Great Barrier Reef "cooked" to death

[svYikes]

The thing that annoys most climate change believers is that science so far has not asked us to change what we do, just how we do it. Had we heeded this call some 40 years ago when the threat started to become understood we most likely would have far more advanced clean and renewable energy-efficient technology. Imagine not having to refuel for auxiliary propulsion. Nah on second thoughts I prefer paying hundreds of dollars to refuel then carrying hundreds of kilos of volatile fuel aboard. The change to what would otherwise have been a much better outcome is only difficult now because we were hoodwinked by vested interests. And for those that think scientific community is a vested interest when was the last time you met a lab coater wearing bling and driving a benz?

[Celestialsailor]

I'm sensing a dark cloud entering this thread. Looks like this thread is doomed.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

I'm sensing a dark cloud entering this thread. Looks like this thread is doomed.

Don't be ridiculous. Barring censorship, courteous debate isn't a "dark cloud".

[Juho]

Originally Posted by chala

Let just start by reducing waste, sure some people will find all kind of excuses not to participate but they will be a minority.

That's a good approach, but only partial. I tend to think that we should focus on few key topics since otherwise there is a risk that we get lost on all the details, multitude of activities, negative side effects, and human interest in trying to avoid whatever is unpleasant.

If we look at the GBR problem, science says that it is mostly caused by heat, and heat is mostly caused by excessive CO2, and that is caused by burning too much fossil fuel. The technical solution to this problem is very trivial. Don't burn that much fossil fuel. The political solution is unfortunately much more difficult to find.

So, reducing waste is a good thing to do, but one should make sure that this project does not take anything away from the key project of reducing the consumption of fossil fuel. The risk I see is that people tend to prefer the less painful tasks, and forget the key task. That applies to both denialists and alarmists. On the alarmist side I see similar risks e.g. in the interest to increase production and consumption of less harmful electricity. The risk is that such activities do not necessarily reduce emissions, although people might think they do.

Greenish people are tempted to buy new green stuff, and buy themselves good conscience that way. Strategic denialists try to lead the discussion to random details and doubts of everything. We may never reach the primary goal if we let both groups lead the discussion and activities to small corners. Science already knows what the problem is and what the easy cure is. We just need to stay focused and not let the human nature lead us to the easy escape routes.

I thus strongly support your proposal, but at the same time, want to keep the main goal clearly in the minds, and not slip an inch.

Also in this discussion thread you can see many attempts to move the discussion to debate on numerous secondary topics. My key point is that by now we have a strong (>95%) scientific consensus on what's going on, and no excuses left. The necessary corrections to our society (= reduce consumption of fossil fuel) seem less harmful than continuing the current path without doing anything. Advances in technology make it possible to offer a good standard of living also with smaller energy consumption. We just have to give up the idea of consuming all the resources that we can reach. And politicians need to learn new tricks (= how to do it).

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

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??

Gee. Normally you go with the even-handed "there are pros and cons, too bad the advocates distort everything, it's no wonder we're skeptics" schtick for at least a few rounds, before you lose it. Pressed for time? And really, what have you got to be bitter about regarding AGW? Stuff is finally going your way, no? It seems money and lies can beat truth, after all.

[NorthSea]

Friends of Science (FoS) is a Canadian non-profit advocacy organization based in Calgary, Alberta. The organization takes a position that humans are largely not responsible for the currently observed global warming, contrary to the established scientific position on the subject. Rather, they propose that "the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change," not human activity. They argued against the Kyoto Protocol.[1] The society was founded in 2002 and launched its website in October of that year.[2][3] They are considered by many to promote climate change denial. They are largely funded by the fossil fuel industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Science


If you want to inform yourself Storms Of My Grandchildren by James Hansen the world's foremost climate scientist, former Director of the NASA Goddard Space Institute and Director of Program on Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions at Columbia University's Earth Institute is a good place to start. James Balogh's "Chasing Ice" is an interesting study in video.


The worst case was propounded by James Lovelock. He thinks that as ocean levels rise, more and more people will be displaced resulting in wars over territory. When it all shakes out, there will be one billion people left at the higher latitudes and elevations.



The jokers will joke and the mockers will mock and if they comprise the majority, we are toast.



I find it incomprehensible that there are so many uninformed people.

[SV DestinyAscen]

Worth mentioning that FoS is based in Alberta - where tar sands extraction was the booming industry until oil prices dropped below 60 a barrel and it stopped being profitable.

If one looked at climate change denial positions by industry, it largely comes from coal and tar sands. Fracking gas and oil tend to be less concerned because of lower emissions and they make money at lower market rates.

I'm not one of those eco radicals that want to phase out fossil fuel. Thanks to modern drilling we have more proven oil reserves than previously expected and I'd rather burn oil and gas than harvest oil from tar sands - which FoS will probably target if source based legislation were inplace .

[kmacdonald]

The fact is, if we don't run out of fossil fuels before destroying the earth then we will destroy the earth. Now get over it and go sailing.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Had you bothered to read the link I posted.



OK, how about just Not government censorship.

I did not "bother" to read your link because you didn't "bother" to explain why you linked to it. Once again your selective quotes fail to explain how a non-govt'l entity (comprised of the Canadian advertising industry) ensures compliance with its dictates. Instead we get:

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

"Approach" them with what?? Has all the compliance over the years truly been "voluntary" as stated:

"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 . . . .”

This statement implies voluntary compliance, as does yours. Little wonder that you left a couple of things out:

5.8 Enforcement of Advertising Dispute Panel Decision
In sustaining a Complaint, the Advertising Dispute Panel may require the defendant Advertiser to withdraw the Advertising in question or amend the Advertising in such manner as to not offend against the provisions of the Code. The defendant Advertiser will be requested to confirm in writing receipt of the Advertising Dispute Panel’s decision (or, where applicable, the decision of the Appeal Panel), and required to declare in writing to ASC within four (4) working days of receiving such decision that the defendant Advertiser will:

(a) comply with the decision either by withdrawing the advertising in question or amending it as proposed in the decision; or

(b) appeal the decision, in the case of an Advertising Dispute Panel decision.

Well, what about this right to appeal? You have 4 days(!) BUT you are required to withdraw the "offending" advertisement as a condition of taking an appeal. Advertising Dispute Procedure - The Procedure Hmmmm . . . not exactly an abundance of due process with this aspect of speech which enjoys much higher legal protections in the U.S. In fact, we would call this an unconstitutional "prior restraint." But no matter, yours is a different country whose citizens strike a different balance in the difficult task of weighing the inherent pros & cons when it comes to freedom of speech. Not for me to judge . . . .

In any event, what does this or the fact that FOS is at least partially funded by the fossil fuel industry have anything to do with their scientific opinion that the sun is the primary driver of GW?? Even the ASC did not dispute "that a number of factors have led to climate change, of which the sun is just one.” Instead, they censored the ad on the grounds that FOS represented that the sun was the "main driver." OK, but it seems healthier for the "truth" seeking process to simply post another ad that explains the mainstream opinion why FOS has it wrong and let the people decide. But whatever . . . .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

In any event, what does [advertising standards] or the fact that FOS is at least partially funded by the fossil fuel industry have anything to do with their scientific opinion that the sun is the primary driver of GW??

Um, because FoS is a PR front, not a research or scientific organization. They were set up and funded to say what their benefactors wanted them to say, not to do legitimate research and report honestly. This is manifest in their founding and leadership. That should matter, don'cha think?

It's an easy assertion to test; link us to the peer-reviewed paper from FoS where they lay out their case for stating that the sun is the primary driver of GW.

Even the ASC did not dispute "that a number of factors have led to climate change, of which the sun is just one.” Instead, they censored the ad on the grounds that FOS represented that the sun was the "main driver." OK, but it seems healthier for the "truth" seeking process to simply post another ad that explains the mainstream opinion why FOS has it wrong and let the people decide. But whatever . . . .

So truth-seeking is reduced to who had the most and best billboards. Nice. The legacy of "Citizens United" in a nutshell. Works out well for owners of billboards though...

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Gee. Normally you go with the even-handed "there are pros and cons, too bad the advocates distort everything, it's no wonder we're skeptics" schtick for at least a few rounds, before you lose it. Pressed for time? And really, what have you got to be bitter about regarding AGW? Stuff is finally going your way, no? It seems money and lies can beat truth, after all.

I keep tryin' to tell ya, L-E -- excessive stereotyping can really limit a guy . . . .

Check this out, for e.g.:

Ivanka Trump, climate czar? - POLITICO

OK, OK, so the father said CC was all a "Chinese hoax." But we know the guy has & will say anything, right? Can't predict but wouldn't be surprised if he wound up disappointing a lot of conservatives. I know what a burden it must be as the self-appointed guardian of the one & only "truth" on this forum, but try not to take yourself so seriously. Everything's gonna be all right.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I keep tryin' to tell ya, L-E -- excessive stereotyping can really limit a guy . . . .

hey, you're a skeptic on AGW action, you have claimed to lean GOP, GOP won big... there's no stereotyping there, it's simply what you've already told us.

Have fun while truth takes a vacation, and save up for a billboard of your very own.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Um, because FoS is a PR front, not a research or scientific organization. They were set up and funded to say what their benefactors wanted them to say, not to do legitimate research and report honestly. This is manifest in their founding and leadership. That should matter, don'cha think?

It's an easy assertion to test; link us to the peer-reviewed paper from FoS where they lay out their case for stating that the sun is the primary driver of GW.

So truth-seeking is reduced to who had the most and best billboards. Nice. The legacy of "Citizens United" in a nutshell. Works out well for owners of billboards though...

Well, Hillary clearly had the most billboards and look what happened to her? Actually, it sounded as though the ASC was at least partially motivated towards censorship of a scientific opinion not because of the number of billboards but by the number of complaints:

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.

“That’s quite a lot for us,” said Janet Feasby, vice president of the ASC. “Because the complaints are mostly about retail advertising, it’s usually just one or two… 10 would be a lot.”

In the U.S. the 1st Amend. is designed to protect the minority view from the "tyranny of the majority." So we don't take a poll when it comes to censorship, just like scientists don't take a poll when it comes to scientific opinion.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

In the U.S. the 1st Amend. is designed to protect the minority view from the "tyranny of the majority."

The advocacy organization FoS purchased and erected an ADVERTISEMENT, which immediately falls under advertising rules and guidelines. The US has advertising rules and guidelines too. You can't just put any old thing on a billboard. Try it.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

hey, you're a skeptic on AGW action, you have claimed to lean GOP, GOP won big... there's no stereotyping there, it's simply what you've already told us.

Have fun while truth takes a vacation, and save up for a billboard of your very own.

You must be telepathic, along with clearly having extraordinary insight into "truth." It's a good thing you are here to censor us into the one & only proper thinking on MMGW . . . oops, sorry . . . I meant AGW . . . oops, sorry . . . I meant CC. Whew, I'm startin' to feel your burden!

Kidding aside, I do feel you're finally making some progress with your little obsession with all things stereotyped. You did, after all, just call me a "skeptic" as opposed to a "denier." Probably just an oversight . . . feel free to correct.