The Reef Ain't Dead

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Well, sure. To protect society from bad welders, there are training, standards, inspections, and disciplinary mechanisms. To protect us from corrupt businessmen... sorry, what were we talking about, again?

Anyway, the secret sauce of science is supposed to be the process. The practitioners of science ("scientists") are expected to do research and perform experiments to a high standard and in a manner that makes their work repeatable, because a bunch of their peers are going to do just that, and bring up any objections or quibbles they have with the work or the results and conclusions. It's the best system we have for minimizing the effects of error, bias or other corrupting influences in such work. It kind of works; just look around. And the times that there were errors, distortion or fakery in science stand out because they are so rare, all things considered.

But attacking scientists and portraying them as just tenure-seeking grant-magnets is the only way deniers have of knocking down their widely-held conclusions about AGW and its effects on climate.

OK. But I was not attacking scientists. I only showed that scientists are like any other professionals - some are spades, and others are hopeless.


Look. When we say : " ...the secret sauce of science is supposed to be the process ..." you probably see the parallel of "... the secret sauce of government is supposed to be the process... " (of democracy, in US, EU, etc.).


And yet, we all know the process does not work. Or to say the least, it does not work as advertised.


I have zero doubt some scientists are very bad scientists, very bad people and corrupt by money offered by the drivers (businesses, governments, individuals).


I also have zero doubt there are many very mediocre scientists around. Last Covid crisis delivered plenty of proof.


But this is a rant, not the core of what I am saying here.


barnakiel

[barnakiel]

Because what I am saying, what I am trying to say is:


We do not need to look up to scientists to say what is happening with the ocean. All we have to do is look overboard.

Stop looking up to scientists for 'proofs'. The proof is right here in front of your nose.

Stop looking up to gods for telling you what is good and bad.

Stop delegating. Stop populating. Stop polluting.


barnakiel

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Look. When we say : " ...the secret sauce of science is supposed to be the process ..." you probably see the parallel of "... the secret sauce of government is supposed to be the process... " (of democracy, in US, EU, etc.).

I don't agree with that. I think that unlike government or other social processes you might name, the modern scientific process was arrived at to produce the most accurate and truthful knowledge possible, free of the compromises and considerations that are necessary in government, etc. The scientific process isn't perfect, or always free of all pernicious influences, but it's the best at minimizing the effects of those "human" errors and influences. There is nothing better out there. It works pretty good.

Originally Posted by barnakiel

We do not need to look up to scientists to say what is happening with the ocean. All we have to do is look overboard.

Stop looking up to scientists for 'proofs'. The proof is right here in front of your nose.

Stop looking up to gods for telling you what is good and bad.

Stop delegating. Stop populating. Stop polluting.

People can't or won't acknowledge that. Instead they seek out or fabricate rationalizations and excuses for denying what is obvious, attacking the messengers, and avoiding the responsibility, necessity and cost of change.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

...We can do lots of things and throw trillions of dollars at the concern but how much impact can we have and at what cost? ...

Now we're getting somewhere.
A discussion about solutions, rather than a denial of reality.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Now we're getting somewhere.
A discussion about solutions, rather than a denial of reality.

And of course, since the majority of people in the world are painfully aware that the problem is very real indeed, the math has been done, and the consensus (that pesky word again) is that the one thing that we truly can't afford is to ignore the problem.

All this talk about 'cost' only verifies the lack of understanding many people have about how the financial system we operate under works, or even the theoretical, arbitrary aspects of 'money' in general.

Here's a hint. Credit was invented before money (perhaps before modern humans, or even humans at all). Debt, which is the monetary system most of us labor under now, is a comparitively new invention, and is a system of manipulation and control.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

There are bad welders and corrupt businessmen around.


Ergo there are bad and corrupt scientists too.


"Scientists are like any other profession, they are either a benefit or a hazard. When they are a benefit, that's not my problem."


b.

Glad you brought this up - the gist of the denier's argument would be that they don't believe in welding because there are bad welders.
Really, they should just stop. Their arguments are irrational and not anchored to any objective reality.
But here is good news for the denier - no matter how it turns out, they will be correct! One of two things will happen 1) those who accept anthropomorphic climate change will do the hard work of solving the problem or 2) the deniers and nihilists will prevail and climate change will devastate the planet.
In scenario 1 their ilk will say "see, told you it wasn't a real problem and your engineering made no difference" or scenario 2 "see, it was inevitable". Heads they win, tails I lose. That is, if all they care about is being right.

That is what is so sad about folks with these views - they sit around, deny, berate, and disparage people who actually do know what is going on, contribute nothing, and then claim they were right all along. Pathetic.

[RaymondR]

To keep it civil we need to keep the term "deniers" out of the debate. It was deliberately coined by AGM/CC zealots to equate sceptics with Holocaust deniers and consequently has no place in civil discourse.

At the moment, with the excess human population the earth is carrying, a shortening of the growing season and less CO2 in the atmosphere would be a far greater disaster for human kind than the longer season with enhanced CO2 driven plant growth rates.

We do know (the scientists are telling us) that in the last 650,000 or so years the earth has oscillated between warm and ice age periods, that is the climate changes and on past history we are due another cooling.

We now have a number of cheap and readily available means of contraception which could be used to begin reducing the human population of the planet quiet benignly. It's largely a matter of consensus and indoctrination.

Yet here in Australia the only effective solutions proposed by the proponents of AGM/CC are more taxes to discourage power consumption and total reliance on so called "renewables" even though the fairly minimalist penetration so far has lead to destabilization of the electricity grid and poor reliability of same. Is it any wonder that scepticism abounds?

Be mindful that professor Ridd is a scientist and he was fired for criticizing other scientists who he believed were propagating junk science. Yep, shoot the messenger, always a good method of arousing suspicion of ones real motives.

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

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.

Absolutely, no doubt it’s also about interplay as opposed to absolutes! I’m sure tidal flow, current, high pressure ‘weather’ and swell all play their part.

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.

I tend to be of the opinion it’s more about the ‘highs’ than the low pressures that have an effect in this context.

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 neither helpful nor are "THE REEF IS DEAD" headlines.

What are we when we stop asking questions?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

To keep it civil we need to keep the term "deniers" out of the debate. It was deliberately coined by AGM/CC zealots to equate sceptics with Holocaust deniers and consequently has no place in civil discourse.

At the moment, with the excess human population the earth is carrying, a shortening of the growing season and less CO2 in the atmosphere would be a far greater disaster for human kind than the longer season with enhanced CO2 driven plant growth rates.

Those two paragraphs don't go together.

You want to be respected for having genuine skepticism, yet you follow up with a nonsensical and off-point comment about less CO2.

If you are skeptical, what are you skeptical about?

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

What are we when we stop asking questions?

If we don't question what powers have aligned themselves against the well-supported scientific finding of AGW, and we continue to parrot long-discredited counter-arguments while simultaneously impugning the dedication and integrity of science and the people doing it... we are deniers. Pretty simple.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I don't agree with that. I think that unlike government or other social processes you might name, the modern scientific process was arrived at to produce the most accurate and truthful knowledge possible, free of the compromises and considerations that are necessary in government, etc. The scientific process isn't perfect, or always free of all pernicious influences, but it's the best at minimizing the effects of those "human" errors and influences. There is nothing better out there. It works pretty good.


(...)

I am 100% with you here. I too agree the process, the method, is pretty good. Or at least as good as we have today.



My dissatisfaction is not with the process, it is with the people.


I believe we will all agree Alfred Nobel meant no harm when he invented dynamite. Also Robert Oppenheimer was a modern scientist.


The problem is not the process. The problem is us. Scientists, consumers, politicians, sailors. Us. Me and you.


The process is fine.



barnakiel

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by StuM

Once again you reveal how little you actually know about the subject.

Yes, thank you for that

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.

Correct, Coral bleaching is more widespread (geographically) in 2020. I was referring to 2016. When referring to reef health it’s always useful to state datum and timeframe as things fluctuate Are you implying this bleaching is due to 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.

“Healthier”, please refer to datum, pre 2016?
run off, Water quality, sedimentation, natural selection? The real question is why?

What are your thoughts on the actual causes of bleaching? Why less bleaching in the north this year? Why less bleaching in the central region in 2016/17?

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

We have millions of years of data supporting climate does change. The important questions are:
- How much is caused by human activity?
- And even more importantly, how much can we change it?

Time not important, only life important! That goes for all species!

https://youtu.be/DrB9ciZTxyo

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

We tend to forget, that up to a point, knowledge was mostly stored, processed and also created by religious people, NOT by scientists. It used to be monks, priests and popes that were the most educated people around (well read, speaking languages, traveling, etc.).

b.

40,000 year old creation ‘myth’

One morning the hunter took the two wives fishing, knowing it was taboo to kill the sacred black stingray. But, [U]vain and self-important, ]/U] he sent his spear plunging towards the ceremonial fish. Once attacked, the black stingray beat its wing-like fins, causing a great storm and the ocean to rise.

.....and the Great Barrier Reef was created.

Oh the irony, sea level rising created TGBR

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by GordMay

A discussion about solutions, rather than a denial of reality.

Irregardless of cause, Genetic engineering, grafting, transplants, selective breeding are all scary words!

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If we don't question what powers have aligned themselves against the well-supported scientific finding of AGW, and we continue to parrot long-discredited counter-arguments while simultaneously impugning the dedication and integrity of science and the people doing it... we are deniers. Pretty simple.

No, just slow!

But don’t stop people asking questions, stopping conversation gets us nowhere.