Great Barrier Reef "cooked" to death

[SV DestinyAscen]

I have neither the education or experience to know whether humans have contributed to climate change.

But I'm old enough to remember urban smog, acid rain. Dioxin poisoned kids, etc.

I'm of the mind to think globally and act locally and act reasonably. In the GBR it seems that most of the damage has been northern warm currents - at the local level there's nothing we can do to impact the current flow, but we can mitigate agricultural runoff which is a genuine problem. However as is the case in these things, there's a race to the bottom in certain regions. The south China Sea is a dump. Indonesia/Malaysian waters are a dump. Try not to add to the dump.

[jackdale]

A record number of corals just died at the Great Barrier Reef | Popular Science

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by leftbrainstuff

The business side of science has latched onto global warming as the ultimate way to demand funding and not have to solve short term problems. Please fund my project and dont ask me to deliver anything meaningful for 50 years. It's snake oil and magic elixir peddling. It's almost impossible to get funding to solve immediate problems.

Always curious to see someone with "3 degrees and a background in complex systems" say something like that above, about an entire scientific field. So, for perspective, since you are in a science-based discipline: have you yourself latched onto a long-term-funded project or issue that you don't really have to deliver on? Have you faked or distorted results to maintain this sweet ride? Are you avoiding short-term fixable problems? I ask because you seem to have confidence in accusing an entire branch of science of such behaviour.

Global warming is very much a wicked problem. John Sterman's complex system model explains the challenges in using dumbed down linear thinking. We can easily solve problems created by human abuse of the environment. But there is no political will to take action.

Why do we not see action on things we can address today with immediate benefit? Overfishing, ocean dumping, emissions, poor house design, peak hour commutimg, increasing first world waste and consumption, etc. Because these require traditional businesses and markets to be completely disrupted.

Address these issues and global change will take care of itself. If we continue to consume 120% of resources guess what will happen?

... I agree. All these need addressing, and the plus is that they address both the specific problem AND help mitigate AGW. But as I mentioned previously, AGW is the proxy for all eco-issues, and the successful denial of the AGW problem has also blocked action on the other issues. And God forbid you suggest any alteration to unrestricted capitalism.

We don't even understand the problem we need to study. This is step 1 of the scientific method. Next comes our hypothesis, then experiments, then we can gain insights. Then we publish and do it all again.

Um, the best people in the climate science business have been giving the same message of AGW for almost 20 years, and their methodology and conclusions have been scrutinized endlessly, without materially affecting the findings. Nonetheless, I totally agree we need to keep studying, yet the greatest nation on Earth is about to defund one of the premiere, competent scientific institutions on the planet. Go figure.

[markpl]

This is very interesting thread, what surprised me are amount of people who don't believe science.
Guys when you sailing be very cautious, Earth is flat, at list for You!!!

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

So, should we address AGW, or the other pressing ecological issues? All of the above, I say.

Yes, I take your points, nicely put.

Maybe its time to change the message?

If Coke's 'Adds Life' doesn't work anymore they can be the message to "The Real Thing".

Especially now there maybe a more business oriented political focus from above that appears anti-global warming perhaps its time to turn down the heat on it and extol virtues of a cleaner Asia so someone can build golf courses on it.

My point is everyone can see gross pollution. We know its bad and we know how to fix it. Climate Change is too inaccessible theme for most people to believe, but if CNN ever got off its corrupt bums they can show it and people can all say 'yeah, right, lets fix it'.


We can re-emphasize other "messages" in a few years, hopefully with some fresh findings like a few submerged countries.

Marketing science is like any FMCG: keep the message only while it works. Then get a better message.

[kmacdonald]

When something goes wrong you got to blame it on something. Gota have a villain to demonize.

[buzzstar]

What I have gleaned from this thread: "Scientists" also study lemmings, but there is little interdisciplinary transfer of knowledge.

[kmacdonald]

And different studies with different results don't add much confidence.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

And different studies with different results don't add much confidence.

Not sure to what you refer. The hockey stick has been replicated at least 38 times using different data sets and different methodolgies.

Seeing the environmental forest: Enough hockey sticks for a team

[kmacdonald]

38 is not many. Just think of all the IT professionals that jumped on the Y2K gravy train.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

38 is not many. Just think of all the IT professionals that jumped on the Y2K gravy train.

Yeah, the world was coming to an end on New Years Eve 1999. Another Apocalypse that never happened while Al Gore was vice president.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

My point is everyone can see gross pollution. We know its bad and we know how to fix it. Climate Change is too inaccessible theme for most people to believe, but if CNN ever got off its corrupt bums they can show it and people can all say 'yeah, right, lets fix it'.

Gross pollution is often very visible, or otherwise detectable (rise in cancer rates, breathing problems, etc). The stuff that's right in our face... we've gotten to alot of it - smog, ozone, Love Canal, water pollution - but mainly in the neat tidy prosperous 1st-world nations we call home. The pollution not in our face... especially from less developed countries that we outsourced to... out of sight out of mind.

We know how to fix it over there too, as you say, but ... hey, lookit my new sneakers! Dig this jacket! Like my new iThing?

Marketing science is like any FMCG: keep the message only while it works. Then get a better message.

Kind of a sad commentary on these times if we have to market science and reality. But we know the success of the anti-science message, so marketing definitely works.

[tuskie]

Originally Posted by arsenelupiga

So, is it worth sailing up there to Lizard Island or only up to Cairns or even less ?

I am keen free diver.

Most definitely! There is still a great environment to enjoy, north of Cairns. 44C's assessment is accurate; the coral is in better condition south of Cairns. However, the fish, islands and bird life are better to the north. Hopefully the corals in the northern section will recover over the next few years.

It is very important to have cruisers go to these areas, especially those who dive and can reliably report what is actually happening. These accurate, first hand reports will balance those of climate change deniers who refuse to see and acknowledge the "bloody obvious".

[uncle stinkybob]

Science? or more political/economic bullsquat? I have listened to Freeman Dyson for many years. He makes much more sense than the emotional lefty/greenys that use science to attain their own agenda.
https://youtu.be/52Mx0_8YEtg
https://youtu.be/BiKfWdXXfIs

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by uncle stinkybob

Science? or more political/economic bullsquat? I have listened to Freeman Dyson for many years. He makes much more sense than the emotional lefty/greenys that use science to attain their own agenda.
https://youtu.be/52Mx0_8YEtg
https://youtu.be/BiKfWdXXfIs

Yale Environment 360: First of all, was that article substantially accurate about your views?

Freeman Dyson: It’s difficult to say, “Yes” or “No.” It was reasonably accurate on details, because they did send a fact-checker. So I was able to correct the worst mistakes. But what I could not correct was the general emphasis of the thing. He had his agenda. Obviously he wanted to write a piece about global warming and I was just the instrument for that, and I am not so much interested in global warming. He portrayed me as sort of
obsessed with the subject, which I am definitely not. To me it is a very small part of my life. I don’t claim to be an expert. I never did. I simply find that a lot of these claims that experts are making are absurd. Not that I know better, but I know a few things. My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have. I think that’s what upsets me.

Freeman Dyson Takes on <br/>the Climate Establishment by Michael D. Lemonick: Yale Environment 360