakes like that are only made once or twice before the lesson is quietly learned, the rudder is set to the stars that shine the brightest, and the good ship careerism glides into calmer waters, while all the fellow travellers cheer lustily from their rails.

Utter and complete nonsense. Please, just be honest and admit that you don't care if climate change is true or not, you are not going to believe it.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by blazing928

Yet the conundrum is that we are able to afford to make choices for the better, where the poorer countries population are just trying to feed and cloth themselves with little regard to rubbish disposal, cleaner energy etc.

Instead of berating , suggest how to make sustainable changes. Tbh , no one is going to drop their standard of living are they?

"We" (the wealthier, more capable countries) should be leading by example, and by undertaking the development of the technologies and products that would assist the less developed countries in achieving their goals while making less of a mess. At the very least, we could maybe not have developing countries make all our stuff for cheap, under lax safety and pollution standards that we wouldn't allow here?

So, there's a few suggestions there. Are "we" willing to drop our standards of living? Even within the first world countries, wealth inequality is a problem. Is it a huge ask that someone can only afford a 38' boat instead of a 40' boat?

Lots of other ideas out there, if you're interested. Most people here aren't, it seems.

[lestersails]

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.

Consensus? Give me a break. At one time the "consensus" was that the world was flat. That man could not go faster than 50 MPH. That minorities "weren't people." That we've "already discovered everything mankind could possibly discover" "Man cannot survive in space."

Each of those things has been proven to be false because "consensus" is not truth, it is only agreement. Which is a long way of saying that consensus is an echo chamber.

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

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.

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.

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.

Your highlighting the flat earth model is great - it deflates your entire argument. That model was shown to be incorrect by Plato in 330 BC - just as the scientific empirical model and foundations of logical thinking were being developed. The stories about Columbus defying scientific consensus that the earth was flat are fictional. Flat earth was the 'consensus' of people who were ignorant of empirical evidence and could not think logically. Sound familiar?
It was never a consensus of scientists or people who thought scientifically. Were there some crackpots who persisted in believing it? Sure, there always are.
Please speak for yourself when you state that we are ignorant over the reasons why the earth is different. Entirely possible that you are so. I am not.

[Tillikum]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Utter and complete nonsense. Please, just be honest and admit that you don't care if climate change is true or not, you are not going to believe it.

So there was nothing in my post but "nonsense"; nothing that was even slightly true?

Wasn't it Dr. Goebbels who said that if one admits one's opponent is even slightly right, one admits that one is slightly wrong? IIRC, his other rules of propaganda were that the bigger lies are the more believable and than anything repeated long enough and widely enough will be believed by the mass of the population.

Sorry to tell you, but the fundamental makeup of human beings has not changed in millennia, many millennia; any "scientist" should know this, and of course the more honest among them might even admit that even they themselves might be subject to the drives that impel lesser mortals.

The average human being of today is no more rational, dispassionate, objective or empathetic than 10,000 years ago. The difference is that they think they are, and the more they imagine themselves as "rational" or "scientific", the more deep-rooted and pervasive this delusion is.

"Scientists" like to belong as much as anyone, they like to be accepted, applauded, looked up to, seen as important. Dr. Semmelweis who less than two, yes two lousy centuries ago, a mere blip in historical time, suggested to his colleagues that the statistics clearly showed, they were doing something that caused their patients (new and expecting mothers) to die at a far higher rate than those attended by the nun-midwives in his city. Connecting a few dots that had eluded the vast majority of the "scientific community" of his day, he suggested they should wash their hands after dissections before they attended their female patients. For this heresy and attack on collegiality and the scientific consensus, Semmelweis was expelled from his profession, confined to an asylum and not long after apparently murdered. His erstwhile colleagues continued merrily on their way, orthodoxy having been re-established, and murdered uncounted millions more women with what they were pleased to call the ever so mysterious “Puerperal Fever”. I hate to tell you, but human nature has not “evolved” since the 1850s.

Who likes to ridiculed, sneered at, gossiped about? Who likes to have their papers rejected for publication or go to conferences and be treated like a leper? Only those very few who like a Semmelweis, can’t help but see and can’t help but speak what they believe is the truth, whatever the consequences. Those people are very rare in any profession. The vast majority will not stand up, will not put up their hands, will not try to tell their colleagues they may be wrong; they know that no one likes to be exposed as mistaken, and the highly intelligent and highly educated like it least of all, for they have the most to lose, at least in their own eyes.

As the quote I inserted earlier made clear, the “consensus” on human-generated global warming was created from nothing by a vast injection of money and a concerted campaign in the media. Some people don’t actually know how concentrated the control of the media is in western countries, nor do they pay any attention to who owns and staffs that media, and what their prevailing biases are. It’s a bit like reading books without ever looking at who the authors are. Naive would be one term that comes to mind.

Some people may wish to believe that billionaires, who historically have not been known for their unalloyed altruism, have perhaps at one their conferences every few years had a mass epiphany and decided that they must save the world etc.? My impression is that they are generally known for saving things for themselves.

If I remember correctly the Obama administration put $7,000,000,000. into climate research. That’s seven billion, which buys a lot of science. Oh, you say, no one manipulates their data? Let’s assume they don’t. LOL, but who decides who gets the research grants and contracts? Now suppose I’d like to advance my career as a climate scientist; I’ve heard this vast sum of money is available for approved research; how do I get some, so I can do some studies, publish some papers and generally advance my career and reputation? Of course my first step is to think up a proposal that the people with the cash, if we can be so crude, are likely to find appealing. So, I find out which way the wind is blowing, if it’s not obvious already, and “cut my jib” in the appropriate manner.

Now climate science has gone from being a relatively minor and obscure field to something akin to Noah, or at least his pilot. LOL. The honors and awards, the fellowships, the Royal Society memberships, the laudatory interviews and articles...stardom. It will all go on as long as we’re the guys who can save the world. The money will keep flowing like a river as long as we say the right things. So who are these nutjobs who say it’s all a big mistake and that the data doesn’t’ say the sky is falling? Are they crazy, do they want us to lose it all? We’re committed, we’ve nailed our flag to the mast, are we going to admit it was mostly a mistake, “science for hire”?

Nope.

I do note with interest how you frame me as an “unbeliever”. Certainly an apt and no doubt Freudian choice of words. My rational side unfortunately does not allow me to conflate every environmental problem into one big ball of ideological cotton candy called “global warming”. The propagandists naturally realize that many of those who are genuinely, if sometimes emotionally and even hypocritically (Suzuki et al) “concerned” about our environmental problems, will tend to fall in love with “global warming” as what seems like the only way to generate action on those problems. Then there are the angry misanthropes, marxists and assorted misfits who, along with a surprising proportion of scientists, seem to find the idea of global crisis and collapse strangely appealing. These folks too find “global warming” suddenly elevates them if not to stardom, at least to a sense of “having been right all along”. From angry irrelevancy to prophet-hood is a job offer hard to resist.

Solutions to problems aren’t wanted when those problems can be manipulated for larger purposes. One in particular called “Thermal Depolymerization” which had the potential to safely recycle some garbage streams and disposal issues for which there are no comparable solutions, and greatly reduce our dependency on extracted oils. Sadly, the mainstream media completely ignored the company and their trials and operating plants, and they were steered into bankruptcy and “disappeared”. While supposed “environmentalists” were apparently horrified by the prospect of making garbage into diesel fuel; it might extend the age of petroleum! The stupid dolts of course mostly continue to enjoy their forty slaves equivalent as they babble about the need to eliminate petroleum. So, between the geo-politicians, the Seven Sisters and the pea-green whackos of the environmental movement, they got rid of the only solution to car shred waste, BSE, mixed plastics, sewage sludge and a dozen other problems.

See, there’s hope for humanity yet - we’re so much smarter now!

[japawil]

“Consensus? Give me a break. At one time the "consensus" was that the world was flat. That man could not go faster than 50 MPH. That minorities "weren't people." That we've "already discovered everything mankind could possibly discover" "Man cannot survive in space."

Each of those things has been proven to be false because "consensus" is not truth, it is only agreement. Which is a long way of saying that consensus is an echo chamber.”

Each of those things has been shown to be false by science.
And here is a shock alert for you.......there are still people that believe many of those same things today. They are no longer the “consensus” because the “consensus” of people realized that science is a superior method of determining reality.
The humorous thing is the flat earthers,
extreme racists, moon landing deniers, et. al use the same tactics of sowing distrust in the “consensus” of scientific understanding regarding the current climate change as apparently many here do, yet they are unable to perceive it.