Great Barrier Reef destroyed by climate... or not.

[pmccarthy]

What type of geologists? Interesting article here:Geologists and climate change denial

Thanks, that’s a really interesting link. There are other discussions that are dominated by the geologist skeptics ( I don’t call them deniers) and I will try to post one.

[pmccarthy]

The Geological Society of London’s Statement on Climate Change

 

This is a good discussion on the subject. It will take a while to read down all the posts but I think it is quite credible.

 

 

[kgwilson]

Speaking of Reef damage, what happened with that starfish infestation that was doing all the damage a few years back, is that still going on?

That's the Crown of Thorns Starfish and there has been a big outbreak on the southern reefs. It is native to the reef and eats live coral and leaves only the coral skeleton. It apparently can extend it's stomach which it wraps around the coral & sucks it dry. They don't know why these outbreaks occur but wherever they occur large swathes of the reef are decimated. Last I heard they were working on some parasite to reduce the numbers in the outbreak areas.

[fly_tornado]

yawn

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Thanks Kevin.

 

Lets presume the waters get a bit warmer through whatever means, will the reef not merely grow further at it's southern end?

 

Don't mean to sound simplistic, but I am not aware of the factors controlling where coral grows.

 

Climate denial is a pejorative term. .

My main issue with it is that it's a cop out. Cowards use it as a social guilt weapon rather than debating the facts.

I'm sitting here laughing at the similar labeling of Geologists by the same people who will offer the nonsensical "97% of Scientist" line, Geologists ARE scientists.

 

Many of the geologists that I know are quite unconvinced by “climate science” because it ignores a lot of evidence. In twenty years we will look back and laugh at today’s hysteria.

"Twenty years" has already passed and I'm laughing at today's hysteria.

One telling factoir is the financial and insurance institutions are still working normally re; areas that will supposably 'disappear' in 20 years due to alledged rising sea levels. I kind of think they are critical thinkers and do deep, independent investigation surrounding these claims, yet haven't backed off at all.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I often think the climate truthers are too proud to admit they been taken in big oil's marketing machine, they double down on the stupid conspiracy theories. You only have to look at how the same people go on about different types of motor oil to see how effective the big oil companies are at marketing.

 

 

[danny_galaga]

One telling factoir is the financial and insurance institutions are still working normally re; areas that will supposably 'disappear' in 20 years due to alledged rising sea levels. I kind of think they are critical thinkers and do deep, independent investigation surrounding these claims, yet haven't backed off at all.

Actually I read a great article a little while back in The Economist that stated almost the opposite- that science or no, one tell tale sign that things are changing are insurance companies assessment of the future. And they are assessing it as less rosy. And if there is one thing people like to be most accurate about, it's money :D

Edit: Can't now recall if this is the article, but worth a glance:

 

Natural disasters made 2017 a year of record insurance losses

 

and two papers on climate change and insurance:

 

https://actuaries.asn.au/Library/Events/Conventions/2003/1050 coleman7a.pdf

 

https://www.aegon.com/contentassets/8193661d842f4d809a5263cb6c4120ff/climate-change-and-the-insurance-industry.pdf

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Facts versus pride

 

 

[octave]

My main issue with it is that it's a cop out. Cowards use it as a social guilt weapon rather than debating the facts.

I agree we should be debating facts. As a none scientist, I can only rely on trusted and peer-reviewed sources. Perhaps you would agree that I should probably start with trusted organizations that have a track record in scientific research. I thought this list might be a good start.

NASA

 

National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration

 

American Meteorological Society

 

National Center for Atmospheric Research

 

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

 

Royal Meteorological Society

 

European Geosciences Union

 

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

 

CSIRO

 

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

 

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

 

International Arctic Science Committee

 

JPL

 

Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

 

Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research

 

Royal Society

 

Royal Institution

 

British Academy

 

Chinese Academy of Sciences

 

Pretty sure the insurance industry is at least considering the effect of a changing climate on their business model

 

Climate change challenges the insurance industry

 

 

[pmccarthy]

It would take an hour or two to read all of the reference in my post 52 so I understand why you might not bother. But if you haven’t, you can’t really claim to have understood the evidence. Many people are arguing from a predetermined position and not considering all of the evidence. There is much more to this than just saying 90% of housewives think that Persil washes whiter.

 

 

[octave]

There is much more to this than just saying 90% of housewives think that Persil washes whiter.

I agree but I am not sure that the figure was plucked out of the air or by a show of hands. For the record, I am quite uncomfortable with using an exact figure such as 97% of scientific papers but here is a detailed analysis of that consensus conclusion. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Whether the figure is 97% or not it is still a large majority of respected organisations.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Your pride forces you to keep arguing the same point

 

 

[octave]

It would take an hour or two to read all of the reference in my post 52 so I understand why you might not bother. But if you haven’t, you can’t really claim to have understood the evidence. Many people are arguing from a predetermined position and not considering all of the evidence. There is much more to this than just saying 90% of housewives think that Persil washes whiter.

reading now!

 

 

[Flying Binghi]

From reef to insurence. Diversionary panic what..

 

And for those that don't read the post that I'm referencing here. The post from call-sign danny_galaga is referencing insurence...

 

Actually I read a great article a little while back in The Economist that stated almost the opposite- that science or no, one tell tale sign that things are changing are insurance companies assessment of the future. And they are assessing it as less rosy. And if there is one thing people like to be most accurate about, it's money :DEdit: Can't now recall if this is the article, but worth a glance:

Natural disasters made 2017 a year of record insurance losses

 

and two papers on climate change and insurance:

 

https://actuaries.asn.au/Library/Events/Conventions/2003/1050 coleman7a.pdf

 

https://www.aegon.com/contentassets/8193661d842f4d809a5263cb6c4120ff/climate-change-and-the-insurance-industry.pdf

"...Warren Buffett slammed for dismissing climate change as potential worry for insurers

 

Environmental activists are not buying Buffet’s arguments..."

 

Green Fury at Warren Buffett’s Climate Heresy

 

.

 

 

[Flying Binghi]

This Peter Ridd?

danny_galaga, did I miss the link to this 'quote' of yours.. ?

.

 

 

[octave]

From reef to insurence. Diversionary panic what..

 

 

"...Warren Buffett slammed for dismissing climate change as potential worry for insurers

 

Environmental activists are not buying Buffet’s arguments..."

 

Green Fury at Warren Buffett’s Climate Heresy

 

.[/quote

 

I am not sure what your point is He does dismiss climate change as a financial risk indeed he sees it as a financial opportunity. I don't know if he is right or not I am not financial wizz but he does not dismiss climate change itself. Perhaps it will be great for HIM.

 

"Buffett dismissed the concerns, saying climate change will actually benefit the insurance industry as they take on increased risk. Any potential losses can be addressed as the typical auto or home policy lasts for just one year – not 10 or 20 years at fixed prices – allowing flexibility in premiums.

 

“As a citizen, you may understandably find climate change keeping you up nights,” Buffett wrote in his letter. “As a homeowner in a low-lying area, you may wish to consider moving. But when you are thinking only as a shareholder of a major insurer, climate change should not be on your list of worries.”

 

Buffett added that inflation may also work to the advantage of insurers, increasing the cost of repairing property – an increase that has been matched by rises in rates.

 

“Paradoxically, the upward march in loss costs has made insurance companies far more valuable,” he wrote. “If costs had remained unchanged, Berkshire would now own an auto insurer doing $600 million of business annually rather than one doing $23 billion.”

[fly_tornado]

the good news is Malcolm Roberts is going to run for mayor of Ipswich so you might finally end up with a "sensible" voice in local government

 

 

[Marty_d]

danny_galaga, did I miss the link to this 'quote' of yours.. ?

 

 

.

Flying Binghi, did I miss your answer as to why you're so motivated to rail against the facts?

[Marty_d]

the good news is Malcolm Roberts is going to run for mayor of Ipswich so you might finally end up with a "sensible" voice in local government

You have got to be sh*tting me.Ah well, they've had a fraudster, they may as well have a complete nutjob.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

he's a climate truth champion and you can't stop him

 

 

[Flying Binghi]

Here's a youtube vid showing Peter Ridd and others discussing a few things.

 

 

A Marine Physicist. And apparently he were the Chief Marine Physicist of the University...

 

.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

failed academics often turn to the media, claiming persecution for their 'controversial views' and looking for patrons for their work, we are better off being rid of Ridd.

 

 

 

[Flying Binghi]

failed academics often turn to the media, claiming persecution for their 'controversial views' and looking for patrons for their work, we are better off being rid of Ridd.

You will have proof of that eh, fly_tornado

And where is that link from danny_galaga...

 

.

 

 

[facthunter]

Let's put this stuff on the other forum OFF topics. where religion etc went. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I think its time to accept Binghi has some sort of emotional issue