Cruisers Forum
 


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 03-10-2020, 11:01   #106
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Chesapeake
Boat: Catalina 22 Sport
Posts: 1,190
Re: THE REEF AINT DEAD

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tillikum View Post
So there was nothing in my post but "nonsense"; nothing that was even slightly true?
Yawn. This pseudo-intellectual claptrap really gets boring after a while.
Nonsense means that it is without sense - big words strung together, facts misinterpreted, illogical leaps, all to promote a bogus concept. That is nonsense - capisce?

We are destroying the planet folks, no one who is sane and has a three digit IQ can deny that. We have been doing so since our species discovered its first tool. We did it slowly at first, and below the rate of natural repair, but much faster now and above the rate of natural repair. We will never stop harming the environment. It just isn't that big of a deal to agree with this and then debate what we can/should do to abate it. That involves a big set of hard questions that should be robustly debated. Denying climate change is delusional. Period.
lestersails is offline  
Old 03-10-2020, 11:07   #107
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lake Ont
Posts: 8,547
Re: THE REEF AINT DEAD

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tillikum View Post
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.

Blame others, blame media, pretend we haven't evolved, slag scientists... blame others for a business failure. A dash of sekrit soshulist agenda. One more whack at media for good measure. You haven't missed a trick, I believe. Congratulations.

I agree that thermal depolymerisation should have received more support from government. A pinch of the still massive fossil fuel subsidies would have gone a long way (... this should tell you who the real opponents of the technology are). But the fate of ONE company who built too close to a populated area is not the death knell for the technology. Wouldn't now be a good time to invest some of the COVID recovery money into new research, or a new pilot project? It would be a good source of new jobs and careers, a slightly greener source of diesel fuel, and one possible solution for waste reduction... if the technology is proven to scale up.
Lake-Effect is offline  
Old 03-10-2020, 12:40   #108
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Slidell, La.
Boat: Morgan Classic 33
Posts: 2,845
Re: THE REEF AINT DEAD

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tillikum View Post
So there was nothing in my post but "nonsense"; nothing that was even slightly true?

Nope, opinions aren't facts...especially when they don't even resemble reality.

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.

Interesting who brings up the first 'Hitler' reference.

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.

And you know this how? And what does 'fundamental makeup' even mean, anyway?

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.

And again, you know this how?

"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.

Not surprising that you confuse (not to mention falsly portray) Semmelweis's sad story. It is easily available, so I won't bother to go into details, but Semmelweis would be better described as analagous to climate scientists who are actually contributing to the known science, unlike the sellout Peter Ridd, who is (or perhaps, now, was [I've not yet looked it up]) by his own admission, in the pay of fossil fuel and industry interests.

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.

Quite sad, but yet telling, that you have such a low opinion of 'professionals'. And apparently such a poor misunderstanding of the mechanism by which scientific endeavours are carried out

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.

Naive is certainly a good term to describe a select sector of the populace. One that, despite having one of the most easily accessed sources of verifiable knowledge and information, refuses to learn how to use it, and instead whines about the one source it (apparently) perversely does continue to use.

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.

Again, either your apparent misunderstanding or deliberate attempt to distort the operation of the scientific method is (or would be if it was in any way new or novel) startling. To repeat what's already been stated in the more reality-based posts in this thread, scientists don't 'make names' for themselves by following the crowd, but by making new discoveries.

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”?

Of course we're not, because it isn't. In case you're unaware, climate science has never been a relatively minor and obscure field, at least no more so than any other. The fact is that human-induced climate change is now affecting all of life's processes, globally, and will continue to do so for the next several centuries, with increasingly severe negative effects to the human population and the earth's biosphere. The only thing we can do now is to lessen those negative effects; thanks to the naive, ignorant and short-term-'profit' invested-interest efforts of people you and your fellow Koolaid enthusiasts appear to support, we're 30 years (some would say 60, since the problem was clearly identified by late 1950's) behind the curve. Congratulations.

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.

Not 'unbeliever'. Denier, as in 'denying clear unambiguos evidence'. (the rest of the paragraph's psychobabble is just that, psychobabble; not worthy of comment, though if you'd supplied 'Suzuki et al's' paper there might have been something to discuss...providing Suzuki's a 'real' scientist who's not sold out to Obama's 'big money')

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.

This is getting monotonous, “Thermal Depolymerization” is still barely flickering along, not because of some vast conspiracy of "geo-politicians, the Seven Sisters and the pea-green whackos of the environmental movement", but because of that economic 'miracle', market forces. You really seem to be having trouble finding a proper scapegoat...

See, there’s hope for humanity yet - we’re so much smarter now!
Cynicism should be reserved for those who have at least a slight toehold in the objective contemporary world...
jimbunyard is offline  
Old 03-10-2020, 17:01   #109
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Boat: Island Packet 40
Posts: 6,432
Images: 7
Re: THE REEF AINT DEAD

Quote:
Originally Posted by valhalla360 View Post
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.


Very much so and that was probably the intent.

Flying over in an aircraft is not the mist objective surveying method. Don't they have permanent transects along the reef to allow better monitoring?
__________________
Satiriker ist verboten, la conformité est obligatoire
RaymondR is offline  
Old 03-10-2020, 17:39   #110
Marine Service Provider

Join Date: Jan 2019
Boat: Beneteau 432, C&C Landfall 42, Roberts Offshore 38
Posts: 6,275
Re: The Reef Ain't Dead

get real...acres of Bahamian reefs are " bleached " out because Bahamians discovered that squirting a dollop of bleach into the nooks and crannies of a reef drove the lobsters out, which was the whole purpose behind the " bleaching"....$$$$$$....killing the reef in the process was inconsequential to putting $$$ in your pocket..
don't know about the Aussie reefs....but suspect other motives//
MicHughV is online now  
Old 03-10-2020, 18:31   #111
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Crystal Palace,South London
Posts: 7
Re: The Reef Ain't Dead

The planet is ok, it's the people who are f***ed!
Captain Rum is offline  
Old 03-10-2020, 22:43   #112
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Slidell, La.
Boat: Morgan Classic 33
Posts: 2,845
Re: The Reef Ain't Dead

Of course, the real title of this thread should be 'The reef ain't dead---yet'.

More to come...
jimbunyard is offline  
Old 04-10-2020, 01:04   #113
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43 and OPBs
Posts: 12,888
Re: The Reef Ain't Dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbunyard View Post
Of course, the real title of this thread should be 'The reef ain't dead---yet'.

More to come...

Neither is the planet ....or the Universe.
StuM is offline  
Old 04-10-2020, 14:46   #114
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 144
Re: The Reef Ain't De

And so the sceptical narrative changes from

‘the reef is just fine’

to

‘the reef ain’t dead’.

Difficult to argue with such ambiguities



The Barrier bit of the Great Reef is made up of dead coral skeleton with less than a 1% covering of living tissue. So let’s just say 99% of The Reef is already dead!
Puddleduck is offline  
Old 04-10-2020, 14:53   #115
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 144
Re: THE REEF AINT DEAD

Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondR View Post
Flying over in an aircraft is not the mist objective surveying method. Don't they have permanent transects along the reef to allow better monitoring?
Yes, transects are strategically utilised but aren’t cost effective to do the whole thing. Theyre more comprehensive than flying a plane over the whole thing and yes species richness is greatest between 5-15 (ish) meters depth. So current thinking is a combination of both methodologies and both have their place.

80% of reef building coral species are found in around 1% of the GBR. Highest species richness is found in the far north, where the bleaching thing is worst. So things are changing.
Puddleduck is offline  
Old 04-10-2020, 15:40   #116
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Boat: Island Packet 40
Posts: 6,432
Images: 7
Re: The Reef Ain't Dead

True, the living part is but a thin veneer on the surface and because it's dead remains go down into the earth for thousands of feet the veneer may constitute even less than a percent.

Every living system in the seas appears to be under some sort of stress with the exception of some whale species which are rebounding after near extinction. Rgere are only a very few fisheries being sustainably managed however it is extremely unlikely that any of these problems will be remedied until the population problem is solved.

Fortunately The Reef is highly valued by the people of Australia and it's proper management has bipartisan support in the Australian parliament. Good science is vital to the effectiveness of both the management and the political support and if people like professor Ridd have sufficient care and courage to stick their necks out in defense of the integrity of the science I feel they should be protected from retribution from the commercial interests which now dominate the management of our higher education institutions, and by law if necessary.

As to the question of whether or not the reef is dead or not dead, those on the dead side need to be careful because if a "dead" consensus prevails why bother with the substantial cost of management anyway, the damned things dead already, bury it and we'll go about our business and the dead argument will have done more harm than good. Far better to strive for unsullied truth in evaluating it's condition and thereby retain the support of the Australian people for it's ongoing good management.

In the long term the best outcome would be for a case to be bought before the High Court of Australia and it find in Ridd's favour and it then be bounced back to the lower court for a massive compensation payment to Ridd by his former employer. It would be even better of somehow a portion of the damages was required personally by those responsible for the persecution of Ridd.
__________________
Satiriker ist verboten, la conformité est obligatoire
RaymondR is offline  
Old 04-10-2020, 16:03   #117
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,768
Re: THE REEF AINT DEAD

Quote:
Originally Posted by lestersails View Post
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/
Scott Adams sez "both sides lie" . In Europe climate change is a religion--however Europe id going ape to buy Russian and USA natural gas-a fossil fuel' yet are shutting down zero emission Nuke power and not allowing new ones. In CA the leftist lib demorats shut down nuke and natural gas power plants and cant keep the lights on while millions of acres burn---NOAA sez ocean levels in uSA have risen 5- 3/4 inches in past 100 years 1919-2019. The only real Scientist I have known was applied for 10 Grants a year for 42 years. That's 420 He received 6 grants but he was always working for the US NAvy in Egypt studying Elephantitis snail disease as his main job -- he also said most of his PHD professors were frauds but couldn't be fired because their bosses were also frauds.
geoleo is offline  
Old 04-10-2020, 16:03   #118
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Boat: Island Packet 40
Posts: 6,432
Images: 7
Re: THE REEF AINT DEAD

Quote:
Originally Posted by Puddleduck View Post
Yes, transects are strategically utilised but aren’t cost effective to do the whole thing. Theyre more comprehensive than flying a plane over the whole thing and yes species richness is greatest between 5-15 (ish) meters depth. So current thinking is a combination of both methodologies and both have their place.

80% of reef building coral species are found in around 1% of the GBR. Highest species richness is found in the far north, where the bleaching thing is worst. So things are changing.
The bleaching problem is most serious in the far north which is also the section most contiguous with the Australian coast but a section least intensely affected by human activity and there is little intense land use activity north of Cairns. Because of the proximity of the gulf on the other side of the cape and the island barrier to the northern part of the Corral Sea I think there may be aspects of the climatology and oceanographics at play which we don't yet fully understand. The geography of the reef north of Princess Charlotte Bay is very significantly different to that further south and there must be a reason for this.

I tend to the opinion that it's too early for AGW/CC to have had an effect because any increase in surface water should be reflected in a significant increase in tropical storm activity which has not yet occurred.

Whilst we may not all yet agree on what is and is not occurring with the reef I think that those of us who actually reflect on these matters would agree that dodgy science, or even the suspicion of dodgy science, is not helpful nor are "THE REEF IS DEAD" headlines.
__________________
Satiriker ist verboten, la conformité est obligatoire
RaymondR is offline  
Old 04-10-2020, 16:13   #119
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43 and OPBs
Posts: 12,888
Re: THE REEF AINT DEAD

Quote:
Originally Posted by Puddleduck View Post
Highest species richness is found in the far north, where the bleaching thing is worst.
Once again you reveal how little you actually know about the subject.

Your statement is completely false. The bleaching is worst in the central and inshore southern areas where there is a lot of agricultural run off.

The far north and southern outer reef are far healthier than those areas - which may say something about the actual causes of the bleaching.


StuM is offline  
Old 04-10-2020, 16:21   #120
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43 and OPBs
Posts: 12,888
Re: THE REEF AINT DEAD

Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondR View Post
The bleaching problem is most serious in the far north which is also the section most contiguous with the Australian coast but a section least intensely affected by human activity and there is little intense land use activity north of Cairns.

Don't blindly accept Puddleduck's assertion . You are starting from a false premise.
StuM is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I ain't no expert sailorboy1 Flotsam & Sailing Miscellany 87 24-01-2021 16:46
"Ain't No Such Thing as One Anchor in the Key West Channel" S/V Blondie-Dog The Sailor's Confessional 15 09-05-2012 11:28
this ain't no iPad Sailor Robius Anchoring & Mooring 9 24-04-2012 01:32
This ain't right? knottybuoyz Multihull Sailboats 15 04-05-2008 09:36

Advertise Here


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:36.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.