Great Barrier Reef "cooked" to death

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Because we are discussing the GBR it should be:

With friends like that, who needs anemones?

Whoa. That is better. A gold star(fish) for you!

[Exile]

Friends of Science is a non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals. We have assembled a Scientific Advisory Board of esteemed climate scientists from around the world to offer a critical mass of current science on global climate and climate change to policy makers, as well as any other interested parties. We also do extensive literature research on these scientific subjects. Concerned about the abuse of science displayed in the politically inspired Kyoto protocol, we offer critical evidence that challenges the premises of Kyoto and present alternative causes of climate change.

Our major environmental concern is the significant shift in recent years away from the important emphasis of previous decades on continual reductions in air and water pollution, to focus almost exclusively on global warming. The current obsession with global warming is misguided in that climate fluctuations are natural phenomena and we suggest that adaptation should be emphasized rather than misguided attempts at control.

We do not represent any industry group, and operate on an extremely limited budget. Our operational funds are derived from membership dues and donations, contributing to the educational work we are doing in the field of science. We work to educate the public through the dissemination of relevant, balanced and objective information on Climate Change, and to support real environmental solutions.

https://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=1 (emphasis mine). So how are we supposed to determine whether the scientific evidence which supports these conclusions are any more or less reliable than the scientific evidence Jack & others cut & paste onto the thread?

Lemme guess: This organiz. is made up of

(a) evangelicals
(b) members of the Cornwall Alliance
(c) creationists
(d) ignorant white males from the U.S.
(e) conservatives
(f) Republicans
(g) any entities or person even remotely associated with Princeton prof William Happer
(h) all of the above, or alternatively whichever one is more irrelevant & slanderous
(i) all of the above because, according to L-E, they are all one and the same

I surely appreciate Jack admonishing us to "stick to the science!"

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

So how are we supposed to determine whether the scientific evidence which supports these conclusions are any more or less reliable than the scientific evidence Jack & others cut & paste onto the thread?

Lemme guess: This organiz. is made up of

(a) evangelicals
(b) members of the Cornwall Alliance
(c) creationists
(d) ignorant white males from the U.S.
(e) conservatives
(f) Republicans
(g) any entities or person even remotely associated with Princeton prof William Happer
(h) all of the above, or alternatively whichever one is more irrelevant & slanderous
(i) all of the above because, according to L-E, they are all one and the same

Sure, make sh1t up. That'll work.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

If the friends if science (as opposed to acquaintances or even family members we'd prefer not to talk about) say that global warming is a myth, that's good enough for me.



https://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

As a Calgarian I well acquainted with your source of nonsene.

The Friends of Science are a Calgary based fossil fuel industry funded Cult of Ra who have been found to be in violation of advertising standards in Canada.

A decision by Advertising Standards Canada (ASC) doesn’t think the Friends of Science Society are all that friendly to science.

The ASC received 96 complaints about a billboard ad in Montreal that had a picture of the sun with the Earth beside it and the words: “The Sun is the Main Driver of Climate Change. Not You. Not CO2” in two areas of Montreal.

n March the ASC found that the ad violated clauses 1(b), (e) — which deals with accuracy and clarity — and 8 –which deals with professional or scientific claims — of the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards.

“After careful consideration, Council found that the categorical and unequivocal claims made in both advertisements could not be supported by the preponderance of current evidence on the matters in dispute,” the council wrote in their decision. “In addition, Council found in the case of the advertisement that claimed ‘The sun is the main driver…’, that it omitted relevant information, namely that a number of factors have led to climate change, of which the sun is just one.”

Advertising Standards Canada upholds ruling against Friends of Science billboard | Globalnews.ca

The Friends of Science really are FOS. Urban Dictionary: FOS

As well

While one American-based climate change skeptic walked away with a $541 soapstone carving, Talisman Energy and other donors to “research” funds at the University of Calgary received tax receipts as a result of a public relations campaign to cast doubt on global warming science, newly released records have revealed.

The revelations from hundreds of pages of invoices and accounting documents from an internal audit come as the university and Talisman, an Alberta-based energy company, move to distance themselves from the sophisticated international marketing and lobbying effort to discredit scientific evidence linking human activity to climate change.

The “research” funds were set up at the university in 2004 by Barry Cooper, a political science professor, in partnership with an anti-Kyoto Protocol group calling itself the Friends of Science, and public relations firms APCO Worldwide, Morten Paulsen Consulting and Fleishman-Hillard Canada – where Paulsen worked as a senior vice-president before moving over to his current job as a consultant for the university’s school of public policy.

https://mikedesouza.com/2012/12/07/u...rians/#more-55

Reef you really do need to check out the veracity of your sources rather than going with your won confirmation bias.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Exile

Friends of Science is a non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals. We have assembled a Scientific Advisory Board of esteemed climate scientists from around the world to offer a critical mass of current science on global climate and climate change to policy makers, as well as any other interested parties. We also do extensive literature research on these scientific subjects. Concerned about the abuse of science displayed in the politically inspired Kyoto protocol, we offer critical evidence that challenges the premises of Kyoto and present alternative causes of climate change.

Our major environmental concern is the significant shift in recent years away from the important emphasis of previous decades on continual reductions in air and water pollution, to focus almost exclusively on global warming. The current obsession with global warming is misguided in that climate fluctuations are natural phenomena and we suggest that adaptation should be emphasized rather than misguided attempts at control.

We do not represent any industry group, and operate on an extremely limited budget. Our operational funds are derived from membership dues and donations, contributing to the educational work we are doing in the field of science. We work to educate the public through the dissemination of relevant, balanced and objective information on Climate Change, and to support real environmental solutions.

https://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=1 (emphasis mine). So how are we supposed to determine whether the scientific evidence which supports these conclusions are any more or less reliable than the scientific evidence Jack & others cut & paste onto the thread?

Lemme guess: This organiz. is made up of

(a) evangelicals
(b) members of the Cornwall Alliance
(c) creationists
(d) ignorant white males from the U.S.
(e) conservatives
(f) Republicans
(g) any entities or person even remotely associated with Princeton prof William Happer
(h) all of the above, or alternatively whichever one is more irrelevant & slanderous
(i) all of the above because, according to L-E, they are all one and the same

I surely appreciate Jack admonishing us to "stick to the science!"

Coming from a member of the flat earth society no doubt.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

So how are we supposed to determine whether the scientific evidence which supports these conclusions are any more or less reliable than the scientific evidence Jack & others cut & paste onto the thread?

You use your CRAAP detector.

https://www.csuchico.edu/lins/handou...l_websites.pdf

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

[COLOR="Navy"]

Lemme guess: This organiz. is made up of

(a) evangelicals
(b) members of the Cornwall Alliance
(c) creationists
(d) ignorant white males from the U.S.
(e) conservatives
(f) Republicans
(g) any entities or person even remotely associated with Princeton prof William Happer
(h) all of the above, or alternatively whichever one is more irrelevant & slanderous
(i) all of the above because, according to L-E, they are all one and the same

I surely appreciate Jack admonishing us to "stick to the science!"

Rather sloppy thinking. Had you bother to check your source you would find:

Friends of Science Society
P.O. Box 23167, Mission Post Office
Calgary, AB T2S 3B1
Canada

Yep - they are residents of my own city.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

As a Calgarian I well acquainted with your source of nonsene.

The Friends of Science are a Calgary based fossil fuel industry funded Cult of Ra who have been found to be in violation of advertising standards in Canada.





Advertising Standards Canada upholds ruling against Friends of Science billboard | Globalnews.ca

The Friends od Science really are FOS. Urban Dictionary: FOS

As well



https://mikedesouza.com/2012/12/07/u...rians/#more-55

Reef you really do need to check out the veracity of your sources rather than going with your won confirmation bias.

Have they been pinged for kitten torture yet? 21st century witch burning at its finest.

Oh well, at least we know now why Michael "98% of the Great Barrier Reef is dead" Mann doesn't advertise on Canadian billboards.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Have they been pinged for kitten torture yet? 21st century witch burning at its finest.

Oh well, at least we know now why Michael "98% of the Great Barrier Reef is dead" Mann doesn't advertise on Canadian billboards.

In Canada we seem to respect truth more than some our neighbours to the south.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Sure, make sh1t up. That'll work.

Oh my, did I exaggerate a tad too much? Apologies. Only highlighting your propensity towards stereotyping is all.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

In Canada we seem to respect truth more than some our neighbours to the south.

In the U.S. we seem to respect truth deriving from healthy debate as opposed to the type of govt. censorship preferred by our (well-respected) neighbors to the north.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Rather sloppy thinking. Had you bother to check your source you would find:



Yep - they are residents of my own city.

Comforting to know not everyone in your beautiful city thinks alike. Too bad they're not "permitted" to voice their views. And sorry I forgot to include in my list the ubiquitous fossil fuel industry as another one of your "scientific" bogeymen. I see you are obviously heeding your own advice and sticking to the science.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Have they been pinged for kitten torture yet? 21st century witch burning at its finest.

Oh well, at least we know now why Michael "98% of the Great Barrier Reef is dead" Mann doesn't advertise on Canadian billboards.

Seems to be the way it goes these days, no? If you don't approve of the message on a billboard then it's deemed to violate "advertising standards" and must be taken down. If you fund opposition research into CC by qualified scientists, then you should be prosecuted. Personally I think the best remedy for the former is simply another billboard that says the sun has little or nothing to do with GW. And the best remedy for challenging one bit of scientific research over another is peer review vs. personal attacks on scientists who question the mainstream conclusions on MMGW. But I know others prefer a less unwieldy and more controlled process than what actual democracy usually entails. I mean why question what the all-knowing govt. is saying is good for all of us deplorables??

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

In the U.S. we seem to respect truth deriving from healthy debate as opposed to the type of govt. censorship preferred by our (well-respected) neighbors to the north.

Had you bothered to read the link I posted.

The ASC is a self-regulatory body, independent of the government and is a voluntary process. So how do you make sure that one complies?

“In our experience we’ve had excellent support. It’s been in place since 1957 and it’s very, very rare that an advertiser doesn’t comply with a decision,” said Feasby.

If one doesn’t comply the ASC would approach the television station or owners of the billboards.

And on another scientific note, The Chemtrail Girls were also found to be in violation of the Code. Their transit ads consisted of a jet plane leaving condensation trails. The image was encircled in red with a line crossing it out. Written on the ad, was, “You are being sprayed with chemicals. Stop Geoengineering.”

The council found that they violated clauses 1 (e) and 11. Clause 11 deals with superstition and fears.

Not government censorship.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

And sorry I forgot to include in my list the ubiquitous fossil fuel industry as another one of your "scientific" bogeymen. I see you are obviously heeding your own advice and sticking to the science.

Many of the oil and gas companies in Alberta, including major players in the oil sands, support the introduction the carbon tax that comes in play in a month.