On 03/06/2017 at 02:22, ProDee said:

There are other views:

https://climatism.wordpress.com/tag/coral-bleaching/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/20/delingpole-great-barrier-reef-still-not-dying-whatever-washington-post-says/

All you will do is try to discredit disbelievers, such as those who contribute to the alternative views linked above.

The only certainty is that you are an alarmist who will go to your grave believing the world is warming at an alarming rate and you'll dismiss anything to the contrary.

The joke is on you.  The planet is fine and it's not warming at an alarming rate.  Climate has always changed and always will.  Some warming might be good.

And the GBR will be fine in 5 years, 10 and 20.  Be sure to bump this post. 

Stop bowing down to this new God you worship.

I have worked on the reef since 1991. I have visited it more than 3,500 times and completed 3,000+ dives. 

Many times over the years the press has sensationalised threats to the reef; Crown of Thorns Starfish, water quality issues, localised dredging, cyclone damage have all been overblown.

This time two years ago my part of the reef, off Port Douglas, was as pristine as I've ever seen it. That is not the case anymore.

Two years of bleaching, through increased water temperatures, has considerably impacted the reef in this area.  If  we return to more normal summers it will recover. 

However the GBR isn't fine today and definitely won't be fine in 5, 10 or 20 years time if we have repeats of the past couple of summers.

There are very few climate change deniers in this part of the world.

  On 04/06/2017 at 00:12, fndee said:

I have worked on the reef since 1991. I have visited it more than 3,500 times and completed 3,000+ dives. 

Many times over the years the press has sensationalised threats to the reef; Crown of Thorns Starfish, water quality issues, localised dredging, cyclone damage have all been overblown.

This time two years ago my part of the reef, off Port Douglas, was as pristine as I've ever seen it. That is not the case anymore.

Two years of bleaching, through increased water temperatures, has considerably impacted the reef in this area.  If  we return to more normal summers it will recover. 

However the GBR isn't fine today and definitely won't be fine in 5, 10 or 20 years time if we have repeats of the past couple of summers.

There are very few climate change deniers in this part of the world.

The climate has always changed and always will.

And guess what ?  Australia can't change it.

You are correct. What Australia does will matter very little in the scheme of things. 

But your comment that the reef will be fine in 5, 10 or 20 years is wrong. I truly hope you are right though

 

  On 04/06/2017 at 01:22, ProDee said:

 

ProDee - you mustn't have got the memo. That's not how it works, you're not actually supposed to hold the predictions to account.

The alarmist predictions create a headline then you just forget about it and when a naturally occuring event happens you claim that as evidence of climate change. Like the 2009 bushfires.

What do you mean by "naturally occurring"? Sure, we've always had bush fires, but never of that severity. I don't just mean because of the death rate - obviously that was affected by population growth and settlement patterns. I mean because of its speed, severity, spotting rates.

Might just be a coincidence, sure. Might not be. If an expert tells me the building me and my family are sitting in might be about to collapse, I don't say, "Well, it might not." I get out.  

  On 04/06/2017 at 05:54, Jara said:

What do you mean by "naturally occurring"? Sure, we've always had bush fires, but never of that severity. I don't just mean because of the death rate - obviously that was affected by population growth and settlement patterns. I mean because of its speed, severity, spotting rates.

Might just be a coincidence, sure. Might not be. If an expert tells me the building me and my family are sitting in might be about to collapse, I don't say, "Well, it might not." I get out.  

If an expert tells me the building is about to collapse i get out as well.

If a field of experts tell me every building is at risk of fire, flood and cyclone then when one occurs claim it as evidence of their warning i will tell them it is a junk prediction.

Why do you listen to the expert who tells you the building is about to collapse and not to the thousands of experts - the leaders in their profession - who tell us that our years of pumping crap into the atmosphere is having an effect on the climate that could harm us all in the long run?

 

I'll tell you why: in the case of the first expert, the solution requires very little effort. All you have to do is go outside.

 

With the second set of experts, heeding their warning comes at a cost. We have to change our way of living. It requires effort. It also threatens the short-term profits of the people who own the system, who are consequently happy to put out all sorts of disinformation.

  On 04/06/2017 at 06:20, Jara said:

Why do you listen to the expert who tells you the building is about to collapse and not to the thousands of experts - the leaders in their profession - who tell us that our years of pumping crap into the atmosphere is having an effect on the climate that could harm us all in the long run?

 

I'll tell you why: in the case of the first expert, the solution requires very little effort. All you have to do is go outside.

 

With the second set of experts, heeding their warning comes at a cost. We have to change our way of living. It requires effort. It also threatens the short-term profits of the people who own the system, who are consequently happy to put out all sorts of disinformation.

Nup.

The differnce is the first case is falsifiable and the second is not.

Any expert who deals in diagnosis or predictions that are not falsifiable are frauds.

  On 04/06/2017 at 06:20, Jara said:

Why do you listen to the expert who tells you the building is about to collapse and not to the thousands of experts - the leaders in their profession - who tell us that our years of pumping crap into the atmosphere is having an effect on the climate that could harm us all in the long run?

 

I'll tell you why: in the case of the first expert, the solution requires very little effort. All you have to do is go outside.

 

With the second set of experts, heeding their warning comes at a cost. We have to change our way of living. It requires effort. It also threatens the short-term profits of the people who own the system, who are consequently happy to put out all sorts of disinformation.

are you saying that none of the pro gw clique don't have profits to gain or careers to protect? cuts both ways you know

  On 03/06/2017 at 04:49, Wrecker45 said:

Hey EH i have been for a swim recently on the great barrier reef and it was magnificent.

On August 3, 1971 The Sydney Morning Herald predicited the great barrier reef would be dead in 6 months. It wasn't and any crazy prediction you believe now is likely to be on par with that for accuracy.

 

You were on the Porsepine boat with the great Pauline, were you?

  On 04/06/2017 at 06:46, Wrecker45 said:

Nup.

The differnce is the first case is falsifiable and the second is not.

Any expert who deals in diagnosis or predictions that are not falsifiable are frauds.

Huh? Sorry - bit too subtle for me. Need to unpack that a bit more. Falsifiable? I don't get it. Isn't just about everything falsifiable? The report on the dangerous building and the reports on the dangerous climate change - they can all be falsified if you're clever enough. Must be bed time for me - not sure what you're saying. 

  On 04/06/2017 at 06:48, daisycutter said:

are you saying that none of the pro gw clique don't have profits to gain or careers to protect? cuts both ways you know

 

Well, no, I presume climate scientists are like the rest of us. They have careers, sure. I spent a lot of time with scientists (a couple of fire scientists, but also climate scientists, physicists, et al) for a book I was writing a few years ago. I thought they were an eminently sensible and very admirable bunch. Certainly not the sort of people who would falsify evidence to protect their careers. The trouble was, that being scientists (as opposed to spin meisters for big business) they tended not to speak in certainties. Rather they talked of possibilities, balance of probabilities, etc. This left them open to attack from the spin meisters, who would say: Prove it! (The same thing happened with tobacco companies).

 

These scientists generally seemed convinced that the climate was heating up in ways that concerned them.  I remember one of them casually commenting something along the lines of: "Sure, the climate has always changed, but not at the rate it's been changing for the past fifty years."

  On 04/06/2017 at 12:30, Jara said:

Huh? Sorry - bit too subtle for me. Need to unpack that a bit more. Falsifiable? I don't get it. Isn't just about everything falsifiable? The report on the dangerous building and the reports on the dangerous climate change - they can all be falsified if you're clever enough. Must be bed time for me - not sure what you're saying. 

How is climate change falsifiable? You obviously still believe in it despite all the dud predictions. 

  On 04/06/2017 at 07:09, dieter said:

You were on the Porsepine boat with the great Pauline, were you?

With the implication that if you disagree with Global warmists you are also a racist.

Your combined arguement is a fraud- as are your methods to discredit  individual opinions.

  On 05/06/2017 at 04:42, Biffen said:

With the implication that if you disagree with Global warmists you are also a racist.

Your combined arguement is a fraud- as are your methods to discredit  individual opinions.

No, Mr Biff, just referring to Pauline's scuba dive off the 'beautifully clean waters off Proserpine' a couple of months ago. I'm afraid you're jumping to conclusions again. Please remember to take your daily medication or you'll forget where you are again - lost in Vietnam Jungle, no kidding? - and no doubt you'll blame me and Choke.

  On 05/06/2017 at 05:29, dieter said:

No, Mr Biff, just referring to Pauline's scuba dive off the 'beautifully clean waters off Proserpine' a couple of months ago. I'm afraid you're jumping to conclusions again. Please remember to take your daily medication or you'll forget where you are again - lost in Vietnam Jungle, no kidding? - and no doubt you'll blame me and Choke.

You are r very prescient Dieter.

I  have just booked another journey to Vietnam.

However I went " up river" many moons ago as you know.

The Horror......

Edited June 5, 20177 yr by Biffen

  On 05/06/2017 at 06:51, Biffen said:

You are r very prescient Dieter.

I  have just booked another journey to Vietnam.

However I went " up river" many moons ago as you know.

The Horror......

If you are going to find Marlon Brando I have bad news for you: he's dead.

However you'll be pleased to know the love of his life was a friend he went to school with. He confessed to him once that if only he had married him instead of his wives he would have died a happy man.

This is just for your information.

  On 05/06/2017 at 06:59, dieter said:

If you are going to find Marlon Brando I have bad news for you: he's dead.

However you'll be pleased to know the love of his life was a friend he went to school with. He confessed to him once that if only he had married him instead of his wives he would have died a happy man.

This is just for your information.

Not that it needed further affirmation.Both you and he are fruit loops .

  On 05/06/2017 at 07:53, Biffen said:

Not that it needed further affirmation.Both you and he are fruit loops .

I think he was a coco pop, actually. Me, I am an oat man. Haferflocken my dear mother used to call them.

  On 04/06/2017 at 06:48, daisycutter said:

are you saying that none of the pro gw clique don't have profits to gain or careers to protect? cuts both ways you know

Yes DC it cuts both ways whatever your meaning, sorry I have come in late on this discussion but any accusation that scientists are protecting their incomes by exaggerating global warming with empirical data and actual facts has to be balanced against the fossil fuel industry and their trillion dollar interests in sowing doubt with no facts, no data, no scientific papers that have been peer reviewed. I love the US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's response (ex Exon Mobil MD) to the question of climate change, yes he believes it is happening but he also believes we can adapt to it! Yes I am sure multi millionaire Rex and his family can adapt to any change in sea levels or crop growing conditions, drought or floods, but hey what about the billions of people who don't have options you flicking idiot!!!  

So we have vested interests protecting their million dollar jobs. We have certain spokespersons who question predictive models, and mostly attack anyone who ever made a prediction. They have no facts to the contrary, just sowing doubt. 

Take the Weekend Australian article by Clive James of all people on Climate Change, it is a classic 5000 plus word rambling anti climate change diatribe devoid of any data or facts just the usual playing the man, not the ball we see from Bolt and Co. Yes you guessed it poor old Tim Flannery copped it yet again for wrong predictions about drought etc and buying a house near a river. Good heavens how often can you recycle this Shyte as a new argument? I thought Clive was above that rubbish. 

Lets get this straight Climate Change is a natural phenomenon that is happening independently of whatever certain people are saying whether it is Bolt or Flannery or scientists trapped on a boat in Antartica ice. The evidence is here and now. 29% of the Great Barrier Reef is seriously bleached north of Cairns and in trouble despite claims from Pauline Hansen and Wrecker that it was fine last time they jumped in for a swim. Most scientists say the reef is dying, the Government wants to ignore this and the local tourist industry wants to avoid further discussion to keep their companies going in the short term. 

don't beat around the bush like kevin rudd, earl. why don't you tell us what you really think.......

  On 05/06/2017 at 12:48, Earl Hood said:

Yes DC it cuts both ways whatever your meaning, sorry I have come in late on this discussion but any accusation that scientists are protecting their incomes by exaggerating global warming with empirical data and actual facts has to be balanced against the fossil fuel industry and their trillion dollar interests in sowing doubt with no facts, no data, no scientific papers that have been peer reviewed. I love the US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's response (ex Exon Mobil MD) to the question of climate change, yes he believes it is happening but he also believes we can adapt to it! Yes I am sure multi millionaire Rex and his family can adapt to any change in sea levels or crop growing conditions, drought or floods, but hey what about the billions of people who don't have options you flicking idiot!!!  

So we have vested interests protecting their million dollar jobs. We have certain spokespersons who question predictive models, and mostly attack anyone who ever made a prediction. They have no facts to the contrary, just sowing doubt. 

Take the Weekend Australian article by Clive James of all people on Climate Change, it is a classic 5000 plus word rambling anti climate change diatribe devoid of any data or facts just the usual playing the man, not the ball we see from Bolt and Co. Yes you guessed it poor old Tim Flannery copped it yet again for wrong predictions about drought etc and buying a house near a river. Good heavens how often can you recycle this Shyte as a new argument? I thought Clive was above that rubbish. 

Lets get this straight Climate Change is a natural phenomenon that is happening independently of whatever certain people are saying whether it is Bolt or Flannery or scientists trapped on a boat in Antartica ice. The evidence is here and now. 29% of the Great Barrier Reef is seriously bleached north of Cairns and in trouble despite claims from Pauline Hansen and Wrecker that it was fine last time they jumped in for a swim. Most scientists say the reef is dying, the Government wants to ignore this and the local tourist industry wants to avoid further discussion to keep their companies going in the short term. 

Earl - one thing in your reply I take issue with - you say climate change is a natural phenomenon - yes, it is, of course: in the last 80,000 years Australia's climate has got hotter and drier as it drifted towards the equator (and as Aboriginal people introduced a regime of burning which favoured pyrophiliac plants, which reinforced the process) - but it doesn't change at the speed it has since industrialisation - the last warming took 80,000 years - the current one has taken a hundred - that's why most of the scientists I met believed it was man-made.

  On 05/06/2017 at 22:42, Jara said:

Earl - one thing in your reply I take issue with - you say climate change is a natural phenomenon - yes, it is, of course: in the last 80,000 years Australia's climate has got hotter and drier as it drifted towards the equator (and as Aboriginal people introduced a regime of burning which favoured pyrophiliac plants, which reinforced the process) - but it doesn't change at the speed it has since industrialisation - the last warming took 80,000 years - the current one has taken a hundred - that's why most of the scientists I met believed it was man-made.

well, i'm no saying they are exactly the same as now but the roman warming period and the medieval warming period certainly didn't take 80,000 years to develop. it's a bit misleading of you to just throw a figure like that around........just saying

  On 05/06/2017 at 12:48, Earl Hood said:

Yes DC it cuts both ways whatever your meaning, sorry I have come in late on this discussion but any accusation that scientists are protecting their incomes by exaggerating global warming with empirical data and actual facts has to be balanced against the fossil fuel industry and their trillion dollar interests in sowing doubt with no facts, no data, no scientific papers that have been peer reviewed. I love the US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's response (ex Exon Mobil MD) to the question of climate change, yes he believes it is happening but he also believes we can adapt to it! Yes I am sure multi millionaire Rex and his family can adapt to any change in sea levels or crop growing conditions, drought or floods, but hey what about the billions of people who don't have options you flicking idiot!!!  

So we have vested interests protecting their million dollar jobs. We have certain spokespersons who question predictive models, and mostly attack anyone who ever made a prediction. They have no facts to the contrary, just sowing doubt. 

Take the Weekend Australian article by Clive James of all people on Climate Change, it is a classic 5000 plus word rambling anti climate change diatribe devoid of any data or facts just the usual playing the man, not the ball we see from Bolt and Co. Yes you guessed it poor old Tim Flannery copped it yet again for wrong predictions about drought etc and buying a house near a river. Good heavens how often can you recycle this Shyte as a new argument? I thought Clive was above that rubbish. 

Lets get this straight Climate Change is a natural phenomenon that is happening independently of whatever certain people are saying whether it is Bolt or Flannery or scientists trapped on a boat in Antartica ice. The evidence is here and now. 29% of the Great Barrier Reef is seriously bleached north of Cairns and in trouble despite claims from Pauline Hansen and Wrecker that it was fine last time they jumped in for a swim. Most scientists say the reef is dying, the Government wants to ignore this anid the local tourist industry wants to avoid further discussion to keep their companies going in the short term. 

Just to be clear I was not saying the reef was fine based on my personal experience. I was asked if I had been there recently and I had. The part I was in near Cairns was beautiful. 

The Clive James article is packed full of facts and historical comparisons. Diatribe it is not.

Your above passage above on Rex Tillerson is a better example of an attack on the player not the ball.