The Reef Ain't Dead

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Yes the reef ain't dead. Can you claim it's in robust good health, or that there's no serious threats to it, now and in the near future?

In a reef that size, you're always going to be able to find several patches of a hundred square meters or so that look ok and have pretty fishies for the day-trippers, so no fear of losing the tourism.

And with a reef that size, you're always going to be able to find several patches of a hundred square meters or so that look bad with no pretty fishies.

That's the problem, if things aren't horrible, the grants dry up, so the scientists who want to work, make sure they pick the side that generates the grants.

[dannc]

I think many people of heard of Eisenhower's Military Industrial Complex(MIC) speech.

How many people have actually READ Eisenhower's Military Industrial Complex(MIC) speech?

One should. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_cen...enhower001.asp

Eisenhower's Military Industrial Complex(MIC) speech actually has seven sections but two broad topics. What is interesting is that one only hears about the Military Industrial Complex(MIC) topic but not the other topic.

Why?

Here is a snippet at the heart of Ike's speech. Part III is very applicable to today's events. Part IV covers the MIC and the missing topic. Part V, well, the warning in Part V is too late...

III.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.

IV.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

V.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

Some things have improved since Ike's speech. But many things have not.

Course the warning in section V is already wasted. For decades, both US political parties have spent our grand children's money. Well, more likely, the impact of the virus has spent our great grand children's money.

Why is only the MIC talked about in the speech while the other parts of the speech are ignored?

Later,
Dan

[Gaia]

"so called climate change" and "stupid covid panic" ? Could I suggest corralling your courage and call a spade a spade?

Jim sv Gaia

[Bill Seal]

Check out Dr Barry Marshall who went from quack to Nobel Prize winner by going against "common knowledge" and derision and proved that gastric ulcers were caused by bacteria and not acid.
valhalla360 is right, research conclusions tend to follow the money.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bill Seal

Check out Dr Barry Marshall who went from quack to Nobel Prize winner by going against "common knowledge" and derision and proved that gastric ulcers were caused by bacteria and not acid.
valhalla360 is right, research conclusions tend to follow the money.

Sure, let's do that:

It has been claimed that the H. pylori theory was ridiculed by established scientists and doctors, who did not believe that any bacteria could live in the acidic environment of the stomach. Marshall was quoted as saying in 1998 that "everyone was against me, but I knew I was right."[10] On the other hand, it has also been argued that medical researchers showed a proper degree of scientific scepticism until the H. pylori hypothesis could be supported by evidence.[11]

But yeah, one scientist went against the grain, and met objections to his theory, until he proved it. That's called 'science'.

Another reference.

valhalla360 doesn't have the first clue how science works, he's just parroting some ginned-up talking points.

[RaymondR]

The "purchased opinion" was the very thing Ridd was fighting against.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

The "purchased opinion" was the very thing Ridd was fighting against.

Not exactly.

While the two parties continue to disagree whether the case related to academic freedom, the ruling judge said the case was "purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an enterprise agreement",[4] although he also stated James Cook University had "not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom".[12] In July 2020, James Cook University won an appeal against this judgement from the full bench of the Federal Court.[13]

(Wikipedia - with links)

And his views re the reef have not yet been validated by evidence.

It's probably better to do science in an academic setting, rather than in the courts or the popular press.

[TravelinLight]

If you wanted to be on the "Grant Money Gravy Train" you would ensure that all of your findings and papers supported the desired outcome. Does pollution and human activity impact the world? Yes, but in my opinion not at the rate that people keep screaming about.

Follow the money whenever someone tries to tell you that the world is ending. (How many of those prophecies have we lived through)

Climate change is the new doomsday cult, but with a better PR department.

[japawil]

Cognative dissonance is a fascinating subject.
I’m always intrigued that a person can see a clear line of reasoning applied to one point of view (the opinion they are suspicious of or disagree with) and not see the exact same line of reasoning when applied to their own point of view.

[S/V Adeline]

Originally Posted by TravelinLight

Climate change is the new doomsday cult, but with a better PR department.

We knew over 75 years ago a significant climate shift was coming. Historical research tells us this is the 15th or 16th time this planet has had such a shift since stabilized and supporting life. Since it is a cycle, there isn't anything we can do to stop it. The powers that be at the time elected to dismiss the warnings (can't fix it, why bother causing panic over it)
Then someone realized money could be made!!
Could humans be better stewards of the planet? Absolutely
Are humans at fault for a cycle that predates humanity? Absolutely not. Some scientists believe our pollution has delayed the cycle.

[Velella 2]

I am presently sitting off new south wales waiting for the chance to see for myself if the reef aint dead. I am however pessimistic. In 2017 i spent four months looking for live healthy reef in the pacific. No luck. Tonga is a desert. If you look on line you will see old footage of what was once there but after searching for a month we found only one patch of good reef between 40 and 100 ft down. Fiji similar. The rainbow reef of tavanui is still in some form of good shape. But its very limited with large areas of devastation around it. In fijis bay of islands you will find sterilised rock walls where once there were coral gardens the locals consider a handfull of fish 6 inches long a good catch. Fijis coral coast is a concrete slab now. I swam with a tourists group off the coral coast looking to see what people were being shown as reef diving. It deeply saddened me to realise that not only were there no reef or fish but that none of the tourists knew what they were missing. I have been diving since 1973. I did my first reef diving in 1980. In 1987 i spent many months diving in Vanuatu. At that time you coulden’t get a dingy off a beach anywhere on the island of efati without breaking coral. There were canyons of vibrant coral teaming with fish everywhere you went. It is all gone. The world has changed. When i read cruser forums that say its business as usual i know they are deluding themselves. Maybe some of you should put down the gts and put on a pair of goggles.

[RaymondR]

It appears that when some of these scientists are obliged to answer questions where they risk severe penalties for any form of untruthfulness they're not quiet certain that the reef is dead.

If the marine science institute is setting up their own quality assurance system for scientific papers it tends to indicate to me that they have lost confidence in the peer review process. Basically Ridd's complaint.

Ridd's dismissal was occasioned by his refusal to withdraw and remain silent about his perception of the lack of rigidity in the assessment process for papers.

If Ridd does raise the funds to take the case to the High Court it will be interesting to see the outcome. One might recall the High Courts dismissal of the Hawke governments attempt to legislate on press advertising during elections. I have read the Australian constitution and don't recall it having a single word on free speech yet the court found that Australians have an implied right of free speech in political matters under the constitution.

I'm agnostic on AGM/CC because I am of the opinion that we don't yet know sufficient about the numerous interacting systems to make reliable estimates of what may occur in the future. I do know that there was once massive amounts of CO2 in earths atmosphere, orders of magnitude more than now, and earth did not turn into another Venus. I know this because as an oil driller I drilled through probably hundreds of thousands of feet of carbonate (CO2 based) rocks which is where the atmospheric CO2 went to. If greenhouse did not work with thousands of parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere how will it with mere hundreds.

We not only need to do much more climate science, we need to be able to trust the science and if Ridd, the scientist says it's not trustworthy, I am going to give greater credence to his arguments than I am the marketing department.

[Gaia]

Originally Posted by Velella 2

I am presently sitting off new south wales waiting for the chance to see for myself if the reef aint dead. I am however pessimistic. In 2017 i spent four months looking for live healthy reef in the pacific. No luck. Tonga is a desert. If you look on line you will see old footage of what was once there but after searching for a month we found only one patch of good reef between 40 and 100 ft down. Fiji similar. The rainbow reef of tavanui is still in some form of good shape. But its very limited with large areas of devastation around it. In fijis bay of islands you will find sterilised rock walls where once there were coral gardens the locals consider a handfull of fish 6 inches long a good catch. Fijis coral coast is a concrete slab now. I swam with a tourists group off the coral coast looking to see what people were being shown as reef diving. It deeply saddened me to realise that not only were there no reef or fish but that none of the tourists knew what they were missing. I have been diving since 1973. I did my first reef diving in 1980. In 1987 i spent many months diving in Vanuatu. At that time you coulden’t get a dingy off a beach anywhere on the island of efati without breaking coral. There were canyons of vibrant coral teaming with fish everywhere you went. It is all gone. The world has changed. When i read cruser forums that say its business as usual i know they are deluding themselves. Maybe some of you should put down the gts and put on a pair of goggles.

Ditto in the Andamans

Jim sv Gaia

[Cliffhanger]

Of course the reef ain't dead, nobody is saying it is. It is dying of course, 60% bleached already ... but it ain't dead yet. So, what is the fuss?

It is like finding a hole in the bottom of your boat and when the water reaches your waist you say "the boat ain't sunk". Of course it ain't.....but don't you think it is a good time to fix the hole.? Like now! Or do you think it is better to wait until it is sunk first?

Reef, Boat it is all the same, don't wait until it is too late!

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Cliffhanger

Of course the reef ain't dead, nobody is saying it is. It is dying of course, 60% bleached already

Evidence?