The Reef Ain't Dead

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Rjt

Difficult to believe this thread is still going. Here’s a nice piece of authoritative information the “flat earth/climate deniers/Trump was robbed” clan can also refuse to believe.

It wasn't still going - until you resurrected it with yet another alarmist post that has nothing to do with the topic of whether reports about the GBR are correct.


You guys just can't help yourselves, can you.

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by Rjt

Difficult to believe this thread is still going. Here’s a nice piece of authoritative information the “flat earth/climate deniers/Trump was robbed” clan can also refuse to believe

Wow, can you pack any more strawmen into a single sentence?

No?

That's ok, just keep doing whatever the man on the TV tells you to.

Oh, and hate hour is starting, don't miss it or Big Brother will be mad.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Rjt

Difficult to believe this thread is still going. Here’s a nice piece of authoritative information the “flat earth/climate deniers/Trump was robbed” clan can also refuse to believe.

https://theconversation.com/severely...0as%20critical

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

...
And when it comes to alarmism, as we all know, everything is always gettingworse. Hence why the article is dooming and glooming about the green to red whilst ignoring the red to green.

Interesting indeed.
“Climate change now top threat to natural World Heritage”
Climate change is now the biggest threat to natural World Heritage, according to a report published today by IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). A third (33%) of natural World Heritage sites are threatened by climate change, including the world’s largest coral reef, the Great Barrier Reef, assessed as having a “critical” outlook for the first time.
More ➥ https://www.iucn.org/news/secretaria...ge-iucn-report

“IUCN World Heritage Outlook 3 (2020)” ~ by Osipova, Elena et al
Key results of the IUCN World Heritage Outlook
The results of the IUCN World Heritage Outlook 3 indicate that for 63% of all sites (159) the conservation outlook is either “good” or “good with some concerns”, while for 30% (75 sites) the outlook is of “significant concern”, and for 7% (18 sites) it is assessed as “critical”. The conservation outlook of 24 sites changed between 2017 and 2020, with 16 deteriorating and only 8 improving (not ignored in IUCN Report).
More ➥ https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/results

Impact ➥ https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/49134

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

Pity so many glaciers started to recede about 1830 before even the age of coal had got under way.



https://skepticalscience.com/Powell.html

Junk science is just that and that’s junk.

If 99.99% of people are driving down the correct side of the motorway I’ve little sympathy for the idiot claiming he’s knows better driving the wrong way.

Science is imperfect and has many anomalies. But the AGW concensus is well established , accepted and demonstrated by the relevant peer reviewed scientific community, wacko conspiracy and junk science contrarians not withstanding

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The point is, green turning red and red turning green would appear to be naturally occurring in time frames of less than a handful of years. Just because helicopter junket fly overs of the reef undertaken at great public expense are in vogue doesn't necessarily mean that this is all something new and unprecedented.

I think that a bleaching event is a short period of time where coral changes from alive to dead. That the red spot disappears in the next image graphic, doesn't mean the coral is OK. This can be considered a ratcheting phenomenon - waves of regional bleaching events lead to long-term, widespread cumulative loss of coral. This is what I have seen personally in the BVI/USVI. An event here, an event there and if you just focus on that, no big deal. But the cumulative damage is extensive.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Junk science is just that and that’s junk.

If 99.99% of people are driving down the correct side of the motorway I’ve little sympathy for the idiot claiming he’s knows better driving the wrong way.

Science is imperfect and has many anomalies. But the AGW concensus is well established , accepted and demonstrated by the relevant peer reviewed scientific community, wacko conspiracy and junk science contrarians not withstanding

Indeed, this was addressed in posts #374, & #383.
#374 ➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3281221
#383 ➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3282471

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by lestersails

I think that a bleaching event is a short period of time where coral changes from alive to dead. That the red spot disappears in the next image graphic, doesn't mean the coral is OK. This can be considered a ratcheting phenomenon - waves of regional bleaching events lead to long-term, widespread cumulative loss of coral. This is what I have seen personally in the BVI/USVI. An event here, an event there and if you just focus on that, no big deal. But the cumulative damage is extensive.

Call me cynical if you will but I strongly suspect that if the previously red now green areas were anything other than "Ok", they would steadfastly remain red zoned.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Call me cynical

You called it yourself.

cynical
[ sin-i-kuhl ]SHOW IPA

adjective
- distrusting or disparaging the motives of others; like or characteristic of a cynic.
- showing contempt for accepted standards of honesty or morality by one's actions, especially by actions that exploit the scruples of others.
- bitterly or sneeringly distrustful, contemptuous, or pessimistic.

[RaymondR]

"The Reef is Dead" case is largely about junk science.

Professor Peter Ridd was fired because he objected to the very poor quality of some papers on the condition of the Great Barrier Reef. Ridd then appealed to the courts to rule upon the fairness of the dismissal. The first application found in Ridd's favour which finding was then overturned by a higher court. The case has then taken to the High Court of Australia which will decide whether or not to hear the case next year.

Whilst the case originally may have been about whether an employer has or has not a right to dismiss an employee who does not comply with employment conditions it has largely become one about whether a scientist has a right, or even an obligation, to disagree with a "scientific consensus".

One should be mindful that the scientific method originally expounded by Roger Bacon relies upon a hypothesis/test paradigm for the advancement of science and that instances of "scientific consensus' are antithetical to the paradigm.

Anyway we'll see whether a high judicial body wants to take on the question of whether a scientist has a duty of scepticism which might override employment conditions next year and hopefully, if they do, what considered judicial opinion is on the subject.

The Australian government is also addressing the subject of academic freedom of thought and expression following a fairly wide ranging enquiry last year. It is considered that political ideologies and the marketing needs of the administrations of these institutions are too heavily overriding the traditional academic freedoms considered necessary to maintain these institutions as the engines of progress in human intellectual development and that consequently that the implicit nature of the traditions may now need to be explicitly supported by legislation. As a large contributor to the revenue enjoyed by the tertiary education sector the federal government in Australia enjoys the "power of the purse".

[StuM]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

"The Reef is Dead" case is largely about junk science.

Professor Peter Ridd was fired because he objected to the very poor quality of some papers on the condition of the Great Barrier Reef.

And people keep creating more and more reports based solely on those poor quality papers. They are a dream come true for the alarmists. See the various links previously posted in this thread by the usual suspects

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You called it yourself.



cynical

[ sin-i-kuhl ]SHOW IPA



adjective

- distrusting or disparaging the motives of others; like or characteristic of a cynic.

- showing contempt for accepted standards of honesty or morality by one's actions, especially by actions that exploit the scruples of others.

- bitterly or sneeringly distrustful, contemptuous, or pessimistic.

Yes I am cynical. Cynical that the motives of those participating in grant funded carbon showing helicopter joyride trips all around the GBR might not have the altruistic motivations they would like us all to believe.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

"

Whilst the case originally may have been about whether an employer has or has not a right to dismiss an employee who does not comply with employment conditions it has largely become one about whether a scientist has a right, or even an obligation, to disagree with a "scientific consensus".

That is NOT is basis of the decision by the courts

Some have thought that this trial was about freedom of speech and
intellectual freedom. Others have thought that this trial was about the
manner in which academics should conduct themselves. Some
observers may have thought that this trial was about the use of nonoffensive words when promulgating scientific ideas. Media reports have
considered that this trial was about silencing persons with controversial
or unpopular views.
2. Though many of those issues were canvased and discussed throughout
the hearing of this matter, this trial was about none of the above. Rather,
this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause
in an Enterprise Agreement. Whilst the Court acknowledges that there
may be consequences that touch upon these other issues because of the
Court’s construction of that clause, none of those consequences can play
any part in the determination of the proper construction of that clause.

https://platogbr.files.wordpress.com...-fcca-997-.pdf

In the appeal won by JCU justices John Griffiths and Sarah Derrington found Ridd’s enterprise agreement did not give him an “untrammelled right” to express professional opinions beyond the standards imposed by the university’s code of conduct.

They ruled his termination did not breach the Fair Work Act.

You can make it out to be something else, but that is the court's decision.

We shall see how the appeal goes.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Yes I am cynical. Cynical that the motives of those participating in grant funded carbon showing helicopter joyride trips all around the GBR might not have the altruistic motivations they would like us all to believe.

Cynicism is not a good trait. It does little to assist you in a debate or discussion.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Cynicism is not a good trait. It does little to assist you in a debate or discussion.

Maybe so, but I'm also cynical of your hand picked definition of "cynical".


I prefer the Cambridge version because it matches my interpretation of the word for the given context...

cynical


Believing that people are only interested in themselves and are not sincere

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Maybe so, but I'm also cynical of your hand picked definition of "cynical".


I prefer the Cambridge version because it matches my interpretation of the word for the given context...

You are a cynic by that definition as well.