Ocean acidifcation .

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by JC Reefer

I can only speak for myself, so there’s a lot of I’s in here.

I agree that the political polarization of the topic creates talking points that distract from the from the actual science. But that does not remove the validity of the science.

I can also see how more funding would be directed toward believers versus skeptics as that seems to be the popular belief. But again that does not remove the validity of science done. It would only slow the science being done by the skeptics.

I guess I have more faith in that data driven science will eventually prevail as theory’s are tested and re-tested by believers and skeptics alike. Eventually the data will prove regardless of what side of the theory you’re on.

The science is most likely valid in essence. But consider this. Do astronomers find it necessary to exaggerate and media whore the chance of a catastrophic asteroid or comet impact? Is there research into the effects of increasing IDP on koi carp? Are there multiple papers determining how many papers on near earth asteroids and comets endorse the possibility of a strike? Are there hordes of unemployed hippies/wannabe academics that have declared an asteroid emergency that are glueing themselves to roads because they need everyone to know that we must build an asteroid defence system starting yesterday?



Well, you get the picture.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The science is most likely valid in essence. But consider this. Do astronomers find it necessary to exaggerate and media whore the chance of a catastrophic asteroid or comet impact? Is there research into the effects of increasing IDP on koi carp? Are there multiple papers determining how many papers on near earth asteroids and comets endorse the possibility of a strike? Are there hordes of unemployed hippies/wannabe academics that have declared an asteroid emergency that are glueing themselves to roads because they need everyone to know that we must build an asteroid defence system starting yesterday?



Well, you get the picture.

The picture is telling me your confusing peer-reviewed science with the mainstream media, which got it wrong in the 1970's as well.

https://www.insidescience.org/news/m...ientists-wrong

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

you know that is not proper procedure . Figured a high school teacher would know better

The red line on the graph is the 30 year trend.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

Ha ha, yes. Hence my comment! Non farmed bass are ‘F’ed in the UK. Does IUCN differentiate? Insert comment here.... !

I have no experience of OZ Bass but assume “she’ll be R-ite”!

Remove from the iucn listening spec and we can have locally extinct (or near) but LC for European D. labrax geographically within uk waters. Suggest you read up on ‘clades’ and re-introduction guidelines. I know geography isn’t your strong point re your previous GBR ..,errr THE reef (the reef) comments but we do know how D. labrax reacts to pH increases thanks to science....sniff. I suggest you spend more time on the research and less on air b&b/trip advisor

Are you implying I have no idea where I live. Ok.


I'm not that invested in sea bass, tbh. I do find it interesting that in usual alarmist fashion you've gone off in an unrelated tangent.

And don't you worry about Aussie Bass. They're mostly freshwater dwelling.


And I know you're a self proclaimed genius and all, but research referred to considered the effects of pH decreasing, FYI.

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Exile

I called into question the utility of the study, and whether this sort of research is worth 100,000 of taxpayer money. Ditto for lots of other studies that seem useless in their own right, but are used to promote a very one-sided agenda. Other studies about our planet are certainly worthwhile. It's an opinion you and others disagree with, but not one that's BS.

Oh sorry, Ill direct your expert comments to the current uk government...

Try linking the ‘own right’ to ‘our planet’ they’re not independent.

So why do bass smell Exile?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The No-Surrender Approach:
Confronted with facts that don’t fit his view of the world, the deniers’ strategy is simply this:
Deny, deny, deny. Then deny, deceive, obfuscate, , fudge, pervert, distort, falsify, and lie.

* * *

For a minute there Gord, I actually thought you may have switched sides! Kinda sucks when the Saul Alinsky strategies are adopted by those who question the motives, manners, and tactics of those who want to suppress legitimate scientific debate. Some of us believe that what's been going on is a far greater threat to our values and civilization than a slowly warming earth with abundant levels of CO2. It's kinda like spending a lot of other peoples' money on wasteful research -- it comes down to different people having different priorities. I'd suggest we all get more comfortable with that idea since it's not going away. The solution lies with more tolerance, not additional sociological studies.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The picture is telling me your confusing peer-reviewed science with the mainstream media, which got it wrong in the 1970's as well.

https://www.insidescience.org/news/m...ientists-wrong

I confuse nothing. You misinterpret.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I confuse nothing. You misinterpret.

Nope.

[JC Reefer]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The science is most likely valid in essence. But consider this. Do astronomers find it necessary to exaggerate and media whore the chance of a catastrophic asteroid or comet impact? Is there research into the effects of increasing IDP on koi carp? Are there multiple papers determining how many papers on near earth asteroids and comets endorse the possibility of a strike? Are there hordes of unemployed hippies/wannabe academics that have declared an asteroid emergency that are glueing themselves to roads because they need everyone to know that we must build an asteroid defence system starting yesterday?



Well, you get the picture.

That’s exactly right. If an astronomer believes in a real inevitable threat, such as an approaching asteroid then I would expect to see studies and reports stating such.

They might not be right, but in general the group would believe it to be true. And being scientists, I’d expect testable evidence.

What you propose is more like the scientific community as a majority is following something other then their best experiments can prove.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by JC Reefer

That’s exactly right. If an astronomer believes in a real inevitable threat, such as an approaching asteroid then I would expect to see studies and reports stating such.

They might not be right, but in general the group would believe it to be true. And being scientists, I’d expect testable evidence.

What you propose is more like the scientific community as a majority is following something other then their best experiments can prove.

here this should help you as to asteroids

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Are you implying I have no idea where I live. Ok.


I'm not that invested in sea bass, tbh. I do find it interesting that in usual alarmist fashion you've gone off in an unrelated tangent.

And don't you worry about Aussie Bass. They're mostly freshwater dwelling.


And I know you're a self proclaimed genius and all, but research referred to considered the effects of pH decreasing, FYI.

When it comes to corals....YES I am. The Great Barrier Reef, pick one of 3000 reefs, it’s a big area (remember) you want a link?...just so you know which reef you’re near. You’ve already been schooled....the reef no no I’m sure you know what the reef is name a coral...any coral? Twatapora axifugia

PH isn’t unrelated re uk sea bass (D. Labrax) lifecycle. Wanna talk scleractinian re pH regulation and calcification? Probably not

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by JC Reefer

That’s exactly right. If an astronomer believes in a real inevitable threat, such as an approaching asteroid then I would expect to see studies and reports stating such.

They might not be right, but in general the group would believe it to be true. And being scientists, I’d expect testable evidence.

What you propose is more like the scientific community as a majority is following something other then their best experiments can prove.

Difference is astronomers don't invest their research time into the post effects of an asteroid strike. They don't discuss the future economics of a defence shield. They don't propose we start trying to nuke an asteroid out of orbit the might strike sometime in the future.

Sorry, that last statement has been thrashed around. The conclusion being that it would likely do more harm than good. Some climate scientists should take note from this.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Curry did not have many issues getting published.

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as...=en&as_sdt=1,5

Neither did Lindzen

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl...e+change&btnG=

BTW - both were receptants of NAtional Science Foundation Awards. Lindzen got $3,000,000 trying to prove his Iris Theory.

According to direct quotes from recent postings, Curry was very much onboard with many of the mainstream positions, and has remained so to some extent. These included making a connection between MMGW and hurricanes, a controversial part of the science. Notwithstanding, she has spoken out extensively about suppression of research into the impact of natural forces. What you and many others fail to understand is that such attempts at silencing speaks more about the level of uncertainty in the mainstream science than a 100 studies about fish.

Lindzen is a highly credentialed MIT physicist. His Iris Theory was proposed in 2001, and you haven't tied that in to whether, as a skeptic, he's still publishing about CC or if his skepticism is being suppressed by major publications. You yourself have attacked this scientist quite personally in previous threads, just like you've attacked Spencer, Christy, Happer, Ridd, and all prominent skeptics in the science who decline to conform to your decidedly UNscientific approach to these issues.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

When it comes to corals....YES [emoji3] I am. The Great Barrier Reef, pick one of 3000 reefs, it’s a big area (remember) you want a link?...just so you know which reef you’re near. You’ve already been schooled....the reef [emoji3] no no I’m sure you know what the reef is name a coral...any coral? Twatapora axifugia



PH isn’t unrelated re uk sea bass (D. Labrax) lifecycle. Wanna talk scleractinian re pH regulation and calcification? Probably not

That's right, you're our UK based GBR expert. My bad. I am flattered you expect me to be an expert in the Latin names of corals though.

For the record and in your esteemed opinion, how dead is the reef exactly?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by JC Reefer

I can only speak for myself, so there’s a lot of I’s in here.

I agree that the political polarization of the topic creates talking points that distract from the from the actual science. But that does not remove the validity of the science.

I can also see how more funding would be directed toward believers versus skeptics as that seems to be the popular belief. But again that does not remove the validity of science done. It would only slow the science being done by the skeptics.

I guess I have more faith in that data driven science will eventually prevail as theory’s are tested and re-tested by believers and skeptics alike. Eventually the data will prove regardless of what side of the theory you’re on.

I agree with all of this. My concern, however, is that there are preordained outcomes which may or may not be consistent with the actual science, and the best way to safeguard against this is to insure that the skeptics are not hindered in engaging in a free and fair scientific debate. In science, that means the same access to publications and peer review, and a commensurate level of funding for research.