PDA

View Full Version : Barrier reef damage exaggerated?


Alexraptor
07/13/2017, 12:17 PM
Came across this article that seems to have a different view of the recent bleaching event that hit the Great Barrier Reef.
And it seems to paint a bit more of a hopeful and promising picture than the doom and gloom that has been permeating the media in the last year.

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/ausandpacific/great-barrier-reef-endangered-demise-exaggerated-locals-claim-australia-queensland-unesco-world-a7827796.html

Thoughts?

ca1ore
07/13/2017, 04:41 PM
I took the time to actually read many of those past articles, and mostly they represent a similar sentiment to the one you linked here. There were a few hyperbolic tweets, but that's the world we live it. Don't think too many would say that the reefs aren't in trouble though.

Alexraptor
07/14/2017, 01:34 PM
Of course not, but the sensationalist news would have you believe its already game over.

jubei2006
07/14/2017, 08:32 PM
Think we also have to consider the sources. Do the papers/articles have a political spin to put on it. How can we use an event, sensationalize it, and then get people to get on the bandwagon. I would like to see more research, measurements in the affected areas. We have species in our own tanks from wold colonies that have adapted to much larger changes than what is going on at the reef. So I also think as long as we are reasonable with pollution and do our part the limit environmental effects, the reefs will adapt and survive.

ca1ore
07/14/2017, 10:56 PM
If memory serves, I recall most of the media reports were actually quite balanced in their reporting. There were a few sensational articles intended to be tongue in cheek. Outside Magazine, for example wrote a story entitled 'The GBR Passed Away in 2016 After a Long Illness'. I think some either failed to note the sarcasm or just didn't read the story. Though not dead, I've read views of a number if scientists that it's likely doomed. Why this is a political issue escapes me.

jubei2006
07/15/2017, 09:22 PM
Not to take anything away or disregard what we are doing to our natural resources with our species overpopulation, but most of the articles from large news sources are gloom and doom with 30, 50, 80% of the reefs dead. Then articles like these with local observation saying well it's not as bad as they say. Which view do we take? I've seen plenty that the pet fish trade has a huge negative impact on the reef ecosystem, yet how does even this compare to countries tearing up the reef for building supplies (concrete in third world countries until recently), reactor pollution (fukishima) as well as agricultural and industrial runoff, and overfishing?Then the article goes on to talk about money spent, but not how it's allocated. I know the reefs can be in trouble with our current state of pollution, but in the grand scheme of things which side is more accurate, and are we seeing a change to more tolerant corals or are we as screwed as the papers say. As soon as I see big money in an article, then things get political for me. Sorry bout the rambling, these things make my mind wander.

ca1ore
07/16/2017, 12:09 AM
I think with these things you listen to the people most likely to know what that are talking about: the scientists that study it! Not that they cannot be wrong, of course; after all science is about testing, validating and rejecting, hypotheses, but they are certainly more likely to be right than a lay-person that espouses their personal 'beliefs'. Always has seemed to me that if there is at least a chance of really bad $hit happening, we ought to do something about it. Sadly politicians, regardless of ideological dogma, are useless.

Spslvr
07/16/2017, 06:58 PM
got Netflix? check out Chasing Coral its a new doco pretty eye opening, and as a collector and coral farmer I can tell you the great barrier reef is B.A.Dly damaged....

alton
07/17/2017, 07:11 AM
The biggest problem I see is when money is donated for research, the research is used to help the person with there argument. Plus the global warming side needs to find better spokes people than Al Gore and others like this guy
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/business/aly-nielsen/2017/02/28/self-proclaimed-environmentalist-dicaprio-flies-eyebrow-artist
And if you do the research although the northern hemisphere is getting warmer, Antarctica has been getting colder until the large iceberg broke off and then global warming was the cause? It would be nice if someone would create a news channel and or paper that was accurate instead of putting there own spin and favoring there own beliefs in creating the news versus just reporting it.

d0ughb0y
07/17/2017, 10:20 AM
I was there at Great Barrier reef last April, and can confirm the corals are dead as far as the eye can see from where I was (1 hour trip off of Cairns).

The story the local guide gives is, this year is the second year in a row when avg water temp did not fall below 30C. He said the corals grow fast and will recover IF temp comes down next year. If not, then damage can get worse.

ThRoewer
07/17/2017, 01:52 PM
While some articles may exaggerate the current state of the reefs, the existence of the problem can't be denied.
Same goes for the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. And there is really no denying where that is coming from. There is quite solid evidence that ocean acidification is a man made problem. The coral may be able to handle heat or handle a more acidic ocean, but they can't handle both together.

The issue is really not if you "believe" in climate change or not - but rather if you want to take a gamble with the living quality of future generations if not life itself.
I'd rather be on the side of caution because if you are wrong the potential damage can be fixed (if there is any).
But if climate change tuns out to be real it will be next to impossible to to fix the problem once the evidence is absolutely undeniable.



Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

hanas
07/17/2017, 06:31 PM
+1.

My thoughts (concerns) exactly.

ca1ore
07/17/2017, 08:15 PM
I have long thought that by the time climate change becomes 'blindingly obvious' to even the most obtuse, it will be too late. Fully agree that even if the chance for catastrophe is small (though it probably isn't small) we would be collectively stupid to do essentially nothing. Unfortunately humans ARE collectively stupid :lol:

Spslvr
07/17/2017, 08:52 PM
big tobacco managed to convince the sheeple for 4 decades that cigarettes DO NOT cause cancer.

ThRoewer
07/17/2017, 10:38 PM
I have long thought that by the time climate change becomes 'blindingly obvious' to even the most obtuse, it will be too late. Fully agree that even if the chance for catastrophe is small (though it probably isn't small) we would be collectively stupid to do essentially nothing. Unfortunately humans ARE collectively stupid [emoji38]The problem is that people don't want to change their ways, especially not if it may require some sacrifices. So they rather escape into delusional fantasies. This is particularly easy if the fallout for inaction strikes far away and somewhere in the future.

The saddest thing is that most of the big oil companies are by now acknowledging the causes and have already started divesting into renewable energy and solar.
But by now climate change has become an ideological divider and especially the denial side has made their stance a believe system that is above questioning and argument.

I just wonder if this kind of denial would be the same if a couple of doctor tell them that according to their findings they have cancer and need immediate treatment. I mean, after all that's just the prevailing medical option and medicine has been wrong before. The proof would only be delivered at the funeral.

But I bet you that most would rather err on the side of caution and believe the majority of doctors instead of the one that things will be fine if you just do nothing...

But just to be clear here the fault is equally with those that acknowledge man made climate change and then hop into their new two ton Tesla instead of taking the bicycle or walk... or turn on the AC when it's getting hot...

Basically everyone is responsible for his/her own actions. If all those people who actually believe in climate change would actually act the​ part, the relativ minority of climate change sceptics or deniers wouldn't really matter much...

So the delusion and stupidity is equally rampant on both sides of the issue.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Punchanello
07/17/2017, 10:43 PM
I don't think there's anything sensationalist about sounding the alarm on the top 3rd of the GBR being totally bleached. The reef is MASSIVE. In geographical terms it's like destroying almost all the flora and fauna life in a medium sized US state.

At this point, denying the threat that climate change poses is at best wilful ignorance and at worst callous vandalism. We had members of parliament here fondling lumps of coal a few weeks back and having a laugh at what they perceive as hysteria over climate change. History will judge them poorly, it's just a shame that they'll be dead before the worst impacts hit and they can be held to account.

ThRoewer
07/18/2017, 01:18 AM
Anyone ever seen "Nightbreaker"

You don't have to go all the way to the Central or West Pacific to find above ground nuclear test sites. There is the Nevada Test Site, just 65 mi north of Las Vegas where the US Department of Energy performed 100 atmospheric tests in the 1950s, quite a few of those with US soldiers as unknowing guinea pigs - not to study nuclear effects on the human body (those were quite known even before Hiroshima and Nagasaki) but rather to study and evaluate psychological responses. Those test caused those US soldiers all kinds of health problems and then the government tried denying the cause of those ailments was the radiation and fallout...

ThRoewer
07/18/2017, 09:28 AM
And this is where the fallout of the NTS above ground tests went:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/US_fallout_exposure.png

Seems parts of Iowa and Montana should be glowing at night...

and of course Utah:
"St. George, Utah received the brunt of the fallout of above-ground nuclear testing in the Yucca Flats/Nevada Test Site. Winds routinely carried the fallout of these tests directly through St. George and southern Utah. Marked increases in cancers such as leukemia, lymphoma, thyroid cancer, breast cancer, melanoma, bone cancer, brain tumors, and gastrointestinal tract cancers were reported from the mid-1950s through 1980." (Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Test_Site))

sde1500
07/19/2017, 09:00 AM
Interesting about the nuclear tests. Funny because as I was reading through this, I went to get an article I read recently about some of our nuclear tests, really US did test quite a few...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/15/quite-odd-coral-and-fish-thrive-on-bikini-atoll-70-years-after-nuclear-tests

Obviously the damage is worrisome. But it isn't all doom and gloom. If this reef can come back after we nuke it 23 times, there is certainly hope.

Punchanello
07/19/2017, 09:39 AM
Interesting about the nuclear tests. Funny because as I was reading through this, I went to get an article I read recently about some of our nuclear tests, really US did test quite a few...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/15/quite-odd-coral-and-fish-thrive-on-bikini-atoll-70-years-after-nuclear-tests

Obviously the damage is worrisome. But it isn't all doom and gloom. If this reef can come back after we nuke it 23 times, there is certainly hope.
I hope you are right. Unfortunately recovery after these tests represent recovery of reefs in a limited area under relatively healthy ocean conditions. Current acidification and warming is widespread and is likely to get worse before it gets better. I hate to be a pessimist but I fear that the political inertia and baseless anti-science is more powerful than the momentum of enlightened change.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

ThRoewer
07/19/2017, 12:42 PM
Warming and acidification are only 2 of the issues.
The oceans are also still used as garbage dumps.

When it comes to the northern sections of the Great Barrier Reef heavy metals and especially copper have to be considered as a contributing factor as well. The sludge runoff from the Bougainville Copper mines on the south side of Papua New Guinea was massive and hit the GBR straight on. The mines are closed for a good while now, but the pollution is still there.

When it comes to global effects you may get a more conclusive picture when looking at the line islands: http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-news/expedition-line-islands

As for the Bikini Atoll - the nuclear fallout didn't harm the surrounding ocean much because it was washed away rather quickly and diluted in the vast volume of the Pacific and by now all other oceans as well.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Tripod1404
07/19/2017, 06:11 PM
The biggest problem I see is when money is donated for research, the research is used to help the person with there argument. Plus the global warming side needs to find better spokes people than Al Gore and others like this guy
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/business/aly-nielsen/2017/02/28/self-proclaimed-environmentalist-dicaprio-flies-eyebrow-artist
And if you do the research although the northern hemisphere is getting warmer, Antarctica has been getting colder until the large iceberg broke off and then global warming was the cause? It would be nice if someone would create a news channel and or paper that was accurate instead of putting there own spin and favoring there own beliefs in creating the news versus just reporting it.

This is a big urban legend. Very little money is donated to academic researchers from private sector. Any company rich enough to have money for science will either have its own R&D department or it is some type off a "Technology" company that makes money out of research (like many pharma and biotech companies).

Most of research money for academic institutions comes from government grants. I am a professional scientist and it is quite funny that people think we swim in money. You need to work on proposals for years to get even the smallest amounts of grant money. And no, we dont personally get any part of the grant money. Our salaries are set by the academic institution. Even if you get a $50 million dollar grant, your salary will not change. I am saying this because I have met with people claiming scientist say there is global warming to get grants, so that they can get rich.

Of course companies like Exon do "pseudoscience" under their so called R&D departments, but can we honestly trust a oil company to make unbiased research on climate change? When you look at scientific data on climate change, look at the number of articles that comes from academic sources. How many academic sources claim climate change is not real?

And what I dont understand is why do we need a spokesman. Science is based on facts, not beliefs. Would anyone disagree with gravity if there is a great spokesman against gravity and would that make gravity unreal. Like Neil deGrasse Tyson said “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”

Btw, southern hemisphere and Antarctica are also getting warmer. If you average out whole southern hemisphere, it is clearly getting warmer. Southern hemisphere is much more ocean and much less land, so climate there is less prone to extremes. This makes the climate there to appear more stable. Coastal Antarctica is getting warmer, it is not having the same amount of sea-ice around the continent in Antarctic winter. It is true that the interior Antarctica is getting colder but that is mainly because of the shifts in ocean currents and dominant winds due to ocean heating.

ThRoewer
07/19/2017, 11:11 PM
... Science is based on facts, not beliefs. Would anyone disagree with gravity if there is a great spokesman against gravity and would that make gravity unreal. ...

Sure, if someone with a cult following makes it a politically divisive issue and tell his his fanatical followers that it's a made-up scheme by their opponents or people they deem inferior...

One actual example of exactly that would be the "Arian Physics" (or "Deutsche Physik") of the Nazis that called among other things Einstein's general relativity a "Jewish hoax" despite the fact that it had already been proven that gravity is acceleration and that a strong enough gravity well can bend light.

And with the right assembly of blind followers you can repeat equally or even more ridiculous things any day of the week...

Just take carbon dating of fossils - you will easily find plenty of people who are dead certain that that is a hoax...

If it fits their world view people are willing to believe everything and wilfully ignore the facts - until they finally hit them in the face.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

alton
07/20/2017, 06:44 AM
I guess I should of stipulated my tax money going into research? You can watch the thermometer and see the temps going up. The question is what is everyone doing about it? And that answer is nothing! Have you ever wondered how much energy Face Book uses in a day? How much fuel we burn out on the lake or in a bay on a weekend with jet ski's, bass/bay/ski boats. I know some that go out and use 100 gallons of gas a weekend to fish. And please do not bring up controlling our population, I have received negative post about controlling growth. One last thing I grew up in a family of nine in a 2,000 sqft. home, today most homes are 3,000 SQFT + for a family of four?

Tripod1404
07/20/2017, 03:53 PM
I guess I should of stipulated my tax money going into research? You can watch the thermometer and see the temps going up.

Wow, we have nothing to argue here after this much of anti-intellectualism. If someone didn't sit and watched how mold was growing, people would still be dying from bacterial infections.

sde1500
07/20/2017, 04:04 PM
Wow, we have nothing to argue here after this much of anti-intellectualism. If someone didn't sit and watched how mold was growing, people would still be dying from bacterial infections.



As a casual observer I had considered it more of a conversation than an argument. No reason to devolve to personal attacks.

Tripod1404
07/20/2017, 04:42 PM
As a casual observer I had considered it more of a conversation than an argument. No reason to devolve to personal attacks.

It was not a personal attack, I didn't call anyone not-intellectual or ignorant. But a statement like "climate scientist are a bunch of people who just look at the thermometers" is clearly an anti-intellectual statement. A person can be very intellectual but support anti-intellectualism.

From wikipedia; Anti-intellectualism is hostility to and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectualism commonly expressed as deprecation of education and philosophy, and the dismissal of art, literature, and science as impractical and even contemptible human pursuits.

alton
07/21/2017, 06:48 AM
It was not a personal attack, I didn't call anyone not-intellectual or ignorant. But a statement like "climate scientist are a bunch of people who just look at the thermometers" is clearly an anti-intellectual statement. A person can be very intellectual but support anti-intellectualism.

From wikipedia; Anti-intellectualism is hostility to and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectualism commonly expressed as deprecation of education and philosophy, and the dismissal of art, literature, and science as impractical and even contemptible human pursuits.

What I meant was since I am 57 years old I have seen winters here in south Texas with a seven degree winter day. From getting snow every few years, to no measurable snow in 32 years at my home. From reading as a child that the earth is cooling to now read and know the earths temps are increasing. What I have an issue with is people who claim and scream Global warming and then do nothing themselves to help fix the problem. It disgust me everyday when I see the amount of trash on our city, county, and state roads and highways. Or going to the beach and see a pile of trash not 10' from a trash can because of lazy idiots. Humans, we are our own best and worst enemy at messing up our World. The Great Barrier Reef is an Awesome site, I love watching videos and TV shows showing it. But like someone stated just like Hawaii how much of the demise is do to Pollution and the laziness of our government to properly clean the water before dumping it in our ocean? A bunch of the sewer lines here where I work are in creek beds, every time there is a flood manhole covers pop off and raw sewage finds its way into the creek, then to the rivers and finally the Gulf of Mexico. You are right about one thing, "Trust" is hard to come by these days.

sde1500
07/21/2017, 09:00 AM
It was not a personal attack, I didn't call anyone not-intellectual or ignorant. But a statement like "climate scientist are a bunch of people who just look at the thermometers" is clearly an anti-intellectual statement. A person can be very intellectual but support anti-intellectualism.

Personal attack may have been the wrong way to put it sorry. But I didn't take what he said as an attack on climate scientists, more along the lines of what he further elaborated on below.

What I meant was since I am 57 years old I have seen winters here in south Texas with a seven degree winter day. From getting snow every few years, to no measurable snow in 32 years at my home. From reading as a child that the earth is cooling to now read and know the earths temps are increasing. What I have an issue with is people who claim and scream Global warming and then do nothing themselves to help fix the problem. It disgust me everyday when I see the amount of trash on our city, county, and state roads and highways. Or going to the beach and see a pile of trash not 10' from a trash can because of lazy idiots. Humans, we are our own best and worst enemy at messing up our World. The Great Barrier Reef is an Awesome site, I love watching videos and TV shows showing it. But like someone stated just like Hawaii how much of the demise is do to Pollution and the laziness of our government to properly clean the water before dumping it in our ocean? A bunch of the sewer lines here where I work are in creek beds, every time there is a flood manhole covers pop off and raw sewage finds its way into the creek, then to the rivers and finally the Gulf of Mexico. You are right about one thing, "Trust" is hard to come by these days.

I absolutely agree. It blows my mind how some people have managed to become the face of the Climate change crusade, all the while being nothing more than glaringly obvious hypocrites. Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio telling us peasants to consume less, scolding us for our polluting ways, and talking down to us as if everyone is so dumb. All the while flying around on private jets, living in huge mansions using absurd amounts of electricity, and being photographed hanging out alone on 200+ foot yachts.

I absolutely believe we can do more to protect this earth, we should start with holding these idiots accountable for their "do as we say not as we do" attitudes.

Me too.

:celeb2:

ca1ore
07/21/2017, 09:02 AM
But just to be clear here the fault is equally with those that acknowledge man made climate change and then hop into their new two ton Tesla instead of taking the bicycle or walk... or turn on the AC when it's getting hot...

..... or run an energy-hog of a reef tank :o. Though in my 'defense' I don't burn incandescent bulbs anymore, rarely run the A/C and make my kids grow their own food .....

alton
07/21/2017, 09:08 AM
This is a big urban legend. Very little money is donated to academic researchers from private sector. Any company rich enough to have money for science will either have its own R&D department or it is some type off a "Technology" company that makes money out of research (like many pharma and biotech companies).

Most of research money for academic institutions comes from government grants. I am a professional scientist and it is quite funny that people think we swim in money. You need to work on proposals for years to get even the smallest amounts of grant money. And no, we dont personally get any part of the grant money. Our salaries are set by the academic institution. Even if you get a $50 million dollar grant, your salary will not change. I am saying this because I have met with people claiming scientist say there is global warming to get grants, so that they can get rich.

Of course companies like Exon do "pseudoscience" under their so called R&D departments, but can we honestly trust a oil company to make unbiased research on climate change? When you look at scientific data on climate change, look at the number of articles that comes from academic sources. How many academic sources claim climate change is not real?

And what I dont understand is why do we need a spokesman. Science is based on facts, not beliefs. Would anyone disagree with gravity if there is a great spokesman against gravity and would that make gravity unreal. Like Neil deGrasse Tyson said “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”

Btw, southern hemisphere and Antarctica are also getting warmer. If you average out whole southern hemisphere, it is clearly getting warmer. Southern hemisphere is much more ocean and much less land, so climate there is less prone to extremes. This makes the climate there to appear more stable. Coastal Antarctica is getting warmer, it is not having the same amount of sea-ice around the continent in Antarctic winter. It is true that the interior Antarctica is getting colder but that is mainly because of the shifts in ocean currents and dominant winds due to ocean heating.

First of all I need to apologize, I should of led off with how long have you been studying Global warming, what have you found in your studies, and what are your thoughts on trying to fix/curtail the problem. If you you still feel offended by my statements once again I apologize. Sometimes I get carried away

marfuerte
07/22/2017, 11:37 AM
All things considered imho this thread is pretty measured and relaxed which I appreciate. I just returned from Belize and the damage is extensive. Out near the blue hole things look better but the shallow areas 10'+/- deep are in terrible shape. I'd guess 50%+ of the brain, elkhorn I saw was dead. All browned out. Sea fans galore.

I said in another post we're hobbyists who rely on data testing nitrates, phosphates, alk, calc, mag so I'm perplexed so many of us discount the data about climate change. We need to look at the data about the reefs, climate change and act now. Call me an alarmist. After last weeks trip I plead guilty. BTW so are some of old time dive masters I spoke to.

jubei2006
07/29/2017, 08:36 PM
I know this is a reef forum, and we focus mainly on our aquatic friends, but I also have real concerns about our rates of deforestation in the name of progress. I think this may be the single biggest contributor to ocean acidification, as we have leveled millions of acres of rainforest and subtropical forest to make way for city expansion, agriculture, and commerce. All those tress we're able to consume huge amount of contaminants from the atomsphere and reduce co2 levels. No we are becoming more dependant on ocean micro and macro algaes

alton
07/31/2017, 01:22 PM
I know this is a reef forum, and we focus mainly on our aquatic friends, but I also have real concerns about our rates of deforestation in the name of progress. I think this may be the single biggest contributor to ocean acidification, as we have leveled millions of acres of rainforest and subtropical forest to make way for city expansion, agriculture, and commerce. All those tress we're able to consume huge amount of contaminants from the atomsphere and reduce co2 levels. No we are becoming more dependant on ocean micro and macro algaes

Yesterday we broke a record high for the date of 103 set back in 1946 with a high of 104. And it only took 1,000,000 more people to do it. Looking at records in 1946 San Antonio had 400,000 people, today 1,400,000. The state of Texas had 7,000,000, today Houston and the surrounding area of Houston alone has 7,000,000. As we continue to over populate our pollution, lack of agriculture, and water resources will cause havoc. The highway system between San Antonio and Houston has not changed in 50 years, it is still two lanes in each direction. Thanks Ex-Governor Rick Perry for inviting Millions to come to Texas, while at the same time not doing anything about expanding our roads and protecting our natural resources.

sh4rkbyt3
08/07/2017, 09:22 PM
Many of us had this very discussion on here many years ago about the same issue. Back then there were still naysayers who simply wrote it off as a cyclical or wonder of nature that would correct itself.

Other would simply just write it off as unproven science, many regardless of how much information is given will absolutely deny it . I think with the amount of data the fact there is a serious problem it at least needs to be looked at.

And in regards to one statement alluding to those people aren't doing anything? Many are, the only way they know how or can but when you are faced with deniers who will question every single piece of data because it doesn't coincide with what they believe for whatever reason, the ignorance level becomes very difficult to deal with.

When a group of us here were discussing it, much of the die off of the GBR had only had one really big die off (2004 I believe). Since then there have been at last two more and each grew in it's size of impact. Not only that but it has since reached virtually every reef around the world. While some sit around and attribute it to questionable information and data or political whatever and then require further testing which will take years it's not out of the question given what we already know and have seen that a very good portion of the scientists could very well be correct.

Punchanello
08/09/2017, 12:25 AM
It's interesting that 25-30 years ago there was general scientific consensus that climate change (I think the language was global warming back then) was happening and it was very likely human activity causing it. No controversy. Science and the scientific method, are inherently non-political.

Fast forward 10 years and industry funded "think-tanks" started popping up and engaging in the most effective disinformation campaign in modern times. The true genius was the politicisation of the scientific method and flipping the narrative. The least qualified and most ideologically driven where now the sceptics, not the qualified scientific community using a sceptical model developed over hundreds of years that has driven the greatest period in human advancement in history. Climate sciensce was now a communist plot to redistribute wealth driven by the EU behemoth, or some such frothing delusion.

This episode is similar, but on a much grander scale to what the tobacco industry did with cigarettes, the pharmacy industry did with thalidomide and James Hardie did here in Australia with asbestos.

I'm interested in some of the comments about the hypocrisy of celebrities on the issue or people who buy a low emission car instead of walking etc. Most data I've seen, certainly in Australia, shows it is individuals, state governments and smaller enterprise (in that order) doing the heavy lifting on emissions reductions. Not Federal government, not industry and not the financial industry who are all failing miserably as leadership goes.

As far as celebs go, I'm a bit of an iconoclast. But I am bemused at the tomatoes being thrown in the direction of people who do have something to say on the issue. Let's face it, Di Caprio and others could be sitting around being fed peeled grapes by swimwear models while polishing their Oscars or whatever it is that rich people do. Good on them if they want to use their fame to influence change. There are other celebs living in opulence doing nothing at all. I don't read what they are saying as talking down to plebs, I think they are actually talking up to governments and corporates and trying to influence policy. Nobody is being asked to sit in the dark, stop all travel and turn off their winters in winter. Just do what you can with the resources you have.

Slarti
08/09/2017, 12:52 AM
Sure, if someone with a cult following makes it a politically divisive issue and tell his his fanatical followers that it's a made-up scheme by their opponents or people they deem inferior...

One actual example of exactly that would be the "Arian Physics" (or "Deutsche Physik") of the Nazis that called among other things Einstein's general relativity a "Jewish hoax" despite the fact that it had already been proven that gravity is acceleration and that a strong enough gravity well can bend light.

And with the right assembly of blind followers you can repeat equally or even more ridiculous things any day of the week...

Just take carbon dating of fossils - you will easily find plenty of people who are dead certain that that is a hoax...

If it fits their world view people are willing to believe everything and wilfully ignore the facts - until they finally hit them in the face.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

You mean like the very active flat earth society?

Anyway, a lot of smoke and mirrors in this whole process but my understanding is there is little empirical evidence that actually links climate change (and higher CO2) to human activity. Lots of conjecture and finger pointing but not much more.

Punchanello
08/09/2017, 01:42 AM
Anyway, a lot of smoke and mirrors in this whole process but my understanding is there is little empirical evidence that actually links climate change (and higher CO2) to human activity. Lots of conjecture and finger pointing but not much more.

That depends on your definition of "empirical evidence" because to my knowledge that is not even a scientific measure. If you use the definition applied by elected Australian senator and resident conspiracy theorist and kook Malcolm Roberts, empirical evidence is a single world changing cosmic "gotcha moment" that that doesn't need any scientific interpretation and can make someone loose control of their bowels.

If you define the term empirical as hundreds and thousands of little pointers which when viewed in their entirety lead again and again to the same conclusion then that might be a more reasonable expectation in just about any scientific field.

On this Malcolm Roberts character, and I'm using him because of his reliance on the term to dismiss anything he doesn't want to hear, one of Australia’s most famous and celebrated scientists Prof Peter Doherty (Nobel prize winner for his research into the immune system) said "I’ve never used the term ‘empirical evidence’, or heard any other working scientist say it. [Roberts] has no understanding of how science works."

ThRoewer
08/10/2017, 04:23 AM
If you compare the consumption of fossil fuels with the CO2 levels over the time it was measured and recorded you will have to be willfully blind to not see the connection.
But CO2 is only one of the greenhouse gasses and not even the worst. Methane is actually several times worse. The main source of that are among other (mostly also man-made factors) the one billion cows (and sheep as well) worldwide we keep for milk, steaks and hamburgers.
If you then also factor in the past and ongoing deforestation the human involvement becomes quite clear.

The current global warming is clearly man made. And if you doubt that there is even warming going on, just ask someone living in Alaska for long enough.

Furthermore, the rate of warming doesn't really allow any other conclusion than humans as cause.
All warming periods of the past were rather slow and gradual over thousands of years.

It's the denial and "skepticism" that's the scheme and not the climate science.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

alton
08/10/2017, 06:30 AM
Well I guess the way to control methane is control the human population, but no one wants to hear or do that in this country. And although I do love my fellow Americans, I wish they would stop moving to Texas, we are already busting at the seams. Darn Ex-Governor Perry and his big mouth.

Punchanello
08/10/2017, 08:23 AM
Well I guess the way to control methane is control the human population, but no one wants to hear or do that in this country. And although I do love my fellow Americans, I wish they would stop moving to Texas, we are already busting at the seams. Darn Ex-Governor Perry and his big mouth.

Controlling our beef and dairy consumption would probably do more good than population control. Cow farts and burps should be next on the hit list after the digging up, transporting and burning fossil fuels much to my Argentine asado loving dismay.

I think our perhaps blinkered focus on fossil fuels comes from the concerted and unethical campaign of the coal and petroleum industries against the science. As has been rightly pointed out, farming and logging (clearing) are also areas of real concern.

alton
08/10/2017, 10:37 AM
Controlling our beef and dairy consumption would probably do more good than population control. Cow farts and burps should be next on the hit list after the digging up, transporting and burning fossil fuels much to my Argentine asado loving dismay.

I think our perhaps blinkered focus on fossil fuels comes from the concerted and unethical campaign of the coal and petroleum industries against the science. As has been rightly pointed out, farming and logging (clearing) are also areas of real concern.

And what do you suggest we eat more vegi's? Oh yea the equipment that plants and harvest vegi's runs on diesel or do you suggest farmers go back to using mules? Oh darn that would produce more methane.

Fredfish
08/10/2017, 03:45 PM
And what do you suggest we eat more vegi's? Oh yea the equipment that plants and harvest vegi's runs on diesel or do you suggest farmers go back to using mules? Oh darn that would produce more methane.
Beans, which are a good alternative source of proteins, use considerably less resources per calorie produced than any meat product.

You cannot reduce your environmental footprint to zero, but you can do everything in your power to reduce it if you choose to.

Personally I am not vegetarian, but do use a lot less meat than I used to. It helps that I happen to like a lot of vegetarian or near vegetarian meals.

JZinCO
08/10/2017, 04:06 PM
edit

Punchanello
08/10/2017, 08:48 PM
And what do you suggest we eat more vegi's? Oh yea the equipment that plants and harvest vegi's runs on diesel or do you suggest farmers go back to using mules? Oh darn that would produce more methane.

I don't see it as a case of go back to the dark ages vs climate apocalypse. We know that cows for example produce an inordinate amount of methane. Much more than say, the equivalent weight in chickens. There are alternatives which will make a difference that won't turn us in to vegan cave-men. Ihope at least because I loves me darn meat.

On the population topic, it's interesting that in Europe broadly, populations are falling or holding steady. Economists have the view that this is a natural market correction. People are waiting longer to have kids because they can and they prioritise career and it doesn't make economic sense for individuals to have 5 kids any more. They theorise that this will happen in all developed economies.

sh4rkbyt3
08/15/2017, 11:17 PM
Wow, a decade later on here and not much has changed despite the evidence. Luckily their number has shrunk.

Tripod1404
08/16/2017, 12:20 PM
If you compare the consumption of fossil fuels with the CO2 levels over the time it was measured and recorded you will have to be willfully blind to not see the connection.
But CO2 is only one of the greenhouse gasses and not even the worst. Methane is actually several times worse. The main source of that are among other (mostly also man-made factors) the one billion cows (and sheep as well) worldwide we keep for milk, steaks and hamburgers.
If you then also factor in the past and ongoing deforestation the human involvement becomes quite clear.

The current global warming is clearly man made. And if you doubt that there is even warming going on, just ask someone living in Alaska for long enough.

Furthermore, the rate of warming doesn't really allow any other conclusion than humans as cause.
All warming periods of the past were rather slow and gradual over thousands of years.

It's the denial and "skepticism" that's the scheme and not the climate science.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


Plus the potential for additional "massive" methane releases from defrosting and rotting of tundra permafrost, and the release of under-ocean methane due to ocean heating.