Good News: Great Barrier Reef Recovering Nicely!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Have I got your proposal right?
1. You make claims.
2. I look up evidence supporting your claims.
3. Only then, am I permitted to refute your claims.

No, you don't, but at least you asked and didn't assume as much.

1. The alarmists make claims based on one of various scientific positions on the severity of the threat and its imminence, but misleadingly present it as the only view worthy of consideration, with all others and their proponents scorned.

2. I don't necessarily dispute outright but point out that these views do not hold the same degree of scientific consensus as the wide agreement on the existence of AGW, first suggested as far back as 1896 (maybe earlier).

3. The alarmists arrogantly and angrily denounce the mere existence of such alternate views, and then the silly scientist vs. scientist and scorecard method of promoting each side's position ensues, even though we all well know that's not the way science is pursued (or shouldn't be).

4. Rather than a productive discussion, a pissing contest ensues which ultimately results in thread closure.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Since this thread is about the GBR, let's keep it simple and restrict our discussion to coral reef health. We've presented the opinion of a hundreds, if not thousands, of reef experts that support the alarmist point of view. Is there anyone else besides Ridd who supports your point of view?

Are you admitting that you're putting out alarmist views which don't comport with someone who, disagree or not, people in the field seem to acknowledge is a "leading authority on the GBR?"

https://www.marineinsight.com/shippi...of-peter-ridd/

I'll see if I can find some of his disciples for you. Notwithstanding the James Cook lawsuit, I seriously doubt this level of acrimony exists amongst Ridd and his actual peers just because they happen to disagree over the health of the reef.

[EngineerRetired]

Amazing what humans can do when the need is obvious and are required to act appropriately.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

Are you admitting that you're putting out alarmist views which don't comport with someone who, disagree or not, people in the field seem to acknowledge is a "leading authority on the GBR?"

https://www.marineinsight.com/shippi...of-peter-ridd/

Briefly, I call myself an alarmist (and you a denier) because there are thousands of reef experts that have piqued my alarm, and only one (Dr Ridd) who you've presented as saying there is no cause for concern. In my experience, it is the same ratio of alarmists to deniers for the rest of the scientific world regarding AGW.

Originally Posted by SailOar

‘Last chance’ to save coral reefs: scientists warn of climate tipping point

• This decade is likely our last chance to save coral reefs, according to thousands of scientists
• The International Coral Reef Society is urging governments to do more to protect and restore coral reefs
• If temperature increases are held to 1.5 degrees Celsius, between 10 and 30 per cent of reefs could survive
• But if global temperatures rise by 2 degrees Celsius, only about 1 per cent will
• In a paper the authors advocate a three-pronged strategy to save the reefs: addressing climate change, improving local conditions and actively restoring coral

Originally Posted by Exile

I'll see if I can find some of his disciples for you. Notwithstanding the James Cook lawsuit, I seriously doubt this level of acrimony exists amongst Ridd and his actual peers just because they happen to disagree over the health of the reef.

You would be more convincing if you found other researchers who held similar opinions to Ridd, but were totally unconnected to him or his research.

It is because there are so many unconnected reef scientists who are coming to the same alarming conclusions, that I, too, a non-scientific layman, am becoming alarmed.

[Exile]

Knock yourself out SailOar. Plenty of scientists here, both supportive and critical of Ridd's positions. The worst that can happen is it will disabuse you of the propaganda you're implying that it's Ridd vs. every other reef expert on the planet.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/category/coral-reefs/

Yes, yes I know, a "denier" website. But just read it for the articles and don't look at any pictures.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Briefly, I call myself an alarmist (and you a denier) because there are thousands of reef experts that have piqued my alarm, and only one (Dr Ridd) who you've presented as saying there is no cause for concern. In my experience, it is the same ratio of alarmists to deniers for the rest of the scientific world regarding AGW.

Your article cites scientific opinion unequivocally claiming that 1.5ºC is the threshold temp increase for coral reef survival. Another one in the link I provided says coral bleaching is a natural process which protects reefs up to 2ºC. Is it possible there's some unsettled science here?

As much as you like to hold yourself out as an authority on THE science, you're only scouting the internet for science and opinion articles which support your personal and political agendas. If you were more objective you'd advocate your alarmist position by presenting cogent rebuttals of the science you happen to disapprove of, and which in turn support your alarmist views. This is manipulative and not the way science works, which is why myself and others liken it to absolutism more akin to "faith".

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

You would be more convincing if you found other researchers who held similar opinions to Ridd, but were totally unconnected to him or his research.

It is because there are so many unconnected reef scientists who are coming to the same alarming conclusions, that I, too, a non-scientific layman, am becoming alarmed.

Oh please, the world of climate science must be a small one. Notwithstanding all the controversy over Ridd, it sounds like he's one of the pioneers when it comes to the GBR and maybe reefs generally. What do you mean by "unconnected." You believe that scientists operate in some of isolation from each others' work??

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

It sounds like you're going for equivalency again when it comes to the scientific certainty of the causal connection. Borderline propaganda, which is exactly why so many absolutists have bought into it.

I don’t know you mean by, “going for equivalency again”, nor by “the causal connection”.
Absolute scientific certainty is, either, exceedingly rare, or non-existent; which was the point of my post.

I don’t think a debate over the relative strength of the evidence for ACC, vs that for the effect of smoking on health, will be useful.

Regarding Scientific Certainty/Uncertainty & False Equivalence:

To most of us, uncertainty means not knowing. To scientists, however, uncertainty is how well something is known. And, therein lies an important difference, especially when trying to understand what is known about climate change. But, research reduces uncertainty. In many cases, theories have been tested, and analyzed, and examined so thoroughly, that their chance of being wrong is infinitesimal.
Even though the phrase, “scientific certainty” is commonly used, it has no definition, from a scientific perspective [outside of the courtroom*].
It is not a standard applied to scholarly publications, or peer review, nor is it taught, defined, or generally accepted in scientific practice.

In the age of the Internet, the public often draws its information, not only from a mainstream scientific consensus, but also from opinions held by only a minority of reputable scientists. This phenomenon has been especially pronounced during the debate over climate change, in which minority opinions have been heavily publicized. To the despair of the scientific
community, moreover, some segments of the public are influenced by arguments that are supported by no scientific evidence whatsoever, or that even contravene well-established scientific principles. In public discussion, these diverse opinions are frequently presented as having equal status; which they do not.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

Oh please, the world of climate science must be a small one. Notwithstanding all the controversy over Ridd, it sounds like he's one of the pioneers when it comes to the GBR and maybe reefs generally. What do you mean by "unconnected." You believe that scientists operate in some of isolation from each others' work??

I'm saying it's not just the reef scientists, but also the atmospheric scientists, and the glaciologists, and the ocean current scientists, and the forest scientists, and the military planners, etc, etc, etc. it's the whole scientific community. That's why it is more appropriate to call you a denier and not a skeptic.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I don’t know you mean by, “going for equivalency again”, nor by “the causal connection”.
Absolute scientific certainty is, either, exceedingly rare, or non-existent; which was the point of my post.

I don’t think a debate over the relative strength of the evidence for ACC, vs that for the effect of smoking on health, will be useful.

Regarding Scientific Certainty/Uncertainty & False Equivalence:

To most of us, uncertainty means not knowing. To scientists, however, uncertainty is how well something is known. And, therein lies an important difference, especially when trying to understand what is known about climate change. But, research reduces uncertainty. In many cases, theories have been tested, and analyzed, and examined so thoroughly, that their chance of being wrong is infinitesimal.
Even though the phrase, “scientific certainty” is commonly used, it has no definition, from a scientific perspective [outside of the courtroom*].
It is not a standard applied to scholarly publications, or peer review, nor is it taught, defined, or generally accepted in scientific practice.

In the age of the Internet, the public often draws its information, not only from a mainstream scientific consensus, but also from opinions held by only a minority of reputable scientists. This phenomenon has been especially pronounced during the debate over climate change, in which minority opinions have been heavily publicized. To the despair of the scientific
community, moreover, some segments of the public are influenced by arguments that are supported by no scientific evidence whatsoever, or that even contravene well-established scientific principles. In public discussion, these diverse opinions are frequently presented as having equal status; which they do not.

I'm not aware of anyone advocating for absolute certainty, and certainly not me. What I was referring to was the analogy that is frequently drawn comparing the degree of certainty over smoking & cancer/heart disease, and the certainty over alarmist positions on CC. My point is the latter doesn't enjoy the scientific certainty of the former. But that doesn't stop advocates from trying to make that case.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I'm saying it's not just the reef scientists, but also the atmospheric scientists, and the glaciologists, and the ocean current scientists, and the forest scientists, and the military planners, etc, etc, etc. it's the whole scientific community. That's why it is more appropriate to call you a denier and not a skeptic.

You're free to call me whatever you like I suppose, but that doesn't get us anywhere on the controversy surrounding the state of the science. I thought you just suggested we confine the discussion to the GBR, but now you want to expand it to every CC-related issue??

[GordMay]

The tactic of sowing doubt works, because there can be reluctance to change policy or regulation, in the face of doubt.

But absolute certainty is rare.
It does not mean that what we know is wrong.


The IPCC, for instance even provides [6 pages of] “Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties"
➥ https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo...dance_Note.pdf

Term* Likelihood of the outcome
Virtually certain 99–100% probability
very likely 90–100% probability
Likely 66–100% probability
About as likely as not 33–66% probability
Unlikely 0–33% probability
Very unlikely 0–10% probability
Exceptionally unlikely 0–1% probability
* Additional terms (extremely likely: 95–100% probability, more likely than not: >50–100% probability, and extremely unlikely: 0–5% probability) may also be used when appropriate.


Science works by steadily accumulating evidence, from which deductions can be drawn, and modified if ideas and the conclusions are disproven by further work.
When the accumulated evidence converges on a particular conclusion, a consensus is reached - by scientists working independently, both individually, and in teams.

It is up to people or scientists with another view, to provide evidence, established by rigorous application of the same scientific process, and have it subjected to the same level of scrutiny by experts.

When the sowing of doubt doesn’t work out, the next step in the now time-honoured tactic is to invoke the notion of a conspiracy of the world's scientists, all working together to stop the outsider getting their results
published, or accepted. While it might be impossible for a rational person to imagine that there is any possible way for the hundreds of scientists of the world who work on, say, the coral reefs or climate change, to agree in
secret to draw the same conclusions, regardless of their observations, it does have currency in some quarters.

It doesn’t have to be true as long as they’re believed.

The sowing of doubt is such a common tactic used to delay, confuse, obfuscate, and frighten, that it even has its own field of study: Agnotology is the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the
publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data.

As the tobacco industry said, in an infamous 1969 memo, sent by an executive at Brown & Williamson tobacco which was in turn owned by R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.:
"Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public.
It is also the means of establishing a controversy."

*

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

You're free to call me whatever you like I suppose, but that doesn't get us anywhere on the controversy surrounding the state of the science. I thought you just suggested we confine the discussion to the GBR, but now you want to expand it to every CC-related issue??

I was pointing out that regarding AGW, the broad scientific consensus supports an alarmist conclusion. If you present contrary scientific information to the consensus it might be appropriate to call you a contrarian or a skeptic. But most of the posts on this thread by those who do not agree with the scientific consensus, including most of yours, do not present scientific data to support their view. It is therefore inaccurate to call them skeptics; it is more accurate to call them deniers, meaning, one who disagrees with the scientific consensus, but doesn't present scientific evidence to the contrary. Your philosophy seems more like a religious belief.

I'm fine keeping this thread on reef topics. However, if you want to expand the climate change topic to a new thread I would be happy to participate. I've been explicitly banned from starting CC threads, but not from participating in those that someone else starts.

Climate change denial

Academic studies of scientific agreement on human-caused global warming among climate experts (2010–2015) reflect that the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science.[1] A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%.[2]

Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.[4][5][6] Many who deny, dismiss, or hold unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming self-label as "climate change skeptics",[7][5] which several scientists have noted is an inaccurate description.[8][9][10] Climate change denial can also be implicit when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action.[11] Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism,[12][13] pseudoscience,[14] or propaganda.[15]

The campaign to undermine public trust in climate science has been described as a "denial machine" organized by industrial, political and ideological interests, and supported by conservative media and skeptical bloggers to manufacture uncertainty about global warming.[16][17][18]

The politics of global warming have been affected by climate change denial and the political global warming controversy, undermining the efforts to act on climate change or adapting to the warming climate.[19][15][20] Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.[21][22]

Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO2 emissions.[23] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and conservative think tanks, often in the United States.[15][24][25][26] More than 90% of papers skeptical on climate change originate from right-wing think tanks.[27]

Since the late 1970s, oil companies have published research broadly in line with the standard views on global warming. Despite this, oil companies organized a climate change denial campaign to disseminate public disinformation for several decades, a strategy that has been compared to the organized denial of the hazards of tobacco smoking by the tobacco industry, and often even carried out by the same individuals who previously spread the tobacco industry's denialist propaganda.[28][29][30] ......

[Buzzman]

Originally Posted by Exile

Just like in the non-scientific world of internet forums, mainstream media, and politics, much of the skepticism amongst climate scientists has been suppressed by bullying, firings, and threats. The only way to advance one's career is to conduct research which has a shot at producing evidence that might, may, could put the blame on CC. If this is as alarming a threat as many are claiming, the science should be equally busy researching alternate hypotheses which should easily be proven wrong. After all, there is no longer any credible science which claims a lack of causation between, for e.g., smoking and cancer/heart disease, etc, an analogy often used to bolster the CC cause. Yet significant questions remain amongst scientists over the extent of the harm being caused by CC, particularly when it comes to the views of the alarmists.

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'.

[Buzzman]

Originally Posted by Exile

You're free to call me whatever you like I suppose, but that doesn't get us anywhere on the controversy surrounding the state of the science....

Exile see what Gord posted re "sowing of doubt". There is no 'controversy'. This is an entirely manufactured falsehood(s) designed to cast doubt on the legitimate science.



There are no 'doubts' per se. The science is settled.


What is still up for debate is what we want/don't want to do to ameliorate the problem. Hence the focus on the GBR.



And in response to your ad hominem attack on me personally as some sort of 'self-appointed arbiter of morals' please be aware that I operate only on the model that states 'you get the set of circumstances you are willing to allow'.


If I allow you and other deniers to spout rubbish unchecked and unchallenged then I am thereby accepting - by omission - that there is some truth in your outlandish pontifications.


I am not. You are wrong. Time will prove this.


I am only too well aware that the changes we MUST make are not going to be easy, pleasant or cheap....


But they MIGHT have been easier if we'd started 20 years ago, or heaven forbid, 40 years ago, at the point the science first 'called' the impending catastrophe.


I have certainly been aware of these issues, and the then 'doubts' (mainly, how bad, how long) that subsequent investigations have firmed and clarified, since at least the 1970s, and certainly since my time at university in the early nineties, when we definitely studied the early science that pointed towards what 'could' or 'might' occur.


For example: I studied physical geography and part of that early study was the study of ocean currents and the impacts they have on weather and climate. It has been posited - as a theorem - (i.e. something at this point largely unprovable) that the Gulf Stream, which is largely responsible for the habitability of western Europe, and especially the realively mild conditions that normally prevail in Ireland and the UK, could 'switch off' - or at the very least, weaken, due to the expected massive inflows of fresh water from a melted Greenland icecap (the largest store of fresh water on the planet), which could have an UTTERLY devastating effect on the climate and weather in western Europe, potentially making it uninhabitable for most of the people who now live there.


IOW, just wait 50 years and the 'migration' boot could very well be on the other foot, with African Mediterranean coast communites fending off the waves of 'boat people' coming south from a now frozen Europe.


Now, I'm NOT saying this is definitely going to occur, but the irony embedded in this potential scenario I find exruciating, given the apparent reasons for Brexit, and the anti-immigrant stance of the Right in most of Europe.

So that's the 'worst possible case' scenario, but even a slight lessening of the flow rate, or the temperature, of the Gulf Stream could still see massive (and unwelcome and uncomfortable) changes to UK and western Europe. And the serious pollies there are aware of this.



BUT, I'm not saying this will happen. That would be alarmist. What I AM saying is 'hope the **** this DOES NOT happen' or else what sort of a world will we then be facing..???


But this 'outlier possible maybe' is about as 'outlier possible maybe' now as the entire 'greenhouse debate' was in the 1970s.


So it will not be any use to us, in 50 years time to say "why weren't we told this might happen"? Nor "why didn't we see this coming"?


Some of us DID see this coming. As early as the 1970s this has been 'understood as possible'.



For that matter, we could probably have seen this coming (and some observers did) once the 'greenhouse effect' was noted in the 19th Century.


But it didn't suit the capitalists, industrialists and the elite political classes who are their mouthpiece to be 'alarmist'. More science was needed to EITHER support or refute the initial 'theories'. This has now been done, and the *evidence* is now overwhelmingly confirming the initial 'alarm'.

And now that it is self-evident even to ordinary mortals, the clamour from below is beginning to disturb the equilibrium of the politicans (and, to be fair, many of the captains of industry).


"Something MUST be done".


Just what, when, where and how is all that's left to debate.

Oh, and of course, who pays.....

Hence the obfuscations and denial. Those who "should" be apying are attempting to wriggle out from under that responsibility, throwing the financial burden on the taxpayer.


Personally, I don't care who pays, how it's done, or what is done, as long as we just all get on with it, and get it done.


The Montreal Protocol and CFCs showed us what IS possible, if and when we all work together.