Great Barrier Reef "cooked" to death

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

... I don't claim to know how to fix the problem and it's not going to kill me anyway. It's our children's problem to deal with...

I hope you’re just posturing.

If not, you might ponder the old adage:
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.

[weavis]

The sun came out and the rain stopped here in Seville.

I visited the GBReef in the '90s. I took a boat trip out and enjoyed the day. Im not much for sightseeing per se but love sea life.. for a while I had several home aquariums with a large saltwater setup in the living room. I never tired of the beautiful colours of the fish. The different corals were amazing.

To see the aquatic setup in the sea free of restraint and glass, to be in the sea with all the sealife was just so overwhelmingly fantastic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EueBzS3kPe8

[Blue Stocking]

Does anyone find it interesting that we, the Cruisers, the very group who vehemently espouse our right to travel this planet, the Knights Templar ( to include Ladies in our liberal equal rights shirts ), of liberty to persue one's own agenda, could be so extremely opposed on the way to preserve this planet.
Irony comes to mind !! &

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I hope you’re just posturing.

If not, you might ponder the old adage:
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.

No posturing Gord. My generation and the one one before me created the problem by turning a blind eye toward your old adage. We made our choice and the damage is done. Unfortunately we can't turn the clock back. We are pregnant with our present lifestyles and will defend the right to have till the bitter end. Our children will come up with solutions or perish.
Like I said before, enjoy now while you still can. Time is running out.

[DDup]

Originally Posted by Blue Stocking

Does anyone find it interesting that we, the Cruisers, the very group who vehemently espouse our right to travel this planet, the Knights Templar ( to include Ladies in our liberal equal rights shirts ), of liberty to persue one's own agenda, could be so extremely opposed on the way to preserve this planet.
Irony comes to mind !! &

I find it more interesting that so much energy goes into trying to convince a group of people, cruisers, that, aside from the tiny-home-in-the-wilderness off-the-grid people, probably has the smallest, most responsible, carbon footprint, and greatest love for nature?

Is the plan to go after billionaire, captains of pollution and industry… AFTER you convince the people who live on small boats? Not too many of the former reading this thread with concern, I’d wager.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Blue Stocking

Does anyone find it interesting that we, the Cruisers, the very group who vehemently espouse our right to travel this planet, the Knights Templar ( to include Ladies in our liberal equal rights shirts ), of liberty to persue one's own agenda, could be so extremely opposed on the way to preserve this planet.
Irony comes to mind !! &

Maybe so, but at least there's likely strong agreement amongst Cruisers as a group that the planet needs preserving. Implying that people who disagree with the extent of the problem and its solutions must not care about the planet is poor reasoning and counter-productive, imho. The CC issue is unfortunately infused with politics, which means most lay people are (often unknowingly) getting their info about it from media and other second-hand, usually biased sources. Those sources put their own politically-motivated slant on it and have their own agendas, especially during these hyper-partisan times. So with all the manipulation of the actual science, credibility becomes paramount. That's why blame for the ongoing controversy levied by either side towards specific groups that oppose them seems lacking in credibility and ineffectual. Either way it has nothing to do with the actual science.

But that's just my particular take on it, and I am supremely confident others will most certainly beg to differ!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by DDup

I find it more interesting that so much energy goes into trying to convince a group of people, cruisers, that, aside from the tiny-home-in-the-wilderness off-the-grid people, probably has the smallest, most responsible, carbon footprint, and greatest love for nature?

As far as I know, people don't cruise because it is the lowest-impact recreation available to them, they cruise because they love to cruise. The small carbon footprint ... you're kind of making a virtue out of necessity.

A cruiser is basically cherry-picking the planet. We can go to the sweetest spots on the planet. (we can also get firsthand knowledge of the problem spots - eg the trash in Indonesia reported earlier). If we just dive on 100 sq meters of healthy coral, it's pretty easy to ignore that a whole ton of coral isn't so healthy.

Speaking personally, I'm not so much interested in convincing cruisers one way or another. I'm mainly here to challenge the many misconceptions, distortions and outright fabrications around AGW that still infest so much of the internet. If they have to infest CF too, at least they're not going unchallenged.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Either way it has nothing to do with the actual science.

But that's just my particular take on it, and I am supremely confident others will most certainly beg to differ!

We could just stick to actual science. Eventually policy decisions will need to be made on the basis of that actual science.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Maybe so, but at least there's likely strong agreement amongst Cruisers as a group that the planet needs preserving. Implying that people who disagree with the extent of the problem and its solutions must not care about the planet is poor reasoning and counter-productive, imho.

Just type the words "we should" "our responsibility" and "tax" in some order, in this thread, and you'll find out that the care for the planet isn't quite as deep as you might expect.

The CC issue is unfortunately infused with politics, which means most lay people are (often unknowingly) getting their info about it from media and other second-hand, usually biased sources. Those sources put their own politically-motivated slant on it and have their own agendas, especially during these hyper-partisan times. So with all the manipulation of the actual science, credibility becomes paramount. That's why blame for the ongoing controversy levied by either side towards specific groups that oppose them seems lacking in credibility and ineffectual. Either way it has nothing to do with the actual science.

Truth is truth, even if a rude imbecile says it. "Credibility" - notice how much of the anti-AGW argument is an attempt to discredit proponents and even the scientists themselves. The science is publicly available; people can dig out as much as they can handle, they don't have to go by just the public utterances of any of the advocates. So while I can sympathize with the complaint about the political slants of various advocates, at bottom it's still an excuse. What does the science actually say? We all know what they say. Or we should, if we are to have a meaningful discussion.

[or what Jackdale just said, much better, as usual]

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by jackdale

We could just stick to actual science. Eventually policy decisions will need to be made on the basis of that actual science.

Having worked soft money research for 40 years both in and out of university domains I have some sense of how R&D is accomplished.

What is worrisome is actual science is in many cases science by omission. What I mean is we study what the funding sources are willing to fund and in order to develop a continuous funding stream and continue to feed the research group/institute. One tends to go where the funding sources want you to go. You emphasize the good and downplay the bad. It's not overt maybe and it may not clean and pure either. We end up collectively drinking the bath water. And then we end up ignoring the other side of the coin, the counter hypothesis. The bandwagon rolls along.

What is most problematic about AGW is there is an agenda, a religion, and a sense that the ends justify the means for the sake of our planet.

This translates into a virulent mix of science, politics, and environmentalism where the average guy has the sense there is no one to trust. The "data," the truth, becomes lost in the fog of competing agendas.

It's where I am in the process so go ahead take your shots and tell me how screwed up I am.

[DDup]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

As far as I know, people don't cruise because it is the lowest-impact recreation available to them, they cruise because they love to cruise. The small carbon footprint ... you're kind of making a virtue out of necessity.

A cruiser is basically cherry-picking the planet. We can go to the sweetest spots on the planet. (we can also get firsthand knowledge of the problem spots - eg the trash in Indonesia reported earlier). If we just dive on 100 sq meters of healthy coral, it's pretty easy to ignore that a whole ton of coral isn't so healthy.

Speaking personally, I'm not so much interested in convincing cruisers one way or another. I'm mainly here to challenge the many misconceptions, distortions and outright fabrications around AGW that still infest so much of the internet. If they have to infest CF too, at least they're not going unchallenged.

I think people choose their lifestyle based on a combination of selfish and virtuous reasons, limited by necessity. But I do like the idea: virtue out of necessity

Before humans developed any modern technology, they lived in caves. They didn't live close to nature because they loved nature. Maybe they did love nature, maybe they didn't. They lived close to nature because they had no choice in the matter.

Now we have choices, and the choices we're collectively making might just be killing the planet. Nevertheless, I predict people will continue exercising whatever choices they have until those choices are removed.

Also, power = choices. The more power one has, the more choices one has, or the more those powerful choices affect the rest of us. And, power corrupts. As long as the big polluters have the lion's share of power and choices, the human race is in a death spiral no matter what.

I don't think the biggest problem is that people don't care about the environment. I think our biggest problem is that we exist in a kakistocracy.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

What is most problematic about AGW is there is an agenda, a religion, and a sense that the ends justify the means for the sake of our planet.

This translates into a virulent mix of science, politics, and environmentalism where the average guy has the sense there is no one to trust. The "data," the truth, becomes lost in the fog of competing agendas.

It's where I am in the process so go ahead take your shots and tell me how screwed up I am.

Within the science, do you have any evidence of your assertion expressed in your first sentence? What exactly is this agenda of which you speak?

What about the agenda(s) of the Heartland Institute, The Cato Institute (and other Koch family funded organizations), etc.?


AGW skeptics are also government funded:
- Spencer and Christy's research is solely funded by NASA, NOAA and DOE
- Curry, Legates, Pielke Jr., etc have all had National Science Foundation awards
- Richard Lindzen alone collected $3,000,000 in NSF funding during his career

[chris95040]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Having worked soft money research for 40 years both in and out of university domains I have some sense of how R&D is accomplished.

What is worrisome is actual science is in many cases science by omission. What I mean is we study what the funding sources are willing to fund and in order to develop a continuous funding stream and continue to feed the research group/institute. One tends to go where the funding sources want you to go. You emphasize the good and downplay the bad. It's not overt maybe and it may not clean and pure either. We end up collectively drinking the bath water. And then we end up ignoring the other side of the coin, the counter hypothesis. The bandwagon rolls along.

What is most problematic about AGW is there is an agenda, a religion, and a sense that the ends justify the means for the sake of our planet.

This translates into a virulent mix of science, politics, and environmentalism where the average guy has the sense there is no one to trust. The "data," the truth, becomes lost in the fog of competing agendas.

It's where I am in the process so go ahead take your shots and tell me how screwed up I am.

Hmmm. I don't think it's nearly as broken as you describe. I look around and see all the important, useful advances we've made in our understanding of the world as a result of the scientific method. I am forced to conclude from these observations that the role of science in our world is unambiguously, profoundly helpful.

All human organizations are subject to silly short term problems due to the fact that we are all a bunch of self serving dummies. Scientists aren't necessarily benevolent and truth-serving, I get it. But the scientific *process* (where literally every "truth" is subject to be thrown out if observation demonstrates it's flawed with respect to a better, more predictive "truth", eventually) is, IMHO, the best example we have of an (admittedly imperfect) organization structure filtering out the short-term wonkiness of human nature and providing consistent, beneficial progress.

Maybe the conclusions of climate scientists are driven by a systemic, "religious" belief in the manner you describe, and this is one of those short term screwups of the scientific method. But that's certainly not the bet I'd make. And either way, with the stakes this high, I'd play it safe.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Within the science, do you have any evidence of your assertion expressed in your first sentence? What exactly is this agenda of which you speak?

What about the agenda(s) of the Heartland Institute, The Cato Institute (and other Koch family funded organizations), etc.?


AGW skeptics are also government funded:
- Spencer and Christy's research is solely funded by NASA, NOAA and DOE
- Curry, Legates, Pielke Jr., etc have all had National Science Foundation awards
- Richard Lindzen alone collected $3,000,000 in NSF funding during his career

You're joking right?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

You're joking right?

Deadly serious.