Good News: Great Barrier Reef Recovering Nicely!

[SeanPatrick]

Wow. After casually browsing this thread I see it is apparently acceptable to call anyone who so much as questions AGW an idiot, or if they're not 100% on-board they must be a "denier" ... another term used to denigrate.



Nothing shows a person is truly confident in their opinion more than lashing out and name-calling. And I think we can all put the idea that having a different opinion results in public shaming to bed now.



Sheesh.

[IslandHopper]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

For a little bit of history, Lizard Island is the Island that Captain Cook landed upon in 1770 in order to climb its peak for the purpose of finding a passage through the outer reef to the open sea. In this task he succeeded, however was nearly wrecked in the process on exit.

Nah.....he just wanted to sign the visitors book like we all did

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Egads, man. Care to decode that for us?

Some folks lives are so entirely vicarious that they never accumulate that wealth of personal experience so necessary to the development of good judgement.

[RaymondR]

"The Ridd firing/lawsuit is a ridiculous distraction and a side issue. I won't debate it because it is an intentional ruse to have an argument other than the fundamental one. It is also conspiracy theorizing - that he got fired somehow proves that the 'truth' about AGC is being suppressed. Utter and complete nonsense."

Interesting viewpoint.

And there I was thinking that the Ridd case, which is before the High Court of Australia, addresses issues thought fundamental to the health of Australian democracy, like freedom of enquiry and expression and the integrity of the scientific method.

I'm really glad that you've set me right on the issue in informing me that the highest court of Australia has nothing better to do but sit around all day and ponder on conspiracy theories. Gee, I thought those folks spent their time with substantive issues and now you inform me that they are a bunch of frivolous and dilettante lawyers whiling away their time on the public purse merely for fun and profit.

If we were having this discussion a couple of hundred years ago it would probably be in relation to Priestly and his damned oxygen theories versus the "established" science and "scientific consensus" regarding the phlogiston theory of combustion.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by StuM

No mention of the 53 (14.4%) new species that have populated the reef over the last 10 years.


Coral populations on specific reefs change over time, depending on local conditions - always have, always will.

Until you provide a link to support your assertion I will assume you pulled that factoid out of your keister.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

I'm staying skeptical and agnostic to AGW/CC until it's proponents put forward a practicable replacement for the existing power system.

That is a totally illogical statement, and more evidence for why you are better described as a denier than as a skeptic.

If AGW is happening, it is happening, FULL STOP. It has nothing to do with whether we humans are smart enough to solve the problem or not.

To be a skeptic one has to be able to present a rational scientific model that explains the data as good or better than the current consensus. At the very least one needs to present data that can't possibly be explained by the current scientific model. With the limited data available a few decades ago, being an honest skeptic was plausible. Now, with all the corroborating data from many different scientific disciplines, it is virtually impossible to be a skeptic, as compared to being a denier.

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Modern predominately urban based civilization depends upon an uninterrupted supply to things like food storage facilities.

When I was a boy I lived in a small country town which had a slaughter house on the edge of town and every day beasts were slaughtered and dressed and distributed to the five or so butcher shops where it was hung in a meat room before being cut up and sold to folks who shopped there for it every day. There was no mass, dispersed, refrigerated food storage facilities as there are today. Neither today are there many local butcher shops or bakeries or market gardens as almost everything: grocery, meat, dairy and vegetable is distributed from regional distribution centres. The system is world wide and it's not unusual to find grapes from California in the fruit section of the local supermarket in a small country town in Australia.

So what has happened during my life time is that all that local infrastructure which used to support the nutritional needs of the folks in my home town has been replaced by a regional, national, and international structure entirely dependent upon an uninterrupted supply of electricity predominately supplied by giant coal generated electricity power stations. The few weeks world wide supply of a large proportion of human nutritional needs is now almost entirely dependent upon electricity driven refrigeration for it's proper storage and distribution.....

In the instance of the replacement of reliable, centrally generated electricity with dispersed, so called "renewable", intermittent electrical power it is guaranteed that many of the systems modern civilization depends upon will fail....

I've excised a paragraph or so of your nutty religious comments, but the above touches on a very real and interesting problem, AGW or no AGW. Because it is way off-topic for this thread I'll only provide a few links, but I suspect you will enjoy thinking about the topic of the articles. Some of these may be behind a paywall, but hopefully you can read at least one of them:

Will These Places Survive a Collapse? Don’t Bet on It, Skeptics Say. (plus interesting comments following the article)

New Zealand rated best place to survive global societal collapse

The Best Places to Survive Societal Collapse

An Analysis of the Potential for the Formation of ‘Nodes of Persisting Complexity’

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Nah mate, agnostic is it and I'm fairly scornful of folks who readily take on superstitions.

The quasi religious uptake of the "global warming" (initially, but then morphed to "climate change" in case global temperatures go into hiatus or even fall) theory is doing enormous economic damage and redirecting attention and funds from matters more urgently requiring global attention.

For example, take the massive construction of useless windmills to generate electricity. I am informed that these number thousands in Britain alone.

Modern predominately urban based civilization depends upon an uninterrupted supply to things like food storage facilities.

When I was a boy I lived in a small country town which had a slaughter house on the edge of town and every day beasts were slaughtered and dressed and distributed to the five or so butcher shops where it was hung in a meat room before being cut up and sold to folks who shopped there for it every day. There was no mass, dispersed, refrigerated food storage facilities as there are today. Neither today are there many local butcher shops or bakeries or market gardens as almost everything: grocery, meat, dairy and vegetable is distributed from regional distribution centres. The system is world wide and it's not unusual to find grapes from California in the fruit section of the local supermarket in a small country town in Australia.

So what has happened during my life time is that all that local infrastructure which used to support the nutritional needs of the folks in my home town has been replaced by a regional, national, and international structure entirely dependent upon an uninterrupted supply of electricity predominately supplied by giant coal generated electricity power stations. The few weeks world wide supply of a large proportion of human nutritional needs is now almost entirely dependent upon electricity driven refrigeration for it's proper storage and distribution.

Now, as appears fairly common in human affairs every now and then one of these quasi religious movements springs up and decides to change the world. One would think that a group of people deciding to imbue a rock or something with mystical powers is a fairly harmless pastime but as has occurred fairly often in human affairs these movements grow to engulf human societies in all sorts of nastiness.

In the instance of the replacement of reliable, centrally generated electricity with dispersed, so called "renewable", intermittent electrical power it is guaranteed that many of the systems modern civilization depends upon will fail. The beers going to get warm and the hamburger go rotten all because the nutty, susceptible-to-crank-religions portion of the population decides to support another quasi religious fashion.

I'm staying skeptical and agnostic to AGW/CC until it's proponents put forward a practicable replacement for the existing power system.

Wow, a one-two punch of conspiracy theories and the classic nirvana fallacy in one post! Impressive.
It is great when the deniers go on and on like this - every word they add to the rants progressively undermines their own position.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

[I]If we were having this discussion a couple of hundred years ago it would probably be in relation to Priestly and his damned oxygen theories versus the "established" science and "scientific consensus" regarding the phlogiston theory of combustion.

Utter rubbish. Priestly generated data to prove his hypothesis. Climate change deniers are just cranks sitting on their duffs making uninformed pot shots about things they really don't understand at all. Your post pretty much proves that you can't distinguish science from gossip.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SeanPatrick

Wow. After casually browsing this thread I see it is apparently acceptable to call anyone who so much as questions AGW an idiot, or if they're not 100% on-board they must be a "denier" ... another term used to denigrate.



Nothing shows a person is truly confident in their opinion more than lashing out and name-calling. And I think we can all put the idea that having a different opinion results in public shaming to bed now.



Sheesh.

I'll second your sheesh. An angry, mean-spirited crowd that are way too full of themselves to be credible.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Some folks lives are so entirely vicarious that they never accumulate that wealth of personal experience so necessary to the development of good judgement.

Oh, I think I am getting it - you are like a mystic who doesn't need science or data - you have absorbed the essence of truth itself and just know what is true.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Exile

I'll second your sheesh. An angry, mean-spirited crowd that are way too full of themselves to be credible.

Ah yes, another example of a person realizing their position has been trounced, who then reverts to victimhood.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by SeanPatrick

Wow. After casually browsing this thread I see it is apparently acceptable to call anyone who so much as questions AGW an idiot, or if they're not 100% on-board they must be a "denier" ... another term used to denigrate.

I haven't seen the word 'idiot' until your post. Ignorance has been posited, which is not an ad hominem attack. Simply a statement of fact that a person is lacking in some knowledge or skills. True of all of us in many areas. I am ignorant of plenty of things and there isn't any shame in it. Ignorance of the scientific method and logical reasoning is on regular display in these threads.

I work hard to not pass myself off as knowledgeable on things that I am in fact mostly ignorant about. There are plenty. If I do try to fake it, you have an engraved invitation to smack me down. Fair play.

And c'mon, grow up, own your position. Call me an anthropogenic climate change accepter. Won't hurt my feelings one bit.

And finally, nice try on the absolutism ploy. This isn't a debate between 'true believers' and those who believe most but have minor objections. These people very fundamentally reject ACC and its implications.

[Buzzman]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

In the instance of the replacement of reliable, centrally generated electricity with dispersed, so called "renewable", intermittent electrical power it is guaranteed that many of the systems modern civilization depends upon will fail. The beers going to get warm and the hamburger go rotten all because the nutty, susceptible-to-crank-religions portion of the population decides to support another quasi religious fashion.

I'm staying skeptical and agnostic to AGW/CC until it's proponents put forward a practicable replacement for the existing power system.

You claim at the top of this diatribe to be "agnostic", then use a complete provocation in the form of the two words highlighted to 'diss' the entire renewables industry and all the science that supports its necessity.


That is NOT "agnostic". That is a pure, opinionated and 'political' stance.


And, for the record, the most recent catastrophic failures in electricity supply have all been based on your much-caressed but clearly NOT reliable 'stable grid system', vis a vis Nth Queensland and Texas. So please, let's have no more facile 'provocations' of this type.



The final sentence in the quote above is, also, a provocation, as it posits that there is (1). a 'need' for a centralised power generation and distribution system (which is actually negated by your own 'small town butcher shop argument'), and (2). that there is no 'alternative' available.



Yet further up in your diatribe you refer to "thousands of windmills" which are, precisely and exactly, providing that 'alternative' and also 'renewable' energy to the grid. Australia has the highest take-up of roof-top solar in the world, with SA recently hitting 100% renewable grid (for a short time). They have closed one gas-fired plant and are mothballing another due to the MUCH higher cost of gas-fired power gen over renewables.

So, not only is renewable power better for the environment, it is also cheaper to produce and supply!



Your entire 'argument' is predicated on the notion that there is A) no such thing as global warming and B) no need to change from 'business as usual' coal-fired and gas-fired power generation.


That you are so demonstrably and utterly wrong on ALL counts must bring into question your ability to recognise truth and reason when you come across it, as none of your statements contain either.


And before you attempt a red-herring diversion, it is quite and abundantly clear to anyone with the capacity to reason that AGW is both a 'thing' and something we are morally and practically required to ameliorate.

To claim otherwise is to claim white is black, red blue, or 'the sky is falling', and is about as relevant to public discourse on the subject as an ashtray is necessary on a motorcycle.


And before you re-mount your Clydesdale, I am well aware that transitioning from 100% coal-fired to 100% renewable grid presents several challenges, not least of which is the lack of sunlight at night time, but as with the establishment of the previous, centralised, coal-based generation grid, these are mere logistical hurdles to overcome and for which technology is already available.


As an example, it was recently made public that the 'big batteries' in SA and elsewhere have figured out - via technology - how to 'appear' to the grid as 'synchronous supply' thereby negating a previous shibboleth that 'renewables' upset the 'balance' of the grid.


They do upset the voltage, causing fluctuations, simply by the very nature of their 'unsynchronous' delivery, but this, too had been long known and solutions designed into the grid as we continue along this transition path.


But the bottom line is, and will remain, that the 'science is in' and AGW is a major issue that will sigificantly and negatively impact not just coral reefs but the whole planet. This is now proven beyond doubt.


All scientists are still attempting to figure out is 'by how much' will existing systems be affected. It is now clear that the very early modelling was not as accurate as later observation-based modelling in predicting both temp rise and other effects of AGW, but this is a matter of points of a degree, or millimetres of sea-level rise, and as we go forward, and continue monitoring, those 'best guesses' will get more accurate. But changes are a'comin', an dwe'd best adopt the Boy Scouts motto and 'Be Prepared'.



You are entitled to choose to believe otherwise but recognise this is a 'belief' based on 'politics' and not on reality.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Utter rubbish. Priestly generated data to prove his hypothesis. Climate change deniers are just cranks sitting on their duffs making uninformed pot shots about things they really don't understand at all. Your post pretty much proves that you can't distinguish science from gossip.

Priestley used empirical methods, like sticking candles and mice in bell jars and timing how long before they expired. Not a computer or Excel spreadsheet in sight for centuries. If he wrote a paper and submitted it today it'd probably be rejected for "Insufficient Modeling".

Not only that he'd have the RSPCA pursuing him in the courts for animal cruelty, The OH&S department reporting him to management for dangerous usage of open flames without the fire department standing by and a hoard of other nuisances making his life miserable.

The university would then fire him for his lack of "collegiality" in challenging the work of his peers by criticising their support of the phlogiston theory and the consensus science on combustion.

I'll leave you with the Priestley and oxygen thing. I noticed someone up the thread introduced quantum theory and I've got a few ideas on that as well.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

I'll leave you with the Priestley and oxygen thing. I noticed someone up the thread introduced quantum theory and I've got a few ideas on that as well.

Thanks for conceding the Priestly argument. In a debate you can concede two ways - the gracious way or by trying to change the topic and ranting about side issues. Either is ok with me.


And oh yes, please do tell us all about quantum mechanics. I am sure it will cement your scientific cred in this thread.