Open Thread
April 28, 2018
O
19 Comments
Comments are closed.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments
Phillip Bratby on ‘Green’ renewable… vickimh234 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… vickimh234 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… vickimh234 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… Phoenix44 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… Phoenix44 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… Phoenix44 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… bnice2000 on Global Heating Will Increase P… vickimh234 on How Wet Was The Spring? vickimh234 on Labour’s Green Obsession…
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Ouch.
There’s been some concern again about the Great Barrier Reef and wonder if the bleaching is really a long term problem or temporary. Any comments?
Rowland, it depends whether your salary is based on saying the reef is at risk, or not.
The GBR has been around in one form or another for 1/2 million years. Look at the climate record and you will see it started during the glaciations of the Pleistocene and survived the very warm period of the Holocene Climate Optimum. I think there is more legitimacy to the claim that Oxybenzone from sunscreen is an anthropogenic factor hurting the reefs than warming from any source and I am highly skeptical of that claim. The real known anthropological factors that DO hurt the reefs are our water craft and ships running over or into them and divers plucking the interesting pieces of coral. Black corals in some places are protected simply because of divers harvesting them.
Rowland:
The GBR has been “in danger” of dying since 1971, at least according to those wanting more research money who regularly start wailing about the time Government Grants are decided.
This week the major newspaper had an article about some young german girls visiting Australia whose parents insisted that they visit the GBR before it dies. The girls were delighted by how healthy it was, and their pictures might just arouse a small amount of scepticism against the dire predictions of the MSM and ‘our’ ABC.
The reef is nearly 2,000 kilometres long and sea temperatures vary about 5℃ along its length, so “warm water” causing bleaching at one end doesn’t affect much. Indeed the recent 25% bleaching claim turned out to be less than 5% (and may not be due to warm water anyway) and within weeks was showing signs of recovery.
It can only be a matter of time before those dependent on the tourist trade turn round and sue the loud mouthed ‘scientists’.
The problem with blaming every environmental event on global warming will likely result in serious issues being misdiagnosed and subsequently not resolved because the blanket response is jump on the GW bandwagon. Science will suffer as event after event falls to the GW grant gravy train and true research into critical environmental issues continue to fall short.
I wonder at all the peer-reviewed papers that disagree with the CAGW and IPCC narrative. The next AR: do they get considered or is there a non-CAGW filter on what is considered? How does the technical consideration work?
“How does the technical consideration work?” Group think, slander, and intimidation.
Read Kuhn.
Dangerous AGW is the current paradigm. Kuhn points out that what he calls ‘normal’ science proceeds by adding detail to the current paradigm, but not questioning it.
Gradually, details are unearthed which do not match the paradigm. These are glossed over – treated as exceptions, ignored, assumed to be due to poor observation or experimental method. Eventually, these details add up to a body of findings too great to ignore, and a ‘revolution’ happens. This creates a new paradigm, and the process repeats.
At the moment we are waiting for the ‘revolution’ phase. The scientific establishment are fighting to retain the current paradigm. Eventually they will die off, and the revolution twill proceed…
The IPCC’s remit is set by the definition that ‘climate change’ is caused by humans and so anything that does not address that is not relevant to their report. The reports are given prestige in the mistaken belief that they are compiled by the pre-eminent people in all fields and that all climate science is reviewed.
Sorry – couldn’t resist!
I think the Swedes will be needing Fred and Barney as a backup power source…
http://www.iflscience.com/technology/sweden-just-announced-worlds-first-electric-road-that-charges-cars-as-they-drive/
“I’d like to be free not to buy solar panels, and free not to pay for everyone else’s.”
Indeed.
how did it ever get this mad?
_____________________________________________________________________
lest ye forget:
“Respectfully,
Dr. William Happer – Princeton University
Dr. Steven E. Koonin – New York University
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen – Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Section I: Climate science overview
Our overview of climate science is framed through four statements:
1. The climate is always changing; changes like those of the past half-century are common in the geologic record, driven by powerful natural phenomena
2. Human influences on the climate are a small (1%) perturbation to natural energy flows
3. It is not possible to tell how much of the modest recent warming can be ascribed to human influences
4. There have been no detrimental changes observed in the most salient climate variables and today’s projections of future changes are highly uncertain
We offer supporting evidence for each of these statements drawn almost exclusively from the Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) issued by the US government in November, 2017 or from the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) issued in 2013-14 by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or from the refereed primary literature.”
here
I find your website most informative and would like to be able to continue to receive your valuable contributions to the debate.
Bill Ryan
Australia
Here’s a good read: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/26/were-doomed-mayer-hillman-on-the-climate-reality-no-one-else-will-dare-mention
Good for a laugh…
Awesome! Sen. Inhofe & Pruitt called ‘regulation-hatin’, climate-denyin’ desperadoes who are taking DC by storm
Warmist labels Morano the ‘P.T. Barnum of climate denial’
Is this a Mensa Test? Does it signify “Back to the Stone Age”?
The pen is mightier than the Neanderthal?
Everyone had infinitely more pens ‘back in the day’?
A little known fact that Shakespeares real name was Fred?
We’ll soon be using a flint to warm us instead of a thermostat knob?
A depiction of Nicola Sturgeon modelling a blue scarf/orange dress ensemble?
Nope! I give up!
Is that Al Gore modelling our future clothing in a renewable future?
Are there any comments on this in the DT:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/04/30/antarctic-glacier-size-britain-threatens-flood-coastal-towns/
I won’t comment myself, I think others would do a much better job.