Good News: Great Barrier Reef Recovering Nicely!

[Elleroo]

I thought this thread was supposed to be about the Barrier Reef??


The reef problems started way before the global warming situation became an issue with people trying to make headlines and money.


Some of you need to let go of the tiller hanging out of your trousers, and getting hold of the one connected to reality.


Next you'll be arguing about the good and bad of Adani in Qld. Don't go there!!!


No-one's mentioned Greta Thunberg? Those pushing her need to be prosecuted for child abuse of an autistic teenager,

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Elleroo

I thought this thread was supposed to be about the Barrier Reef??


The reef problems started way before the global warming situation became an issue with people trying to make headlines and money.


Some of you need to let go of the tiller hanging out of your trousers, and getting hold of the one connected to reality.


Next you'll be arguing about the good and bad of Adani in Qld. Don't go there!!!


No-one's mentioned Greta Thunberg? Those pushing her need to be prosecuted for child abuse of an autistic teenager,

In movie parlance, the GBR is a McGuffin within the climate crisis saga.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by EngineerRetired

...


Now its my turn to ask, why are you so hell bent on trying to suggest the efforts people are making are not worth it? Is that some sort of self justification for you not doing anything? If so, it's a p*ss poor one...

Just an FYI: Every and I mean EVERY car and truck maker is switching to all electric, there really is a reason for it... I and people like me are right, we must belly up to the bar and save the only place we have as a species to live, Earth. Even if we have to drag the nay-sayers along while they scream, cry and deny.

Why? Because most alarmists give little more than lip service to the problem. I do commend your efforts, but even so you're like the smoker that's become convinced smoking will kill them yet only cuts back "to a few a day" rather than cold turkey quitting.


I also suspect that you don't run an actual working farm, or farms are very much different in your neck of the woods because I have family that farm for profit and battery powered farm machinery would be as useless as ashtrays on a motorbike for their application at current technological levels.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by EngineerRetired

Just an FYI: Every and I mean EVERY car and truck maker is switching to all electric, there really is a reason for it...

Two basic reasons, actually:

1. The taxpayers will subsidize the add'l costs to make it affordable to more consumers.

2. Once more affordable, mostly 'woke' urbanites will deem them virtue signaling devices.

They'll still mostly be plugged into nearby coal-fired plants every night.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Exile

Two basic reasons, actually:

1. The taxpayers will subsidize the add'l costs to make it affordable to more consumers.

2. Once more affordable, mostly 'woke' urbanites will deem them virtue signaling devices.

They'll still mostly be plugged into nearby coal-fired plants every night.

EV's sell for luxury car prices over here. As an aside, I'm pretty miffed that I'm holding shares in a lithium mine that I purchased a couple of years back.



But in reality, you don't need to spend a fortune on an EV for basic transportation. Push bikes, E-bikes and electric motor scooter/bikes are the top future solution for cutting transport generated CO2, IMHO.

Yet again, however, the governments of the day in classic paint it pink and call it purple fashion are too busy raking in the cream from privately built toll roads rather than putting resources into creating exclusive bike ways and other energy frugal mass transportation systems.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

Except that none of this is true. No-one has ever been sacked for posing serious questions about obtainable evidence. They have beEn - rightly - sacked for arguing that the science is not settled, or for making ludicrous assertions contrary to the settled science.


Those are the true 'alarmists'.

IOW, often highly-credentialed scientists who disagree with the mainstream mantra. Try and spin it any way you want, but since when are principles of academic freedom, let alone the scientific method, conditioned on the entirely subjective, if not laughable, distinctions you're trying to draw? Have you actually worked as a professional scientist in academics?

Exclaiming that there's no pressure to conform in the climate science world doesn't make it true, and boldly stating there have been no firings, threats of firings, other means of suppressing indpt research, studies and ideas doesn't mean it's not happening. Are you really that biased that you missed, for example, Dr. Judith Curry's testimony to the US Congress? See youTube (if not censored). Have you bothered to check out her blog where real scientists at least attempt to apply some objectivity and therefore credibility to these issues? Look at Roy Spencer's website for crying out loud. He actually allows and encourages contrary views -- imagine that!

And here's another clue for SailOar: Just because an assertion doesn't include a blue-typed, underlined link doesn't mean what it is asserting doesn't exist. I'm happy to read and consider any opinions you and others may have on these topics, unduly alarmist (imo) or not. But for no other reason than to try and preserve your own credibility, you should at least make yourself aware that yours are hardly the only science-based opinions out there.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

EV's sell for luxury car prices over here. As an aside, I'm pretty miffed that I'm holding shares in a lithium mine that I purchased a couple of years back.



But in reality, you don't need to spend a fortune on an EV for basic transportation. Push bikes, E-bikes and electric motor scooter/bikes are the top future solution for cutting transport generated CO2, IMHO.

Yet again, however, the governments of the day in classic paint it pink and call it purple fashion are too busy raking in the cream from privately built toll roads rather than putting resources into creating exclusive bike ways and other energy frugal mass transportation systems.

Agree about encouraging more two-wheeled conveyances, whether they be human, gas, or electric powered. Unfortunately, and unlike most of the rest of the world, the US has always frowned upon this. Except for the love for Harley-Davidsons and their clones that is. But few of these are actually used for basic transportation. Most of the (few) EV's over here are high-priced luxury Tesla's, although you do see the occasional Chevy Volt (electric not hybrid I think).

I have nothing against an expansion of EV's generally, but rarely do you encounter any sort of realistic discussion about their real energy costs.

[Buzzman]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

But in reality, you don't need to spend a fortune on an EV for basic transportation. Push bikes, E-bikes and electric motor scooter/bikes are the top future solution for cutting transport generated CO2, IMHO.

Yet again, however, the governments of the day in classic paint it pink and call it purple fashion are too busy raking in the cream from privately built toll roads rather than putting resources into creating exclusive bike ways and other energy frugal mass transportation systems.

Agree with this totally..!!


Electric bikes, dedicated bike lanes, more mass transit, and ways to make it more attractive for commuters - e.g. on board baristas, onboard wifi so the trip is not 'wasted'.... and so on.


This is all do-able now, but the govts we get, based on the two-party system we've inherited, are not interested in 'brave' decisions that will piss people off. They are WAY more interested in being re-elected, so much of what they do is actually counter-productive - like tax cuts, for example, that then limit the ability of the govt to actually provide the serves we DO require...!!


And don't get me started on pork-barrelling wastes of money and time....


The whole system is arse-about.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

....And here's another clue for SailOar: Just because an assertion doesn't include a blue-typed, underlined link doesn't mean what it is asserting doesn't exist. I'm happy to read and consider any opinions you and others may have on these topics, unduly alarmist (imo) or not. But for no other reason than to try and preserve your own credibility, you should at least make yourself aware that yours are hardly the only science-based opinions out there.

This is wishful thinking on your part.

For every "liberal" journalist that is looking for "alarmist" scientific studies to report on there certainly is a "conservative" journalist that is looking for "anti-alarmist" scientific studies to report on. And there are plenty of conservative news organizations that would be more than willing to publish those "anti-alarmist" scientific studies, if they existed. There are precious few, as the lack of "anti-alarmist" scientific posts by you and your denier friends demonstrates.

The IPCC report compilers rigorously considers all relevant studies. Furthermore, there is a cut-off date beyond which no newer study is considered. Therefore, the IPCC reports are considered to be scientifically conservative and not at all cutting edge.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

This is wishful thinking on your part.

For every "liberal" journalist that is looking for "alarmist" scientific studies to report on there certainly is a "conservative" journalist that is looking for "anti-alarmist" scientific studies to report on. And there are plenty of conservative news organizations that would be more than willing to publish those "anti-alarmist" scientific studies, if they existed. There are precious few, as the lack of "anti-alarmist" scientific posts by you and your denier friends demonstrates.

The IPCC report compilers rigorously considers all relevant studies. Furthermore, there is a cut-off date beyond which no newer study is considered. Therefore, the IPCC reports are considered to be scientifically conservative and not at all cutting edge.

Took me no more than 5 mins to find the articles & studies catalogued in WUWT. Read any? Care to post, analyze, find contrary opinions, and then argue which opinions are correct and why? No, didn't think so. You just find what best suits your personal opinion and agenda, and then berate anyone who challenges. You can still advocate for what you believe is right without ignoring, dismissing, or otherwise trying to suppress anything to the contrary. Again, if your evidence is beyond any possible dispute then what are you afraid of?

[Buzzman]

Just so unaware readers get this clear - WUWT is the abbreviation for 'Watts Up With That', a denialist blog featuring so-called scientists but mostly anti-AGW commentators and has long, long ago been discredited as the source of any factual material.


Anyone who is genuinely curious about the so-called 'debate' should read the articles on the Skeptical Science website, which categorically debunk and ritually disembowel every denialist argument ever and as soon as they are posted anywhere.


But be warned there's a lot of actual science on this site, and it is not always easy to follow.

But well worth the effort in the long run.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

Just so unaware readers get this clear - WUWT is the abbreviation for 'Watts Up With That', a denialist blog featuring so-called scientists but mostly anti-AGW commentators and has long, long ago been discredited as the source of any factual material.


Anyone who is genuinely curious about the so-called 'debate' should read the articles on the Skeptical Science website, which categorically debunk and ritually disembowel every denialist argument ever and as soon as they are posted anywhere.


But be warned there's a lot of actual science on this site, and it is not always easy to follow.

But well worth the effort in the long run.

Oh, this says it all, and puts your extreme lack of objectivity under the bright lights. By all means take Buzzman's advice and read Skeptical Science. Just know that it's a partisan publication, not unlike WUWT, and discount both accordingly. Long been "discredited"? By who? You? The editors and their adherents at Skeptical Science, or perhaps DeSmog Blog? WUMT claims it is "the world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change." Huh. All those people must then be low IQ types according to the all-knowing Buzzman.

But rather than endorse or denigrate one publication over another, why not go right to the articles & studies written by scientists themselves that are contained therein? How about the actual website of yet another highly credentialed and respected climate scientist who, like Prof. Ridd, has been sullied by agenda-driven extremists despite being well-respected amongst his peers. Here's a good example (man-made vs. natural causes) of the basis for much of the skepticism within the actual science, not from self-anointed internet pseudo-scientists looking to skewer anything and anyone who questions or disagrees.

https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-...al-or-manmade/

We are all free to reject or accept such views, and I for one cannot "deny," dismiss or ignore the weight of the evidence that supports the mainstream position. But trying to tell us the parts of climate science we need to know to effect policy changes is "settled" is both manipulative and false. Make up your own minds, but at least understand both sides, and also appreciate why you may not have heard more about such highly credentialed skeptics of the mainstream science. Btw, there are many more highly credentialed skeptics outside of climate science, notably physicists, geo-physicists, and meteorologists. Hmmm, why would that be? As Dr. Spencer points out above, how do we know if natural forces are influencing temperature changes and other unusual weather events if nobody's even asking the question, let alone doing any research?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

Just so unaware readers get this clear - WUWT is the abbreviation for 'Watts Up With That', a denialist blog featuring so-called scientists but mostly anti-AGW commentators and has long, long ago been discredited as the source of any factual material.


Anyone who is genuinely curious about the so-called 'debate' should read the articles on the Skeptical Science website, which categorically debunk and ritually disembowel every denialist argument ever and as soon as they are posted anywhere.


But be warned there's a lot of actual science on this site, and it is not always easy to follow.

But well worth the effort in the long run.

Skeptical science.. I didn't realise that was till going. Cookie really is wringing every last single drop out of that little investment.
Firstly, the name is totally misleading. It is anything but skeptical. It is a propaganda site that was the origin of the readily debunked "97% concensus" paper.



Here's a sampling of what to expect (a world where even the planet is destroyed by climate change)....

When in Doubt… Cherry Pick

A common climate myth states that climate change may be beneficial. This myth commits the fallacy known as cherry picking, meaning that climate science deniers essentially ‘pick’ out information that could be used to support their argument while simultaneously ignoring scientific facts that prove the opposite. In this case, the myth focuses solely on the few positive impacts of a warming climate which diverts attention away from the mounting evidence that a rapidly warming climate will wreak havoc on all aspects of society.




Conclusion

Scientific research continues to prove that the negative impacts of climate change far outweigh any positive impacts. Our modern-day climate crisis has ushered in a host of problems for society to solve. If reached, a warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels will cause land and sea ice loss, sea level rise, changes in ocean circulation, ocean acidification, extreme weather events, exacerbation of tipping points, poor human health, and social unrest. Consequently, much of society will be left without food, fresh water, and shelter. But, if we listen to the science, we will have within our power the ability to take action to save not only ourselves, but also our planet.

[fivecapes]

A bit of levity

xkcd title text:
I was really impressed by the accuracy of some of the report's predictions about fossil fuel consumption. Then I realized, oh, right, of course.

Exxon doc - https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ment-About-CO2

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Skeptical science.. I didn't realise that was till going. Cookie really is wringing every last single drop out of that little investment.
Firstly, the name is totally misleading. It is anything but skeptical. It is a propaganda site that was the origin of the readily debunked "97% concensus" paper.



Here's a sampling of what to expect (a world where even the planet is destroyed by climate change)....

Boy, that Conclusion sounds straight out of the pages of a CF thread, as in this one. I suspect many of our shipmates have taken the course on how best "to respond to climate change denial." It's offered free on the Skeptical Science website so "Enrol[sic] Now!"

https://www.edx.org/course/making-se...science-denial