ozflyer1 Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 Try Lizard Island, perhaps one of the worst. Flying Binghi, perhaps you're not familiar with the process of coral bleaching. At first the coral turns white, if the coral cant recover rather quickly, then brown/grey algae forms. Perhaps you are better to look for a patchwork of colors (best to see when the sun is overhead), if its all pretty much the same brown color, with the sun overhead, its damaged - full stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny_galaga Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 The penny just dropped Flying Dinghy IS Peter Ridd! The gigs up man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 That's the Einstein who were banished to the post office sorting room because he questioned the scientific consensus. That's the Einstein who said you don't need one hundred scientists to disprove what he said- Only one was needed. Just to be pedantic for a moment, Einstein was not banished to the post office. but rather after graduating from university found it difficult to find a teaching position so he took a job at the PATENT OFFICE. He produced his first paper in 1900 in 1905 he was awarded a PhD. Hardly a maverick outsider. By 1908 he was recognized as a leading scientist. His work although revolutionary was peer-reviewed and eventually accepted. This is how science works, yes sometimes people put forward a hypothesis that is contrary to orthodoxy. If the new hypothesis does not convince the majority of scientists in a particular discipline then the person proposing the new hypothesis must produce more evidence and better quality evidence (Barry Marshall - helicobacter pylori and stomach ulcers). It seems to me that if Peter Ridd is correct it would imply an organized and extremely large conspiracy. As with any conspiracy theory (hypothesis), the first thing I ask myself is how is this achieved in a practical sense, what I mean is do these organizations: 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 talk to each other every day to make sure they produce data will coincide with each other data. The notion that NASA is manipulating data to get more funds seems a little odd to me. Surely a better tactic would be to go to Trump and say "want us to blow climate change theory out of the water, yep we can do that with increased funding" If 9 doctors tell me I have cancer and one says I don't I may WANT to believe the 10th doctor but I suspect I would act on the advice of the 9, it is just rational. Of course, the 9 doctors could be wrong and if they are I may have spent money on treatment I did not need but it would still be the rational choice to follow up on the prognosis of the 9 doctors. There is little point in us having this debate, neither of us are scientists. Conspiracies are hard to disprove to the satisfaction of the conspiracy theorist, I know this from debating moon landing, 9/11 and anti vaxers. In a way, it does not matter whether a minority of the community don't accept the evidence because as we are debating this scientists and engineers are working on designing and building more cost-effective and efficient wind turbines, safer ways to dispose of nuclear waste better solar panels, tidal thermal solar, geothermal and engineering a smarter grid and yes even working on cost-effective clean coal. The one thing we can guarantee is that things change and progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Binghi Posted May 7, 2018 Author Share Posted May 7, 2018 Try Lizard Island, perhaps one of the worst. Flying Binghi, perhaps you're not familiar with the process of coral bleaching. At first the coral turns white, if the coral cant recover rather quickly, then brown/grey algae forms. Perhaps you are better to look for a patchwork of colors (best to see when the sun is overhead), if its all pretty much the same brown color, with the sun overhead, its damaged - full stop. Last time I stayed at Lizard Island were late last century so I don't know what it is like now. I do note that looking at the Lizard Island resort website just now that there is no mention of coral 'issues' https://www.lizardisland.com.au/?msclkid=73c8265d84c9127acadc7cb2580a9ea2&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Brand>RLSA&utm_term=resort lizard island&utm_content=Resort Whatever is happening around Lizard Island today is moot at any rate because i'm not claiming there are no coral dieback/deaths/bleaching. I have clearly been referencing in this thread that coral dying is nothing new and is to be expected of anything that lives in what is arguably one of the harshest places to survive for any water living creature - i.e., right next to the air. One of the earlier Great Barrier Reef (GBR) studies in the 1920's done on a reef not far from Lizard Island (referenced in my earlier posts here) set off to study, amongst other things, what caused coral to die. So why did they set off to study coral death.... because of all the previous reports of bleached and dying coral. The 1920's research cites other research done around the world going right back to the 1850's that mentions coral death. So coral bleaching/dieback/death is nothing new. What is new is the eco-loon hysteria that is looking at every little sparrow fart of an issue to back up the global warming hysteria. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 https://www.alquemie.com.au/great-barrier-reef-coral-bleaching-update/ This from a company that runs tours We often get asked about the coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) and how it affects the guest snorkelling or diving experience at destinations such as Lizard Island, Qualia and Orpheus as well as day trips to the reef from Port Douglas and Cairns. Unfortunately the GBR reef has suffered severe coral bleaching in some areas for two years in a row. Despite this, we believe that a visit to the Great Barrier Reef region in Tropical Far North Queensland is still a highlight of an Australian itinerary – the colourful fish remain and your off-the-reef experience at luxurious properties will relax and delight you. For serious divers there are options for multi-day live-aboard journeys to locations further afield where there has been less bleaching and Ningaloo Reef off Western Australia is also a Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Binghi Posted May 7, 2018 Author Share Posted May 7, 2018 Just to be pedantic for a moment, Einstein was not banished to the post office. but rather after graduating from university found it difficult to find a teaching position so he took a job at the PATENT OFFICE. He produced his first paper in 1900 in 1905 he was awarded a PhD. Hardly a maverick outsider. By 1908 he was recognized as a leading scientist. His work although revolutionary was peer-reviewed and eventually accepted. This is how science works, yes sometimes people put forward a hypothesis that is contrary to orthodoxy. If the new hypothesis does not convince the majority of scientists in a particular discipline then the person proposing the new hypothesis must produce more evidence and better quality evidence (Barry Marshall - helicobacter pylori and stomach ulcers). It seems to me that if Peter Ridd is correct it would imply an organized and extremely large conspiracy. As with any conspiracy theory (hypothesis), the first thing I ask myself is how is this achieved in a practical sense, what I mean is do these organizations: 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 talk to each other every day to make sure they produce data will coincide with each other data. The notion that NASA is manipulating data to get more funds seems a little odd to me. Surely a better tactic would be to go to Trump and say "want us to blow climate change theory out of the water, yep we can do that with increased funding" If 9 doctors tell me I have cancer and one says I don't I may WANT to believe the 10th doctor but I suspect I would act on the advice of the 9, it is just rational. Of course, the 9 doctors could be wrong and if they are I may have spent money on treatment I did not need but it would still be the rational choice to follow up on the prognosis of the 9 doctors. There is little point in us having this debate, neither of us are scientists. Conspiracies are hard to disprove to the satisfaction of the conspiracy theorist, I know this from debating moon landing, 9/11 and anti vaxers. In a way, it does not matter whether a minority of the community don't accept the evidence because as we are debating this scientists and engineers are working on designing and building more cost-effective and efficient wind turbines, safer ways to dispose of nuclear waste better solar panels, tidal thermal solar, geothermal and engineering a smarter grid and yes even working on cost-effective clean coal. The one thing we can guarantee is that things change and progress. Where to start.. "...debating moon landing..." Hmmm, so what do actual astronauts and NASA scientists think - "...the high profile story today about the 49 NASA astronauts, engineers, and scientists who wrote a scathing letter to NASA director Charles Bolden, Jr. saying Jim Hansen and NASA GISS are exemplifying the “wrong stuff”..." https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/the-right-stuff-what-the-nasa-astronauts-say-about-global-warming/ "...there is little point in us having this debate, neither of us are scientists...' With that reasoning you are saying I can not debate the islamic religion because there are literally hundred's of thousands of officially educated islamic scholars that have years of islamic 'education' behind them and are the official legal and political advisers to country's containing 100's of millions of people . Obviously as a lone atheist I lack any official religious accreditation and am not allowed to question why females are second class citizens, jews are to be killed, and faggs are to be thrown off tall buildings..... Nuff for now.. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 Hmmm, so what do actual astronauts and NASA scientists think - 49 out of how many? I can see a hand full of retired astronauts, I can see a materials specialist a motion simulator specialist a quality assurance manager. the closest I can see to an atmospheric scientist is 1 meteorologist. These are all undoubtedly smart people but then so is my doctor but he is useless at fixing my car and also my mechanic is hopeless when it comes to a prostate exam. I am still going with the majority. Nuff for now.. fair enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Binghi Posted May 7, 2018 Author Share Posted May 7, 2018 49 out of how many? I can see a hand full of retired astronauts, I can see a materials specialist a motion simulator specialist a quality assurance manager. the closest I can see to an atmospheric scientist is 1 meteorologist. These are all undoubtedly smart people but then so is my doctor but he is useless at fixing my car and also my mechanic is hopeless when it comes to a prostate exam. I am still going with the majority.fair enough So, as your obviously a 'believer' of the islamic religion, how do islam reconcile the global warming hysteria within its faith ? And, moving down the list of "these organisations"... (apologies for the font size) National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) "...The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change. A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015... ...the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data... ...His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper..." https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/04/bombshell-noaa-whistleblower-says-karl-et-al-pausebuster-paper-was-hyped-broke-procedures/ . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 the case is still ongoing isn't it? latest research is pretty clear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 search for Dr John Bates and this is the 4th link, another quack http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/more-fake-news-in-the-mail-on-sunday/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 So, as your obviously a 'believer' of the islamic religion, how do islam reconcile the global warming hysteria within its faith ? I am struggling to understand your logic here. I challenge you to point out anything I said that could even remotely suggest I am a supporter of Islam or any other religion for that matter. By the way, does anyone else understand what FB means by this? Perhaps you could explain how you arrived at that comment? As for your second point, I can't make any comment until I have fully read and understood the article. I do note though that in the comments there is a very detailed rebuttal by a poster called Bindidon with a graph asserting that the original graph that Bates relied on was a misrepresentation. Again I am not going to express an opinion until I fully understand it, which I will do over the next few days. PS This is interesting though https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/09/whistleblower-i-knew-people-would-misuse-this-they-did-to-attack-climate-science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 Octave & FT... there's no point arguing with this clown. He probably doesn't even believe what he's saying, he's just after a response. Just a troll. I'm ignoring this thread and every ongoing post of his, he's not worth my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Binghi Posted May 7, 2018 Author Share Posted May 7, 2018 search for Dr John Bates and this is the 4th link, another quack http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/more-fake-news-in-the-mail-on-sunday/ The quack gets a gold medal from President Obama for record keeping... "...Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’. Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored..." https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/04/bombshell-noaa-whistleblower-says-karl-et-al-pausebuster-paper-was-hyped-broke-procedures/ . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Binghi Posted May 7, 2018 Author Share Posted May 7, 2018 PS This is interesting though https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/09/whistleblower-i-knew-people-would-misuse-this-they-did-to-attack-climate-science Had a look-see at the link. Interesting comments... "...details of Bates’ accusations. He claimed that the 2015 NOAA paper correcting for known biases in the global surface temperature record was “rushed” for political reasons without proper data archiving, but the editor-in-chief of the journal Science in which the paper was published noted that the peer-review process actually took longer than average for this paper. "The paper was not rushed in any way. It had an exceptional number of reviewers, many more than average because we knew it was on a controversial topic. It had a lot of data analysis." The lead author of the study, Thomas Karl responded to Bates’ complaints in an interview with the Washington Post: "The term ‘archive’ means a lot of different things to different people. … In this case, the data were available if anyone asked for it, and then they were archived further down the line after the paper was published."..." I see. "an exceptional number of reviewers" So they are saying that most science papers presented to the journal Science are not properly reviewed. Yeah, right. Just like the kid caught out they don't just say they checked it, they say they double checked it.. As to archived... "...the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, ...and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally... and ...NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion’. ...The Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the President’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study.’... "...admitted the data had not been archived when the paper was published..." https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/04/bombshell-noaa-whistleblower-says-karl-et-al-pausebuster-paper-was-hyped-broke-procedures/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/04/bombshell-noaa-whistleblower-says-karl-et-al-pausebuster-paper-was-hyped-broke-procedures/ . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 I'm pretty much done, wouldn't mind if it was intellectually challenging. Did you actually read the whole article "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was. Bates later told Science Insider that he was concerned that climate science deniers would misuse his complaints, but proceeded anyway because he felt it was important to start a conversation about data integrity: I knew people would misuse this. But you can’t control other people." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Binghi Posted May 7, 2018 Author Share Posted May 7, 2018 I am struggling to understand your logic here. I challenge you to point out anything I said that could even remotely suggest I am a supporter of Islam or any other religion for that matter. By the way, does anyone else understand what FB means by this? Perhaps you could explain how you arrived at that comment? From reading your comments touching on 'appeals to authority' and your claims to have debated "moon landing, 9/11 and anti vaxers... "...If 9 doctors tell me I have cancer and one says I don't I may WANT to believe the 10th doctor but I suspect I would act on the advice of the 9, it is just rational. Of course, the 9 doctors could be wrong and if they are I may have spent money on treatment I did not need but it would still be the rational choice to follow up on the prognosis of the 9 doctors. There is little point in us having this debate, neither of us are scientists. Conspiracies are hard to disprove to the satisfaction of the conspiracy theorist, I know this from debating moon landing, 9/11 and anti vaxers. In a way, it does not matter whether a minority of the community don't accept the evidence because as we are debating this scientists and engineers are working on designing and building more cost-effective and efficient wind turbines, safer ways to dispose of nuclear waste better solar panels, tidal thermal solar, geothermal and engineering a smarter grid and yes even working on cost-effective clean coal. The one thing we can guarantee is that things change and progress. .." How do you argue that that islam is a figment of the imagination? there are far more islamic scholars, more like 100's of thousands more, then there are climate scholars. So, reduction-ad-adsurdum, do your argument that "a minority of the community don't accept the evidence" of islam carry weight? Personally, I use common sense and evidence as a proof of claims. I see little in either islam or the global warming cult. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Binghi Posted May 7, 2018 Author Share Posted May 7, 2018 I'm pretty much done, wouldn't mind if it was intellectually challenging. Did you actually read the whole article "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was. Bates later told Science Insider that he was concerned that climate science deniers would misuse his complaints, but proceeded anyway because he felt it was important to start a conversation about data integrity: I knew people would misuse this. But you can’t control other people." "Bates later told..." ....Yep, sounds like poor ol Bates got intimidated. Though, did you read the US house of Representatives Science committee evidence I linked to above ? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny_galaga Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Binghi Posted May 7, 2018 Author Share Posted May 7, 2018 Yep, when he see's some evidence of integrity... "...On Friday 4 May (2018), AMP announced, the appointment of climate change-denying former Commonwealth Bank CEO and Future Fund Chairman David Murray as its new chairman,... ...In an October 2013 interview on the ABC Lateline program, Murray said “the climate problem is severely was overstated” and, when asked what it would take to convince him of the science, he replied: “when I see some evidence of integrity among the scientists themselves”..." https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/07/when-will-insurance-executives-realise-climate-advocates-understand-insurance-better-than-they-do/ . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 How do you block or ignore this Bongo clown with the new software? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny_galaga Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 So another appeal to authority flyin binghi? windsor, why would you want to block it? This is entertaining:-D but seriously, at the bottom of the thread is a button to turn off notifications for this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Binghi Posted May 7, 2018 Author Share Posted May 7, 2018 Yeah, run along winsor68... bye bye.. Now back to it. One of Australia's main reef 'experts' comments... "...Hoegh-Guldberg tells The Australian his 1999 paper has proved impervious to challenge. “Instead of finding the 1999 paper to be wrong, other peer-reviewed literature concluded that, if anything, my conclusions were conservative,” Hoegh-Guldberg says. Mass coral bleaching and mortality are increasing, he says, at rates that, if they continue, will eliminate the coral-dominated ecosystems such as the Great Barrier Reef. “Remember we go from zero prior to 1980 — and five to six mild to intense events by 2016 — noting that not all events were on the scale of those in 1998, 2002 and 2016,” he says. “One stark reminder of how things are changing is the fact there is no scientific evidence of mass coral bleaching and mortality prior to 1980.”..." Well that's interesting. What is the claim - No so-called scientific evidence of coral bleaching and mortality prior to 1980..." Interview with Valerie Taylor………….diver, shark expert, conservationist Published in The Australian, May14, 2016 "...What’s your take on the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef? In 1965 we went from one end of the reef to the other, over six months, and we found bleaching then. In the ’70s we went back and you’d never know it had happened. The coral had recovered; nature had taken care of it. I’ve seen reefs in PNG that were as white as snow and I’ve just come back from there and they’re terrific. So the Great Barrier Reef isn’t in crisis? Look, I’m not a scientist — I say everything from observation and experience. I don’t think the bleaching is a crisis..." . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny_galaga Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 All the classics here, from “appeals to authority” to “argument by selected instance”. Good stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Binghi Posted May 8, 2018 Author Share Posted May 8, 2018 So another appeal to authority flyin binghi?windsor, why would you want to block it? This is entertaining:-D but seriously, at the bottom of the thread is a button to turn off notifications for this thread Oh, let winsor68 go.. From the posts of his I've read in this thread he's shooting blanks anyway... Next he will be calling Valerie Taylor a clown for making claims of bleaching that a scientist said never happened... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 I feel like bingi is getting some a lot more value out of this than anyone else, reading the crackpots, ignoring facts, reading more crackpot theories, ignoring facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now