Reposted from Jennifer Marohasy’s Blog
September 8, 2021 By jennifer
Next time you read that such and such a percentage of the Great Barrier Reef has already been destroyed by humankind, laugh out loud! I say that not to offend, and not because I don’t care about the corals, but because it is better to laugh than to be drawn into their madness.
According to a completely mad research paper published by John Pandolfi and ten other reef researchers – each a high-profile marine biologist including Terry Hughes from the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Research – the Great Barrier Reef was pristine before the arrival of humans. According to Pandolfi et al. published in the prestigious journal Science in 2003 (entitled ‘Global Trajectories of the Long-Term Decline of Coral Reef Ecosystems’) a rather large 25 percent of the inner Great Barrier Reef was destroyed with the arrival of Australian aborigines.
Except that when the Aborigines arrived much of the region known today as the Great Barrier Reef was open Eucalyptus woodland.
There was no Great Barrier Reef!
Back then, the Pacific Ocean began at the edge of Australia’s continental shelf that is now 100 to 200 kilometres offshore.
Sea levels began to rise some 18,000 years ago, after the arrival of the Aborigines. In fact, 100 percent of the Great Barrier Reef was formed after the arrival of humankind.
The first Australians predate the Great Barrier Reef by some 40,000 years. The first Australian walked across from New Guinea during the depth of the last ice age when there was no Great Barrier Reef. In fact, sea levels were about 120 metres lower than they are today.
It is only in the last 10,000 years, since the beginning of this geological epoch known as the Holocene, that the Great Barrier Reef has formed. It formed after sea levels rose by more than 120 metres during a period from 18,000 to 10,000 years ago when the coastline was being eroded by up to 50 metres each year.
On the subject of laughing: next time one of those expert professors in the ilk of Pandolfi or Hughes tell you to be fearful of 36 centimetres of sea level rise, remember that since the arrival of humankind in Australia some 40,000 years ago, sea levels have risen not by some few centimetres, but by around 120 metres! Oh, and all of that was before the industrial revolution that was just a couple of hundred years ago.
If there is one thing that these experts lack, especially the professors running Great Barrier Reef research, it is perspective. While they lack perspective it is the case that they are successfully drawing much of our civilization into their madness.
Just yesterday, I read that News Ltd, which publishes The Australian newspaper, has changed its editorial policy and will now, like the rest of the legacy media, be cheering madly for net zero emissions. Whatever that means. Do you know what it means? Read yesterday’s editorial in The Australian (7th September, entitled ‘National must prepare to deal with Glasgow summit’) and mention is made of Australia being ‘carbon neutral’ preferably before 2050.
I wonder if the newspaper’s editor, Michelle Gunn, has any real appreciation of what that means in practical terms. My husband is an Imperial College trained chemist, I asked him what he understood it to mean. He said it means that there is to be no additional carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by us dreadful Australians, with the potential for offset through carbon capture and so on. He doesn’t believe any of this is realistic, unless the Prime Minister Scott Morrison, bans petrol cars, stops immigration and also childbirth. Though in yesterday’s editorial mention is only made of banning coal-fired powered stations in Australia. According to the editorial, given the rules governing such things, coal-fired powered stations will still operate in China, South Africa, Indonesia, Russia and Vietnam. Coal-fired power stations will just be banned in Australia and a few other countries. Yet I’m sure the sea level rise of some 40 centimetres since the Industrial Revolution that the university professors and newspaper editors profess to be so concerned about is a global phenomenon that shows no respect for national coastlines.
To be sure, they mostly write and publish politics and madness.
There are antidotes to such madness. You could begin by cancelling your subscription to the journal Science and The Australian newspaper.
Instead, spend more time at the beach and in the ocean. Australia has a long coastline and most of us live not far from a beach – from the ocean.
I visited Lady Elliot Island at the Great Barrier Reef earlier this year with my husband, John Abbot. Scuba diving, I was unable to find any coral bleaching. Walking along the seashore with John (Abbot, not Pandolfi) I could only find evidence of sea level fall, not sea level rise. Indeed, the image featured at the top of this blog post shows John looking at a Porites sp. microatoll whose growth is constrained by sea level. The coral colony is flat topped, and dead-on top. A thin veneer of live coral grows around it’s margin and down to the sand. The live coral would thus be invisible to the surveys by Terry Hughes from 150 metres up in an airplane. (That is another mad story written up in prestigious journals and repeated in the press. It is everywhere, the madness.)
I would have thought that when the aborigines first arrived at that coastline, there would have been a rampart of limestone terraces rising up 300 feet or so from the then-coastline to a plateau. (Somewhat reminiscent of present-day famous touristy limestone coastlines in Thailand and Vietnam.) This would have been the remains of former incarnations of the GBR from the previous interglacial – and the interglacial before it, and the one before the one before it etc. etc.
What tells you there was a GBR previously? Uniformatarianism?
The sea-levels have been going up and down every 100,000 years or so throughout last million or so years of the current Ice Age. And the coral reefs will no doubt have been following them. It just stands to reason.
Reefs, and their detrital products, are preserved throughout a lot of geologic history, since at least the Cambrian, a little more than 500 million years ago. Sometimes the reef environment gets a lot of study, as for instance the Devonian Bootstrap and Popovich formations in Carlin style gold deposit genesis in North-Central Nevada. The Bootstrap is more reef-proximal and the Popovich is more down-slope layered reef debris. This long history of reef facies shows that the reefs are remarkably adaptive to a great variety of environments, so if the Great Barrier Reef was ever threatened the reef simply migrates into an adjacent environment, or dies completely but then is re-established by other reefs.
Look no further than Bikini Atoll for proof of coral reefs resurrection.
You had me at “Look no further than Bikini,” Mr.
😜
Limestone erodes of course. Some estimates say at 20mm a decade.
With or without wave action?
Er, just for clarification, would that be some kind of hand-waving dismissal of evidence or sea waves on an area about 120m above the then sea level? Just curious.
It was a request for clarification in the absence of zero evidence or context. 20mm/decade seemed rather fast for mere weathering action. Limestone pavement above Malham Cove – Limestone pavement – Wikipedia
You assumed he was talking about limestone at 120m ASL. I assumed he was talking about 0mASL. 20mm/decade would seem quite credible if wave-action was involved.
2003? Keep up, you’re even falling behind Rupert Murdoch. How embarrassing.
And how does that change the point exactly?
Loydo keeps the point under his hat.
That point isn’t particularly sharp, Jeff.
Y’all can sleep soundly tonight, knowing you are safe from sharp points.
Was there some kind of rational point you were trying to make? Do you make similar comments when an AGW true believer mentions Arrhenius?
I think yes. I think he was referring to the bullshit barrage from the Murdoch press regarding climate change, and the fact that Jennifer had to dig up a paper from 2003 to stay afloat in publishing bullshit. This is a tough competition, it’s hard to keep up. Perhaps next time Jennifer treats the crossword puzzle as a climate publication just to post some bullshit about.
So, no! You didn’t have anything rational. I thought not. Just checking to see that you still haven’t worked out the scientific method.
So Rory, can I say you claim Jennifer is raising valid points attacking a 18 year old paper? My claim is (and I guess Loydo claims the same) that Jennifer tries to remain relevant and visible by bullshiting about an old paper. Her attack is so faulty only deniers like you (ie. gung ho idiots) are cheering this.
I’m no “denier” I have no doubt how many Jews were killed by the Nazis and what their intent was. As for using 18 year old papers, LOL … clearly you have no idea how the scientific method works. I suggest you learn before you return to this site. No wonder you believe “climate change” has some meaning. Look up tautology … and equivocation.
Yes, you are 🙂 however you try to pretend you confuse science denial with holocaust denial.
Well, this paper was not refuted in 18 years, and Jennifer made a demonstrably faulty attack. That’s why 18 years is important. As for the scientific method, please read a bit about “empirical law”, you apparently wasn’t able to grasp its meaning.
Along with scientists. Now that’s a thing, however you deniers try to pretend it’s not. At the moment you deniers are just a small circle who make elementary errors and who are constantly whinning in obscure blogs.
Using “denial” intentionally equates climate with the Holocaust. That’s on you guys, Snookums. No one is denying anything. We’re only instructing you on the science and simple English.
A good reason to falsify it now, I’d say. That’s science. See how that works?
Say what? Did you mean ‘weren’t’? Clearly you didn’t take my advice to look up tautology and equivocation. Change is the default condition of weather [climate]. That is common knowledge among the science community. Using climate and change together is like saying “they arrived one after the other in succession” and is as wrong semantically as saying “you wasn’t“. Tautology is a kind circular reasoning. “Climate change” is also an appeal to ambiguity … equivocation; again a logical fallacy.
All in all you fail in grammar, science and basic logic. In simple terms, the paper was crap and people who believe it are idiots.
yeah, really? You really try to bullshit your way out with this?
You have to know that you (along with most of the deniers here) you use this word incorrectly. Yes, I understand what you want to say and even we can call it “falsification” but I’m pretty sure you deniers want to refer to The (famous) Falsification, the one from Karl Popper. But that means something different from what most of you think. Just as an illustration, you should know that the widely used Newtonian Mechanics is actually a falsified theory.
Back to the topic, finding a reef which is much closer to pristine conditions now when affected by extensive, industrial level fishing and pollution than how it was 200 years ago when only a few fishermen was there and all other external conditions are the same would be a falsification in the sense Popper meant it. Because the paper showed the opposite relationship.
Most of you use “falsification” synonymous with finding errors, faulty logic etc. That’s something different.
And this whole thing is a good illustration how shaky your grasp on science, the scientific method. You have some half assed notions orbiting in your head, you use them incorrectly. You couldn’t understand what an “empirical law” was. Another example:
No, Rory, no. Tautology is not a kind of circular reasoning. Actually, a tautology is not even an error per se, every tautology is (by definition) true. In colloquial use tautology is something trivially, self evidently true (thus giving no meaningful additional information). Like “if A, then A” or “A or not A”. These are trivially true, and completely useless here. In formal logic, any theorem (ie. a result of a proof process) is considered a tautology. Circular reasoning is a result of a faulty proof process (the latter is, by definition, is not even a proof process). That’s anything but a tautology.
No. Weather is not climate, this is something you deniers are unable to understand.
Again, you are using words you likely don’t really understand. Using “wasn’t” instead of “weren’t” is not a semantic error. Semantics deals with the meaning (or in formal setting, the “denotation”) of words. Here the meaning is completely obvious and the plural is the artifact of the way English uses the former polite form for the second person. While the form is wrong, the problem is not semantic.
You’re babbling again Snookums … No wonder you people are so confused by climate science. You’re not even familiar with basic terms. The paper in question was proven disastrously wrong … ie. falsification.
A tautology is a statement that – by it’s construction – must always be true. It uses circular reasoning in that it’s conclusion is its own premise.[…] Tautologies appear to be explanations but actually provide no useful information. They are also unfalsifiable since they are entirely dependent on their own premise.
http://believingscience.blogspot.com/2016/08/todays-logical-fallacy-istautology.html
I didn’t say that weather is climate (learn to read) however, since climate is average weather of a specific location over time, it actually IS weather. My original statement is correct. Read it again. You are wrong, once again.
Your wording was both semantically and syntactically wrong. “You were” is standard English. By altering the syntax the meaning was lost.
Gee, Rory, what a confused and convoluted mess…
Well, this is simply not true.
Now I have to refer you to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy To the Scientific Method page, and relevant chapter: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/#PopFal You can read for yourself what “falsification” in the scientific method means.
I can’t understand why you insist on some bullshit that is very easily can be proven wrong. Please check relevant pages in wikipedia.
Perhaps you should write more clearly 🙂 So your train of thought is something like that: climate is always changing therefore “climate change” is a tautology so it is circular reasoning so it’s wrong (so climate is not changing? that would be a good next step 🙂 ). This is the level of entertaining stupidity. Scientists say the currently ongoing climate change is mainly due to anthropogenic reasons. If these were not present climate would cool very slowly due to the Milankovic cycle.
LOL, what an insightful non-argument. More hand flailing.
I suggest proof reading your work might help with clarity. If it’s easily proven wrong then do so rather than use an appeal to authority.
In your case I fear that wouldn’t help very much.
Nope, that is not my “train of thought” [evidence of your lack of reading skills]. Since “climate change” is a tautology it provides no real information but because it is also an appeal to ambiguity it becomes equivocal. The term doesn’t point to any specific climate.
Well, there must be some “scientists” who say that, but it’s well known there is no empirical evidence to support such a silly claim. That would have us believe that the natural warming, post LIA, miraculously switched off. Hell, no one has even found a human signal within the noise of “climate change”. “Scientists say” is not an argument. Obviously you’re very confused about what science tells us.
Well, I hastily reformulated this sentence while writing. Yep, proofreading may help. And your right, you need clear sentences, you have problems with reading comprehension.
??? I have posted at least 4 or 5 comments explaining why Jennifer’s attack was completely wrong and why your further attempts to save it were just that, attempts. Wanna read it again? Okay. Jennifer constructed a straw man and then attacked it. The paper simply didn’t claim what Jennifer attacked. It didn’t claim the GBR had been 25% destroyed shortly after when the Aborigines had arrived. You deniers were masturbating about something completely irrelevant, ie. the paper postulated 0% (anthropogenic) destruction for the untouched reef, and there was no untouched state. Again, this is irrelevant, it doesn’t change the result, and it is actually a very good assumption anyway. The paper was about destruction at actual cultural stages (measured in terms of diversity change) anyway. The measured changes matched at each and every cultural stage around the world, and this is a very strong argument for the paper’s result. Is this an argument (whether you like it or not), or do I have to repeat it every time? (I have to tell you the paper’s results are very interesting on their own.)
While “climate is changing” is a tautology, climate science doesn’t say this is their result. They say “the current climate change is due to anthropogenic reasons”. Are you really trying to “discredit” a scientific field with some superficial sophistries that look like ontological arguments for god’s existence in the scholastic era?
Global climate. They speak about that. I know your tiring bullshit about this, like “there’s no global climate”. Or you are a different kind of idiot?
How about the 97%? Actually, this number is from a study, and should be read “at least 97%”. In reality, almost no climate scientist has “contrarian” views.
Yeah, really. Except for a very fast and accelerating warming. Among others.
Oh, you’re a climate scholar yourself, right? 🙂 This must be your well established and proven position, right? Well, I have to tell you, there’s no natural warming, post LIA. The natural tendency is cooling due to the Milankovic cycle. RealClimate has a lot of interesting material about this, go read it.
Then what the hell? Now seriously, tell me. Who else should we listen to? Scientists are the experts. If “scientists say A” (in unison) I wouldn’t put my money on “Not A”. But okay, let’s do our own research. Well, everywhere I look I find evidence that supports the scientific view. And the deniers’ arguments always turn out to be bs. Most of them can so easily be refuted, so ridiculously out of touch with anything scientific I wonder how anyone with a single brain cell can believe them.
And a topic you elegantly avoided: falsification. I think you know by now it’s a bit different from what you thought before, right? And how about your ridiculous misconception about tautologies?
And while you’re making excuses for your bad writing, you write that. And you’re trying to instruct me? What a maroon!
Nope she found an obvious flaw in the paper and exposed it. There is an entire thread pointing that out to you. The paper is crap. The concept on which it is based is nonsense. The fact you cannot see that is testament to your inadequate reading skills. The fact that you believe the science is sound exemplifies your meager knowledge of the subject.
The term “climate change” is intentionally vague … an appeal to ambiguity. It is only creditable in the minds of AGW true believers.
We know what they “say”. The thing is; they have no empirical evidence to support such a claim. Their entire position is founded on failed models and “adjusted” data.
There’s no such thing. It is in direct conflict with the accepted definition of climate … “climate is the average course of weather conditions for a particular location over a period of many years”.
LOL … it’s from several studies, actually, each of which was easily refuted. The number is meaningless, if not because it is a fallacy (appeal to numbers), but because only a tiny sample was tested using dubious questions. In fact one “study”, Cook et. al. (2013) was falsified by Legates et. al. (2013) which showed that Cook’s “consensus” was not 97.1% … it was .3%. That means 99.7% of scientists disagree or have no opinion.
Even if that was true (which it is not) you’d still have to show a causal relationship. You have merely offered a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The planet has been warming since the LIA. You must provide evidence that human causation exists. First you must falsify the null hypothesis.
You forgot to add “science” as in realclimatescience.com. I read Tony’s material almost every day. Maybe you should spend more time their.
The planet has been cooling steadily since the Holocene Thermal Optimum, interrupted by periods of higher temperature ie. Egyptian, Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods. The LIA was the coolest period since the HTO. The present warming is consistent with the entire Holocene interglacial.
That’s your whole problem. Your position is so reliant on fallacies, you don’t even know one when you use one. “Scientists say” is an appeal to authority. You’re also implying that all scientists say it, when you know very well they don’t.
You don’t have to look much further than this site to find “the scientific view” and almost no one here would agree with your blather.
And yet I’ve easily refuted everything you’ve written and all you’ve managed is typical warmunist bloviation and self congratulation. Science is about empirical evidence. You have none. It is also about reproducible experiments. You can’t offer any. Finally it is about falsifiable hypotheses. You are also bereft of those as well.
Now go away until you can offer some actual arguments.
Hm, “your right” is a very frequent error with native speakers. It’s interesting that you try to “shame” a non native speaker. Apparently this is your only field you can have a little “success”.
Bullshiting again. BTW the term is anthropogenic climate change. First you misquote, and then you bullshit about it. Rory, you’re pathetic.
I’m apologizing in the name of the scientific community for not knowing this important fact 🙂 You’re getting pathetic again. Do you really think you can challenge a whole scientific field with this non-argument? How about this: “xxx is the average course of weather conditions for the whole of Earth over a period of many years”? The studies are valid for xxx (which may be called “global climate” colloquially), so they are automatically valid if we change every occurence of the expression “global climate” (or equivalent usage) to “xxx”. More or less a simple textual change. We can have AGX. Voila, problem solved. Gee, you are really pathetic…
Yeah, we are again in the bullshit grinder 🙂 No, it wasn’t “falsified”. There was a sizeable bullshit storm about it in the deniersphere, you can find a lot of stuff out there. BTW, have you checked what “falsification” means in the scientific method?
I kindly refer you to the latest IPCC report, the state of the art summary of the field.
🙂 Could you please provide a (peer reviewed) study? Perhaps one of yours, ‘cos you make announcements like a great authority of this field.
Well, because they are the definite authority. Can you please show anyone who is not a scientist and a greater authority than the scientists of a field? And no, there’s no scientific controversy in this field. (FYI when there’s actual controversy scientists acknowledge it regardless of their “sides” in the debate. Here the debate was settled cc 20-25 years ago the latest. Up to the mid-late 90s you could have legitimate doubts but scientific advance resolved any controversy.)
This site is a laughable bullshit-mill. The real sponsors of this site (by and large the fossil fuel industry) need this to be able to claim for the more or less hapless public that there’s “controversy”. They can’t fool the scientists, and actually I think they don’t have “contrarian” views themselves. They are not stupid (unlike you), they are selfish. They think they won’t be affected by the changes. You are a useful idiot for them, a pawn. You’re doing a favour for them for free (or even you pay for it) by bullshiting here.
And please give me a situation report on your progress in understanding the concept of “tautology” and its differences from “circular reasoning”. You elegantly forgot to acknowledge you’d been speaking bs.
nyolci,
My old mate on bomwatch blog reports that sea temperatures around the Great Barrier Reef, taken in an 1871 scientific expedition, are no different to those the Acronym Authorities are reporting now.
How would you treat this evidence (it is not interpretation or opinion or adjusted data) for its relevance to the hypothesis that global warming is a threat to the Reef?
You simply cannot argue that it will go away if you ignore it. Geoff S
Must be kidding.That is one single measurement series. The “Acronym Authorities” use systematic and broad measurements for determining temperature data. Moreover it is well known now that old measurements had bias as an artifact of the measurement method. That series in itself, even with correction of the well know biases doesn’t prove anything.
means anything. sorry, this is a reformulated sentence.
The interesting thing about science is that there is actually less agreement than is taught in school, especially about things like climate change where we actually have little long-term data and don’t have all the mechanisms identified. So you label us deniers, instead of looking at the data. Who is the real denier, the guy who sees holes in a hypothesis or the guy who won’t see them?
Yes, we do have. We have various good and long term reconstructions for climate and the factors that affect it (like CO2 in the atmosphere etc.).
We already have very good bounds for the “unknown”. Look, we don’t know whether the gravitating mass and the inertial mass are really equal but we know up to x significant digits that they are approximately equal. The two major mathematical models of Physics (Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) postulate them equal. In climate, the number of significant digits may be less but our approximations are still valid.
At this point you are very offensive, nyicky.
Alarmists accuse skeptic of denial because they refuse to ignore the scientific principle and the alarmist method is to malign and slime the target.
The purpose of the word denial is to conflate skeptics with Holocaust deniers.
That was exposed over a decade ago.
Because, now nyicky purposely diminishes the Holocaust in order to malign skeptics.
While that seems to have been the original intention for use of denier, it really is now more akin to heretic. The majority of people using it probably know no more than a few sound bites about “Holocaust” and generally even less about real science but they know what the true belief is.
Wrong. It is more akin to idiot.
No matter how completely it was refuted, no criticism of a climate alarm narrative paper would ever be published by that “esteemed’ journal.
Unless the authors have published a retraction or updated research, it is appropriate to point out the errors. Do you think that there should be a statute of limitations on poor scholarship? Or is it just that you think that something that supports your belief system should be above reproach?
Then why don’t you do that? Up to now all I can see is just bullshiting in the comment section of a bullshiting blog. Please go publish the definite refutation of that paper.
Why?
The paper is fair game for ridicule, repeatedly.
You don’t like it?
Pound sand.
And you failed to read the article, too?
Typical!
What happened to you trolls in the Marc Morano article?
Scared off…
Has that much been discovered about human habitation of Australia in the last 18 years that the (currently nonsense) article seemingly made scientific sense when it was first published?
(Early) human habitation is completely irrelevant to the article. They didn’t claim anything about this (contrary to what Jennifer claims).
Ha ha, neither YOU or Loydo post an actual counterpoint to her article, which means you are all wind and piss about something else.
Well, I did post 🙂 see below. My guess is Loydo thought Jennifer’s contribution was so obviously bad you wouldn’t have to post anything to counter it. It counters itself.
I saw it, have yet to see a coherent post about it from you.
Then go try harder 🙂 It’s like your studies. You failed because you hadn’t really tried.
He he, you didn’t post anything for me to respond to thus you have nothing, thank you for clearing that up
🙂 you try to react in a way that it doesn’t look a reaction. I think this is an implicit admission. Now I’m really curious. When did you drop out? My guess is the 3rd semester.
I see that personal attacks are still the modus operandi of CliSciFi practitioners.
Yep, you Mother Tucker! 🙂
Thanks for your conformation, nyolci.
You mean “confirmation”, right? 🙂
No, “conformation” applies to you just as well.
Then thanks for your deformation, Dave.
The only time I was deformed was when I was hit by a rocket propelled grenade (RPG) in Vietnam. Otherwise, I’m still the original deal, slightly depreciated though.
Then thanks for your bouncing back to your original form, Dave 🙂
Conformation refers to your alarmist lemming must conform mindset.
I don’t think English is her native language … too many obvious basic syntax errors. She didn’t catch the double entendre.
I have to note here too that it’s really pathetic to mock a non native speaker. Furthermore, the “errors” (trivialities in mostly hastily written sentences like “your” instead “you’re”, of course I know on second reading that they are wrong) are not syntactical. Syntax in natural language setting is concerned with sentence structure, the way words are combined into expressions, word order. The “errors” you usually masturbate about are not syntactic in nature. Again, you use a word you only half understand just like “semantic”, “falsification”, “tautology”.
He. Two errors already. On average, one per line. Three, if we count the “her” independently. Mocking a non native speaker, I would count this too. So in a sense, it’s impressing. You’re talented in a twisted way 🙂
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQv0XyzNoMLy-tFB0yRwjBUJmdT37oCzyaPVQ&usqp=CAU
Out of ammo? I guess, you’ve checked “syntax” and realized you were wrong.
After 30 years, the likes of you are still praising the deceptive work of Jim Hansen. Maybe because the early publications of Einstein are so 20th century we should just ridicule them. Some things are timeless. You are just late to get the message.
My guess is the “Einstein” in this sentence is you and your ilk. Well, I have to tell you: NO. You’re not Einstein, you’re just an ordinary idiot. And just to get you sober, Einstein was not ridiculed by the scientific community. What a stupid example…
Your guess would be way wrong. The “Einstein” in this sentence is actually Einstein. ‘Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar’ as Freud once said.
I thought you deniers were the Einsteins of today. I was wrong. So we laugh at you because you really are the clowns. Thx for the clarification.
Actually, some of Einstein’s theories were absolutely vilified with long lists of scientists denouncing them, but not disproving them.
Should have left the twerp ignorant.
Opening their mouths and proving their foolishness again and again is entertaining. Especially when they’re pretending knowledge.
Again, alarmists reveal their utter ignorance of history and the scientific method.
You have just demonstrated that you have a problem with reading comprehension. That places your defense of the Pandolf-Gunn paper in a whole different light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity
Why do you always come up with that? That was in the 30s when Einstein’s theories were already accepted by the scientific community. The deniers of that day wrote that book, and it was widely ridiculed by scientists.
We have been keeping up, and now the corals are just fine. It’s always great to look at thermageddonists past predictions of climate doom and have a jolly old chuckle.
That’s what I got out of it.
Mike Mann produced his hokey-cokey stick paper in 1998. I presume you dismiss that because it was written before 2003.
…And your point is…?
As far as I know, there is no Rupert Murdoch in the international community of coral researchers.
Pity.
Nor is Rupert Murdoch involved with his publications. His activist alarmist children are.
It is Pandolfi and Gunn that need to keep up if they haven’t updated their research.
Please show us where the journal retracked that article from 2003 or published some article refuting it. The article should have never passed peer review, containing such a stupid statement, makes one distrust the journal altogether.
Yes, these genuises are expounding on the reef and they don’t even know this:
From the article: “Sea levels began to rise some 18,000 years ago, after the arrival of the Aborigines. In fact, 100 percent of the Great Barrier Reef was formed after the arrival of humankind.”
That’s a pretty glaring oversight.
Failed to actually read the article, again, lolly?
What a pack of dim-witted sheep. In a laughable attempt to score a cheap point on an 18 year old paper, Marohasy’s denialist zeal puts two and two together and gets five. None of the skeptics (lol) here bother to check. Instead they just go into cheer-leading mode. What a joke she is. What a joke you are.
The truly astonishing thing is that none of that seems to matter a jot, if you stick to Watts’ script you get a like.
Then she confirms her nuttiness by insinusting Rupert Murdoch and his band of disingenuous, lunar-right henchmen have abandoned her for the greens. Just wow.
Interesting. What is the age of the mircoatol featured here? This could be a useful tool.
Microatoll.
And yes it IS a useful tool, if only to demonstrate that corals just keep on keepin’ on.
I reckon they’re the marine version of flatweeds.
Never think you’ve eradicated all the flatweeds from your lawn.
It’s an immutable law of nature that they always reappear.
“According to Pandolfi et al. published in the prestigious journal Science in 2003 (entitled ‘Global Trajectories of the Long-Term Decline of Coral Reef Ecosystems’) a rather large 25 percent of the inner Great Barrier Reef was destroyed with the arrival of Australian aborigines.”
Might want to double-check this too. Madness indeed.
In what way “double check”. Are you aware of some retraction to that assertion, by Pandolfi et. al. ? Is the text not in that paper? Are you even able to make a coherent point?
Whether Pandolfini et al. really said what is claimed here. Because it is not self evident.
Clearly you double checked and found nothing of any consequence or you would have been bleating it about like the class tattle tale.
Wro-o-o-ng 🙂
You are claiming that you found something. Why are you being coy about telling us what you found? It you don’t produce it, the reasonable thing is to assume that you are lying.
I simply don’t understand this. Of course I wrote it down. I gave a link to the actual paper and summarized its contents. I also showed the things Jennifer had claimed about it were not in the paper. It’s down there. Please, at least try to read it at fcukin last!
My humble opinion:
Pandolfi etal (2003) is scientific rubish. Opinion exposé, nothing but. Numerical scoring of data is at least highly open to discussion. Using principal components analysis for the purpose of the paper and applying it to the constructed data matrix is highly questionable, at least, illicit (in my opinion), having in mind the violation of the assumptions underlying this technique.
All the presentation of the work, its explanation and discussion, seem to be targeted at “demonstrating” the authors’ hypothesis, not at elucidating history (natural and social).
Further: the cited assertion (25 % of the Inner Great Barrier having been destroyed after the arrival of aborigenes) is not to be found anywhere in the text of the article. With a very, VERY strong tour de force, something of the kind may be inferred from the graphs in figs. 2 and 3; however, even exercising my very fertile imagination I could not find out how someone can obtain that magical value of 25 %…
Lastly: as we say in my country, I will wholeheartedly give a shortcake to anyone who can find, in the cited literature of the article (see “supplemental materials in a separate file downloadable from Science site), where could the authors find even a faint shadow of the numerical “data” that they have used, and how they managed to harmonize the data from the differente authors relating to the different regions…
My personal conclusion: no need to “double check” anything, one single, “mono-check” is enough…
In other words, Jennifer dishonestly portrayed the claims of the paper. Put it a bit more bluntly, she pulled this assertion out of her ass.
Let Jennifer Marohasy out of your comment, you are addressing ME, not her. If you have some argument to disagree with what I wrote, please stand up and speak it out, so that I or someone else can address your contribution; if not, just shut down.
Jennifer Marohasy is a great biologist, I have her work in very high consideration, and I can understand the irony in what she has written about that “completely mad research paper” (her words). So, don’t you even try to put in my mouth words that I have not uttered or writen in order to imply a lesser esteem from my part towards her.
Well, you just pointed out that what Jennifer wrote about the paper was not in the paper (in your paragraph starting with “Further”). In other words, Jennifer (however a great biologist she might be) misrepresented the paper. So please cut the Latin drama, and at least read what you wrote.
OK! We are informed about your incapacity to understand irony. No need to pursue your high-school tricks to gain the upper side of the discussion.
Perhaps. But the fact is, what Jennifer only has to say about this paper is based on an extremely superficial and irrelevant point.
“she pulled this assertion out of her ass”
Exactly. And got it wrong. There is “madness” afoot but its not what she thinks it is.
Same as nyolci, we are informed about your incapacity to understand irony. No need to pursue your high-school tricks to gain the upper side of the discussion.
Well, the text is not in that paper. (To avoid giving any money to Scientology Pravda – https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10612648_Global_Trajectories_of_the_Long-Term_Decline_of_Coral_Reef_Ecosystems/link/0912f50883b8b8e52f000000/download).
Their “Figure A,” though, shows (on a scale from “Pristine” to “Extinct”) that the “cultural period” of hunter-gatherer saw a degradation of ~25% in Moreton Bay – and more for the Inner GBR.
That said, the paper is, as noted by thinking people here, pure unadulterated sewage. The editors of that so-called “journal” should be brought up on charges for wanton environmental destruction of the trees used to print it. (The statute of limitations has probably passed by now, sadly…)
Perhaps we can conclude now that Jennifer was talking bollocks. Or at least completely misrepresented the paper.
Are you trying here to save at least a bit for Jennifer? I think you know well that the “hunter-gatherer” period lasted up to the late 1700 in Australia. I don’t know specifically about this part of the continent but the appearance of agriculture/domesticated animals may even be later. So this is not outlandish for them to have data from this “cultural period”.
Corrections:
Of course, you don’t say why you claim this. Jennifer’s BS has been put to rest. What’s your objection?
The paper’s “logic”:
“Claim 1”: Reefs (everywhere, not just the GBR) are only pristine before the advent of humans.
“Claim 2”: The GBR was once pristine.
“Logical Conclusion”: Therefore, the GBR existed when humans were not present.
A “logical conclusion” that is quite readily invalidated by FACTS.
It doesn’t matter how you spin it.
Well, in terms of human interference, yes 🙂 FYI they are applying various metrics regarding biological diversity.
They don’t really claim this, neither their result depends on this.
Uh-huh…
Keep on digging, you’ll reach your paymasters bye and bye…
Again, this is completely irrelevant to the paper. This is simply a postulated 0% point. If you remove it, it doesn’t change the result. And there are good arguments against removing it. Maybe a fault of the paper that it doesn’t say anything about this but it’s almost completely irrelevant.
Your ad hominem attacks don’t support the idea that you are an objective observer. You are arrogant enough to suggest that you represent science, and those who disagree with you must, therefore, be “science deniers.” It apparently hasn’t occurred to you that the essence of the Scientific Method is peer review (not of the publishing gate-keeping kind that usually passes, incorrectly, for peer review), where the conclusions are questioned by the researcher’s peers. You are contradicting the essence of ‘science’ by denigrating those engaging in real peer review as being “science deniers.” It is you who are the real “science denier.” If you don’t understand that, what does that make you?
What if it’s not ad hominem and I’m an objective observer? Have you ever thought about that?
No. I’m arrogant enough to actually read science. Or ask scientists. Instead of whining and bullshiting in the comment section like you deniers.
Yep. In this case the conclusions were not questioned. Jennifer constructed a straw-man out of a marginal feature and attacked that. This is definitely not peer review.
Your responses are sufficient to dismiss the possibility of you being an objective observer.
Characterizing with such a broad brush is strong evidence that you lack objectivity. Anyone using the term “denier” is clearly more interested in triggering emotional responses than in trying to communicate. You are digging your hole deeper with each response.
“These are science deniers, a special kind of “stupid”.”
Skeptics don’t deny science, we just deny the alarmist version of climate science represents reality.
Alarmist think their version of climate science is “the Science”, but it’s not science, it is just guesses and distortions masquerading as science.
Evidence. Evidence is what skeptics need. Otherwise, we are skeptical. And why shouldn’t we be?
You can’t even interpret a short and quite straightforward article like the Pandolfi paper 🙂 What you are is more like a condition (like “stupid”), you’re bombarded with evidence and you can’t understand it.
It appears you don’t know how to identify evidence.
Evidence is different from wishful thinking.
“Their “Figure A,” though, shows (on a scale from “Pristine” to “Extinct”) that the “cultural period” of hunter-gatherer saw a degradation of ~25% in Moreton Bay”
Not true. That figure, 2A (not “A”) has in the horizontal scale the vaues of the “First principal component”. That is to say, of a linear composition of the “variables” used in the paper. The authors only assert, but do not demonstrate by showing the relevant coefficients from the analysis, that (1) the PCA space is the pristine space, and (2), that the first component was the only significant. They do not say how much, they do not show the coefficients on the original variables that enable a third assertion, which is not in the text nor in the supplement file but only the legend of the figure, namely, that “PC1 is interpreted as an axis of historical degradation over time measured in cultural periods”.
I have some experience with numerical taxonomy techniques and reading this assertion I think it results from stretching a bit too much the potential of principal components analyses… so, jumping from the value of the first component to that magical numerical value of 25 % is a rather awkward jump.
That said: I agree with you in the general terms. And, of course, with what you wrote about the paper’s “logic”.
That value comes from Jennifer. It’s nowhere stated in the text. For that matter, the actual value is a bit less than 20% but this is beside the point.
OK, we are informed that you did not grasp the reason why your 20 % is as stupid as 25 %. Got no spare patience to put up with “sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” (Martin Luther King Jr., 1963). You may well sit down and wait for a response because it will not happen. In that LOOOONG meantime, why not you study some real science?
Hm, what an incoherent babbling…
From the paper, Fig 2:
The dots representing Aborigine, i.e. “hunter-Gatherers”, yellow, mostly obscured by the dot representing “Agriculture”, orange.
A person unable to apply perspective could guess 25% destruction to the Inner Great Barrier Reef.
The actual number is closer to 36%-37% destruction to the Inner Great Barrier Reef.
The Aborigines arrived in Australia far in advance of the IGBR. There is no such thing as the author’s delusional conception of “Pristine” for the IGBR.
Nor do the Pandolfi authors offer any evidence to support their claims. It is entirely fantasy and mathematical games.
Yes, you genius. So “hunter-gatherers” (whom you equate to Aborigines) were present in the late 1700 during the first contact. When the IGBR (and likely the OGBR /sarc ) was in existence already. So perhaps the authors could reconstruct its state at that cultural period, right, you genius? (“stop playing with your penius”)
I think they are referring to a time period and not that the aborigines did something.
Yes it’s inconceivable that aborigines did anything much at the GBR prior to ~ 1970.
2 reasons –
I’ve double checked your madness and confirmed it
Tell you what: why don’t you double check it and get back to us with your findings?
We’ll wait….
Because you won’t bother right? Skeptical much?
You can do it for me. After all, you’ve got the info at your fingertips.
There’s your failure to read the article again.
There was no Great Barrier Reef when the Aborigines came to Australia.
So much for coral destroyed by Aborigines.
Nor did the water reach a level that supports coral systems for over twenty thousand years AFTER the aborigines came to Australia.
Alarmists Pandolfi et al, wrong every time all of the time and so are their groupie trollops.
” Terry Hughes from the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence”
Ah yes, outstanding achievement in the field of ”excellence”
One might expect to see these people in arm slings from vigorously patting themselves on the back … especially after a particularly strenuous session of free form virtue signalling.
Oddly, there was no faculty offering that discipline during my time at Uni. Sounds like it would be great with minors in gender studies and community organization.
Reefs in La Union Province in northern Philippines also provide evidence of the resilience of coral.
These reefs have experienced gradual SLR for more than a 1000 years, along with both 100mm+ uplift and subsidence events.
Coral is so resilient that just 60 years after atomic bombs totally obliterated the extensive reefs of Bikini Atoll lagoon, the coral there had almost completely regenerated itself back to pre-bomb size and health.
Scientists were “amazed”.
(naturalists – not so much)
War of the Worlds not withstanding, it should give us pause about how difficult it can be to exterminate life, such as might be brought back to Earth by extraterrestrial exploration — or created in a lab in China.
Thank you for some sanity on this non-issue.
Took the words…
Quote:”Instead, spend more time at the beach and in the ocean.”
Switch off the TV, bin the paper and then, as I describe and do: “Learn to dance”
NB for sugar eaters, alcoholics and other chronic depressives, Do Not Take That Literally
Translate the word ‘dance‘ as simply ‘move‘ or ‘explore’ – your body, your own mind and that of others.
My daughter works for a company that gathers coral to sell for aquariums. There really is very little that is wrong with all the coral on the Great Barrier Reef. Occasionally some is bleached, but this is mainly through low waters and too much sun. Even then, it recovers quite quickly.
I would imagine that companies like this would be very worried if the Reef was in danger. They are not worried at all.
I took a look around the facility yesterday. It’s absolutely amazing. The diversity and beauty is breathtaking.
Hope they have permits for collecting. Generally taking coral is not allowed and can prosecuted.
https://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/access-and-use/permits
Of course they do
Now, now, we won’t have any real world tangible evidence, thank you very much. Models and wild specualtion is all we need.
Next eeek
How humans destroyed Doggerland…
Where will doggers go now?
Theres a clearing just off the A1…
Latest shock discovery of a wheel from a DeLorean car in a layer of rock just before the Dinosaurs disappeared.
Yes, time travel can be quite dangerous. It isn’t just the occasional apex predator that one might run into. The greater risk is materializing inside solid rock — or in the vacuum of space. Time is also a place in an expanding universe where everything is in constant motion with respect to everything else.
Exactly…
“If there is one thing that these experts lack, especially the professors running Great Barrier Reef research, it is perspective.”
Only perspective? What about thinking?
The Bandar-log at it again.
Who will be our Kaa?
The next hard winter.
Ah yes, that prestigious journal Science with all its highly qualified referees.
The huge disconnect between Terry Hughes and the researchers who actually get their feet wet studying corals is insurmountable. Speaking as a non-zoologist with some experience of corals, I am always impressed by their resilience. In the Florida Keys, it used to be commonplace to toss dynamite into coral reefs to make it easy to harvest the stuff for sale in shell shops. Millions of tons of coral have been sold in such shops, sometimes huge specimens. And yet the reefs grow back as soon as these destructive practices are discontinued.
Life always finds a way. As long as the oceans teem with free-swimming polyps and zoozanthelae and there are available substrates, the corals will keep on keeping on.
If people like Hughes and his group want to keep claiming death and destruction of the GBR they need to be prepared for the eventuality of being shown to be horribly wrong. What you are doing, Jennifer, with your collection and documentation will encourage others to do the same and at some point the enormity of positive evidence will show up all the lies currently being circulated by the doomsayers.
Gee, just as I thought… Of course the paper didn’t have these claims:
Again, they didn’t claim this. This is the “stupid” reading of the article (check for yourself: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10612648_Global_Trajectories_of_the_Long-Term_Decline_of_Coral_Reef_Ecosystems ). What they did was different:
In other words, they determined the degradation for the GBR before the colonial period, and assigned it to the hunter-gatherer cultural period.
Gee, I knew Jennifer Marohasy was a hack but this level of dishonesty (or plain stupidity?) is shocking.
That’ll be aborigines then, or am I missing something?
Yes, you are missing something. It’s getting a bit tiring to explain straightforward things…
So Jennifer claims the paper claims 25% of the inner GBR was destroyed with the arrival of Australian aborigines. The paper, of course, doesn’t claim this. They claim (in fig. 2) that at the beginning of the colonial period the destruction was around that figure (more like 20% but doesn’t matter). Then Jennifer starts to masturbate around the fact that the arrival of the Aborigines (which is completely irrelevant to the assertions in the paper) was tens of thousands of years before the formation of the GBR.
20%
Doesn’t feature in it at all
95% confidence does – a lot
Ugh, another genius… How about the 25% Jennifer claimed? 🙂 Doesn’t feature in it at all. Both values are from eyeballing the relative position of the Inner GBR lines first meaningful dot in fig. 2.
“It’s getting a bit tiring to explain straightforward things…”
Do us all a favour, don’t bother.
I’m not doing this for you. You are beyond redemption. No. If someone “innocent” comes here (likely via a search), he/she won’t see pure bullshit.
Hey, you’re the one who said he was tired, give those fingers a rest dude, go lie down, you must be exhausted, don’t work that one brain cell so hard.
Yes, but I have to work for the common good.
Half a cell.
That is a half wit.
They certainly won’t if they can just skip past all comments by Nyolci.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and covered with the sweat of zealots.
Well, perhaps you go to hell 🙂 You know bullshiting is actually a kind of lying, and lying is a sin…
Is English a second language for you? Most English speaking people understand that the well-known aphorism is not intended to be taken literally. But then, you seem to have a black & white view of the world.
Accidentally you got something right. FYI we have this aphorism too in my native language (Hungarian), but I chose to take it literally for the comedic effect. I’m paving the road to hell for your now for your sins, so please stop bullshiting,
“The comedic effect,” as we say in English, fell flat. Something got lost in the translation.
Perhaps. But who cares, you understand it anyway. You have the capacity, don’t you?
Perhaps going back and taking a good look at what the paper actually says rather than what you want it to say might be a very good idea.
To start with, the authors use 8 periods, beginning with pre-human, going up to 2 different modern periods (pre-industrial modern and industrial modern) of which the colonial era is the 5th period. This means that half of the periods used in the study occur in the last 300 years, with the first four periods covering the previous 50,000 years – that is a ludicrous method of portraying a timeline, unless you are deliberately wanting to obfuscate everything that happened before about 300 years ago that is. The use of the very first period ‘pre-human’ is exactly as Jennifer Marohasy stated – the timelines of the reefs start in the pre-human period then move through hunter-gatherer, agricultural and so on up to the modern periods. Given that the arrival of humans predate the GBR by some 40,000 years, and yet the authors clearly show it to be present in the pre-human period, then Jennifer Marohasy is completely correct in her assertion – this paper is wrong.
And you are telling me to go back to look at what the paper actually said… Again, the direct citation from the paper:
In other words, they didn’t want to portray the timeline directly.
This is the “retarded” reading of the paper. I know you’ve had a lifelong (and mostly unsuccessful) struggle with the debilitating effects of stupidity so I tell you the short explanation. The whole paper is about the amount of destruction at certain cultural stages. They didn’t make any claim regarding GBR’s existence in the pre human period. For the purposes of the paper, the missing pre human component is completely irrelevant. They found that at known cultural stages (starting mostly from European contact) the destruction (in terms of lost diversity etc.) was similar to what happened to other reefs.
You are quite right, on reading the paper I did find their methodology and clear use of a ‘pre-human’ period of the GBR to be retarded; others called it madness, you refer to it as retarded, I won’t argue with your terminology. Given that the authors actually have bugger all data that goes back to before the colonial period, I have little doubt that that is the only reason for their ludicrous choices of timeline – the addition of earlier periods is obvious fabricated obfuscation and a transparent attempt to appear clever whilst clearly appearing the direct opposite. Whatever you think you’re saying it is quite clearly at odds with the content of the paper which shows something different – however much of a childish tantrum you continue to throw, you cannot change what has been released in this paper; that the authors show a pre-human period for the GBR which never happened.
Wrong. I referred to you as “retarded”. Details! Always observe the details!
What earlier periods are you talking about? Please check fig. 3. They simply postulated 0% destruction for the “Pristine” or “Pre-human” period. This is something you can hardly condemn. For the Hunter-Gatherer and Agricultural periods they only have 8 and 7 data points, respectively. For all the rest they have the full 14. In other words they didn’t make up data where they didn’t have.
Furthermore, we are drifting further and further apart from the BS Jennifer was talking. I think even you can tell now that the paper doesn’t talk about an immediate 25% destruction of the inner GBR shortly after the arrival of the Aborigines (cc. x0000 years ago).
Details! You are obviously sarcasm impaired.
“I think even you can tell now that the paper doesn’t talk about an immediate 25% destruction of the inner GBR shortly after the arrival of the Aborigenes (cc. x0000 years ago)”. I’m sure the paper doesn’t but then nor has anyone else mentioned it – this quote of yours really is yours and nobody elses; either read what people have written or go away, don’t just make stuff up out of your own head.
How about this from Jennifer (see above)?
There’s the question of what, exactly, the authors are claiming. Some folks say that they didn’t claim what JM says they did.
I did not thoroughly read the paper but based on a quick scan, I would say that JM’s interpretation is reasonable.. A lot of the problem is that they’re talking about reefs worldwide and it isn’t always clear to me when they’re talking about the GBR specifically.
Their graphs are unambiguous though. They show the degradation of species starting before the advent of humans. Is that what they’re really claiming? That makes the null hypothesis for species extinction that it is a natural process.
If we’re bending over backward to be charitable, we could conclude that the authors have communicated poorly. On the other hand I think it’s more reasonable to conclude that JM is correct.
They only claimed the inner GBR was in the state of x% destruction at the beginning of the colonial period. They didn’t claim there had been a “before human” era, and their assertions didn’t depend on the existence of a hypothetical pre human era either. They never claimed the reef was there when the Aborigines arrived, neither they claimed the Aborigines destroyed 25% shortly after. Jennifer either intentionally or just out of plain stupidity claimed these nonexistent “claims”.
“They” refers to the graphs. The antecedent for a pronoun is a noun, not another pronoun.
Yes. No one claimed otherwise. What a superficial objection…
It indicates attention to detail.
Really? Because regardless of what they claim I was referred to, I actually answered commieBob’s claims. Please read further in his “writing”. His immediately next sentence is:
And please tell me who this “they” refers to. The graphs? The authors? Furthermore, is this relevant at all? I referred to the authors, and if you pretend this is a serious hindrance in my reconstruction of commieBob’s actual “thoughts”, then you are more than dishonest.
Your argument seems to be that the graphs are independent of the authors and the authors’ intent to communicate specific information.
In general, graphs always indicate the authors’ intent to communicate information, even if the intended communication is not in written language in the body of a paper. The finest indication of that is in Mann’s Hockey Stick; the intention was to deceive.
Here, it appears the graph was intended to imply that Man causes all coral reef degradation. They just goofed on the timeline. In their rush to produce something to support the narrative, the authors didn’t take the time to correlate the actual arrival of Man with the timing of the reef’s creation.
CliSciFi lives!
It needed to be stated though, as the graphs that show the inner and outer GBR clearly start off in a period also very clearly marked as ‘pre-human’. This is clearly quite wrong, as Jennifer Marohasy states, that the formation of the GBR was after the arrival of humans; there simply was no ‘pre-human’ GBR period as the graphs show.
See above, genius.
Where? I see you attempting to answer a question that wasn’t asked while not answering the one that was. When you post a serious answer to the actual point that was raised, then I’ll be interested – other than that your childish antics and tantrums hold absolutely zero interest for me.
Okay then. “pre human” is only used as a placeholder for 0% destruction. This is it. They didn’t claim it was in existence in the pre human era. Actually, if you simply delete this point it won’t change the result.
Complete and utter gobbledygook. I actually laughed out loud at your attempt to interpret the paper without damaging the ideology. “Pre-human is only used as a placeholder for 0% destruction” – dishonest manipulation and the implication is that all destruction has been caused by humans. “Actually if you simply delete this point it won’t change the result” – if the authors had been honest in their portrayal of the data, then they should have moved the ‘hunter gatherer’ period back to the beginning of the graph, showing the GBR to have been pristine at that point – that they didn’t shows a dishonest approach and that they are simply pushing an implied ideology that humans are responsible for all damage to the GBR. In actual fact the papers straight-line trend through a steady increase in damage to the GBR flies in the face of the historical evidence – that there have been damaging periods in the GBR’s past that it has recovered and flourished from. An honest graph would show fluctuations with some higher points than today, where damage to the GBR is far less than is indicated in this paper. Pure obfuscation and propaganda and with no connection to reality.
If you wish to jump up and down and scream your lungs out in defence of the indefensible then go right ahead, nyolci, you’ll just be wasting your time but whatever floats your boat, as it were.
Aha, this is your major malfunction. Now I understand. You don’t want to accept a published scientific paper for ideological reasons.
I don’t think they claimed otherwise. But you know what: there’s the scientific way of doing this. Why don’t you publish a study that destroys this paper? How come deniers haven’t been able to counter this paper in the 18 years since it was published? By the way, along the way we lost Jennifer, ‘cos, well, we can agree (yes or no?) that Jennifer’s line of attack was a failure (and this is the charitable interpretation, the less charitable would be “bullshit”).
Like Michael Mann, the authors’ intent was to deceive the uneducated with what was presented on the graph. Your contorted excuses verify the desire of CliSciFi practitioners to conform to a distorted narrative about Man’s impact on the GBR.
And it took 18 years and Jennifers faulty analysis to arrive to this conclusion?
Slowly but steadily truth wins out over CliSciFi lies.
Such language says a lot about how highly your think of yourself. Most of us here are your intellectual and educational peers. We don’t share your evaluation. What does that imply about your personal evaluation?
Well, no, you’re peerless 🙂
Utterly specious sophistry, nyicky.
The graphic clearly shows the IGBR at “hunter-gatherer” and “agriculture” stages, both are Aborigine stages.
Colonial stage came much later and Pandolfi et al show a much greater level of Great Barrier Reef damage.
Absolutely no timeline is shown. Which means the timelines are based upon when humans arrive and later stages.
For Aborigines arrival was over twenty thousand years before the great Barrier Reef existed.
Prof. Terry Hughes strikes again… The case against Peter Ridd was obviously not the only weird thing to come out. To publish such garbage… in Science, and peer reviewed to boot! Aren’t they even slightly beginning to fell ashamed about that? The reputation of Science as a top journal is also at stake. The best would be to send this “quite convincing” objection to Science, and invite the authors to retract their paper.
Here’s a few maps for Pangalactic Gargleblaster and chum to look at
http://www.abroadintheyard.com/mapping-mankinds-trek-ancient-coastlines-land-bridges/
Clearly the Australian continent has shifted quite a bit in the last 50,000 years. Some say humans arrived there up to 65,000 years ago. I can believe that.
Few people are aware that US VP Harris was tasked to find the root causes of Climate Denial. After 7 months, her report has been released revealing that facts and data are the barriers to full fledged Climate Alarmism.
The Biden administration has joined forces with social media and late night TV to stamp out any signs of rational thought.
/sarc – (if necessary.)
I think that the ‘sarc’ tag is appropriate. The actions of the administration are often so bizarre that almost anything becomes believable, based on past actions.
I was struck by Jennifer’s assertion of a local sea level decline. I just looked at the NOAA sea level data for tide gauges from Townsend to Brisbane. I see no evidence anywhere of a general decline in sea level around the GBR – as suggested in Jennifer’s post. The sea level rise though is very modest only about 7″ per century – low enough that it may be negative for a year or two in places dues to local factors.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/mslGlobalTrendsTable.html
Her feelings don’t care about facts.
That’s Thee Frugal Curmudgeon’s corollary to Shapiro’s axiom.
Didn’t take the time to look up the proper terms. Deal with it.
What are you trying to say?
You said: “I see no evidence anywhere of a general decline in sea level around the GBR – as suggested in Jennifer’s post.”
Shapiro says: Facts don’t care about your feelings.
Thee Frugal Curmudgeon says: Feelings (as in Jennifer’s) don’t care about facts. (as in your reference to NOAA’s)
The last part is simply saying that I didn’t take the time to figure out if an axiom (I believe that is what Shapiro’s quote is.) can have a corollary or if there is a different term that is used with an axiom.
I know the terms. Most of the definitions. But I don’t always remember how to put them all together.
If you know the “proper terms”, please share. If not, then you will have to wait until I figure that out.
All that said to agree with you, but to point out that in the whole climate change debate one side is basing their arguments are feelings (scientism, as in a belief system, not necessarily the technical definition of the term) and the other on facts (science).
I am not sure that this is about “feelings” as much as simply being clear as to the pertinent facts. I am certainly not slamming Jennifer Maharosy – simply making the observation that we all, including me and you and Ben Shapiro can suffer from confirmation bias. Beyond that, she made some interesting observations on how tell that a piece of coral is alive or dead.
Accepted. Is it confirmation bias that while “we” read and accept their studies, it seems they reject or ignore
any studies that contradict their viewpoint.
It seems that you are at lease willing to read both and draw your own conclusions.
Sometimes it is quicker to use words such as “feelings” to convey a larger concept when commenting on topics. I try to keep comments pithy but tend to bloviate.
At least once a week I’ll see two posts in the blogs I’m following that contradict each other. Both presenting “facts” about the same topic but drawing different conclusions.
I believe that NO “opinion” is wrong because it is based on the “facts” that the person that formed it is aware of.
You can disagree with an opinion, but an opinion can not be wrong.
An opinion can be called mis- or un- informed, but not wrong.
Who is the “they ” in your sentence, “it seems they reject or ignore
any studies that contradict their viewpoint.”?
Mostly those that believe in anthropomorphic climate change, but to some degree, both sides since you rightly point out that confirmation bias is rampant.
I’m correct that this blog generally points out that “they” tend to be wrong or simply delete any data points that don’t support “their” position that man is wholly responsible for climate changes. (See how easily one can sneak in a strawman?)
Wasn’t all the GBR panic porn debunked years if not decades ago?
Mother Nature can take care of herself.
Destroy the Gulf Coast wetlands, HERricanes will destroy you.
If I remember correctly from a previous Jennifer Marahasy post, didn’t she find some very long lived corals with clear indications of regular patterns of bleaching events going back to long before the modern period?
You probably do. My point is more that, in most cases, if you wait a week, you will see some OTHER research that contradicts whatever the “feelings” side of the climate change debate says.
And if you wait a year or two, Mother Nature will correct whatever damage humans have done to her earth.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and, IMO, is self-correcting.
Yes, and proof positive would be the natural reincarnation of the Bikini Atoll coral reefs after being obliterated by A-bomb tests in the 1950s.
Ah, a true sceptic.
https://stanfordmag.org/contents/what-bikini-atoll-looks-like-today
We can read this together and debate whether Mother Nature can take care of herself.
PS – After you’ve read the article, please post a comment that I am right about Mother Nature. My ego has been a little under inflated this week.
BTW – I have been saying Mother Nature can take care of herself since at least the 86-87 El Nino. I lived on the beach in Long Beach, Calif. at the time and Mother Nature flushed the LA Basin of an enormous amount of waste that humans had rudely dumped into the LA River that then washed up on the beach in front of my home where humans then had to clean up and PROPERLY dispose of.
bluecat57 you are a genius, a rare individual combining both wit and wisdom together into thoroughly entertaining posts – in you the muse of poetry lives on.
I’m blushing. 😊
Everybody should have a bit of a boost every now and again.
I don’t care for the “legacy” of FDR – but he could certainly turn a phrase.
No debate needed – I am in total agreement with your position.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has gone mad already with his Covid-inspired mandates and lockdowns, his travel restrictions and thugs in police uniform.
There’s no reason to think he won’t ban petrol cars, stop immigration and also forbid childbirth.
I’m wondering if the day will soon come that he says the emergency is too dire to permit elections. Prime Minister for life Scott Morrison. Doesn’t that have a nice ring to it.
And with no elections, who needs parliament anyway. Rule by decree. Bonus!
Sorry, my Aussie friends, but you are clearly in the early stages of what I call the “Niemöller Slide.”
Yours goes like this: “First they came for my guns. Now they are coming for my booze. Next, they’ll come for…”
Bloody hell guys, it might be time to hide the sheep!
That was the strategy for neighbors to some of my Highlands ancestors.
For the current-day barbarians from the Left tribes, it’s hide your children.
Pat,
With all due respect, because I thought your error propagation stuff was brilliant, it’s important to know that PM Scott Morrison is the one pushing to open the country up.
It is the State Govt’s that are responsible for the Health Order mandates & lockdowns which are enforced by State police – not Federal police.
With international travel it’s more convoluted but all aircraft arrive/depart via State controlled airports and become subject to State rules.
The background is that Scott Morrison heads our conservative Federal Govt.
By contrast, all State and Territory Govt’s. are Labor (left) controlled except one – New South Wales. New South Wales is the only state pushing to open their economy.
ScoMo isn’t perfect but your hyperbole is just that.
The fall in sea level over the last 8,000 years has roughly been 2m. With a small rise in the last 150 years of 20cm.
So was there not a reef when sea level was lower, with it merely being further out to sea and in what is now deep water, but back then was the shallow water surrounding the the coastline wherever it was at the time?
There have always been reefs in shallow tropic water, no?
If the offshore regions were steeper back then, it was surely not as wide as the current reef zone, but I feel fairly certain there was a quite substantial reef back then.
So, really, it’s the Anthropogenic Barrier Reef.
That’s our fault too. 😉
Humans are a by product of natural evolution , not the cause of it .
We can witness , diagnose and make ‘scientific’ evaluations of all that has occurred or appearing to be occurring but have little consequence to the world in general .
We should be trying to manage humankind rather than thinking we can manage the Earth .
https://stanfordmag.org/contents/what-bikini-atoll-looks-like-today
More fuel for your belly laughs.
What is the last image supposed to be showing?
Tides or storms could easily form that shape on the water’s edge.