Climate Scientists Recieve Death Threats

[hutch]

Oh bugger....

Even the great barrier reef wont do as was forecast....I understand this report as saying quite the opposite.....but I only just doned grade school......I'm sure Woody will find some slime to discredit the authors, if not me...

Monitoring data collected annually from fixed sites at 47 reefs across 1300 km of the GBR indicate that overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% cover across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009....

Crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci) outbreaks and storm damage were responsible for more coral loss during this period than either bleaching or disease despite two mass bleaching events and an increase in the incidence of coral disease.

While the limited data for the GBR prior to the 1980's suggests that coral cover was higher than in our survey, we found no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995. Instead, fluctuations in coral cover at subregional scales (10–100 km), driven mostly by changes in fast-growing Acroporidae, occurred as a result of localized disturbance events and subsequent recovery.

 

I love the great barrier reef and its great that we continue to look after it...just don't use it's demise as an excuse to tax me to death when it is clearly flourishing..

[Alice]

Plug time.....If ANY members want solar anything or renewable energy products please contact me. We are the Australian Distributors for LG solar and have been in the game for over 10 years now. More than happy to give anyone from our community information or pricing, I work in wholesale and I know reputable installers from nearly every corner of Australia who purchase from us. If I don't know the answers there is a team of Electricians , Engineers and Technicians more than happy to give advice. Just send me a P.M.....

Boom

Sly

Will definately hit you up first when we do it, sometime soon hopefully.

Ok question - with feed in tariff winding back and many commentators signalling this will be "the death of the solar industry", will the prices in the short term go up because solar installers can't survive otherwise, or go down because that's the only way they'll draw new customers in the absence of generous feed in tariffs? Just curious, either way we'll go solar anyway as it's the sensible thing to do, however you look at it.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Alice

[Slybacon]

Ok question - with feed in tariff winding back and many commentators signalling this will be "the death of the solar industry", will the prices in the short term go up because solar installers can't survive otherwise, or go down because that's the only way they'll draw new customers in the absence of generous feed in tariffs? Just curious, either way we'll go solar anyway as it's the sensible thing to do, however you look at it.

 

There are some players who were in the game long before Grid-Connected solar was the big thing. These companies will see through the decline of FIT's and reductions in solar credit multiplier because they are involved in more projects than residential grid connect. Projects like Solar Street lighting, remote power stations , solar and wind farms and developing their own products. There is a lot of companies that jumped on board when the Govt assistance came in and grid connected solar got really popular. A lot of these companies started out contracting their work to one man operations. Things were good and it became a license to print money. More and more contractors came on board and the market is now saturated. These contractors will fall back to other areas within their trade and the companies that came with the assistance will fade as quickly as they were created. Sadly a lot of these companies had directors that were involved in the insulation scheme, so it seems some characters will just jump from scheme to scheme. I think the next one is digital TV for pensioners. So this will be right down their ally.

The truth is, although feed in tariffs aren't good at the moment solar technology is getting cheaper. The global price on panels and inverters are coming down so the price shouldn't change too much. The solar credit scheme works on a multiplier that is set to reduce from x5 to x3 on the 1st of july. When you install panels you generate STC (sustainable technology certificates) these are then multiplied by the scheme. Currently on the x5 multiplier a 1.5kw System will generate about 153 STC's, because everyone is trying to get in befor the cut off the market is saturated with STC's and the price on them is low. After july 1 the price will come back up as less and less are generated and the market steadies out. So what does this mean for your pocket?

Lets say you were to rush out and get a system tomorrow to beat the drop.

1.5kw = 153 STC's @ market value of 22 you get a rebate of $3,366.00

If you were to wait until the STC price recovers to where it was in January at 38 but lose x5 for x3.

1.5kw = 90 STC's @ market value of 38 you get a rebate of $3,420.00

If you compile this with the fact the price is coming down really we should see solar become more affordable.

The 2rd stage of the solar summit was held early this month and NSW is expecting to receive information on what the new tariff will be. Lets hope its 1:1. All the other states have reasonable tariff's at the moment, but there is still room for a lot of adjustment within the industry. There is too much going on for me to type it tonight....

[tripsis]

just don't use it's demise as an excuse to tax me to death when it is clearly flourishing..

Some evidence of it clearly flourishing?

[rahli]

And some evidence of the incorrect forecast?

[qualia]

you know, as much as i think this "debate" is a complete farce by now, it would pain me to see people give up conservation efforts such as on the GBR forsake of their view that climate change isn't happening. wether you believe it's happening or not, complacency about protecting Australia's national icons is not on, imo. i hope everyone of us can agree that our national heritage, the GBR, tasmanian old-growth forests etc. need to be protected regardless of your views of AGW.

[qualia]

i read recently an andrew bolt (yeah, i read that cunt) post how the GBR is doing just fine, and nothings happening. it's been known for years that the reef is in a steady decline and i fear that such blatant shit spewing will get people to stop caring. this is all of our "backyard", so to speak. dispute what you want but don't stop caring for our national treasures because some fool thinks it'll win an argument if he says everythings ok (even when it's not).

[tripsis]

I couldn't agree more qualia. It's good to see that at least some people have the right priorities, irrespective of whether of their views on other topics.

[synchromesh]

you know, as much as i think this "debate" is a complete farce by now, it would pain me to see people give up conservation efforts such as on the GBR forsake of their view that climate change isn't happening. wether you believe it's happening or not, complacency about protecting Australia's national icons is not on, imo. i hope everyone of us can agree that our national heritage, the GBR, tasmanian old-growth forests etc. need to be protected regardless of your views of AGW.

 

Energy conservation is its own answer, argument and reward. Fears of doomsday need not apply.

Edit: If doomsday was going to happen, then it would most likely be because of nuclear war anyway. Not changes in the climate.

Edited June 29, 2011 by synchromesh

[hutch]

And some evidence of the incorrect forecast?

 

Nicholas Stern

"The snows on Kilimanjaro are virtually gone, the Barrier Reef is probably going, snows are going off the Andes, threatening the water supply of Quito and La Paz."

http://www.theaustra...x-1111112484629

DAVID HANNAN: The changes that I've seen in reefs since I started filming or started chartering in the Barrier Reef water some 20 years ago have just been a steady and dramatic decline, visual decline of biodiversity and coral growth.

It's worse and worse every year - there's less and less fish, less and less coral, more and more damage.

http://www.abc.net.a...002/s734519.htm

The Great Barrier Reef has suffered from nine

bleaching events in the past 31 years. This iconic

natural ecosystem, and the economy that depends

upon it, face serious risks from climate change.

 

http://climatecommis...sages_RB-v2.pdf

[rahli]

Oh yeah and a link to the paper you referenced stating that there was no significant decline of coral cover on the GBR between 1995 and 2009.

It is interesting that they did't mention species diversity. The link might give a bit of a clearer picture on this.

I was expecting something a little more specific with the forecasts. There was one probable, one anadotal report and one openstatement that the gbf faces risks from climate change. I thought you were going to provide a peer reviewed paper that outlined a modeled forecast in decline in coral cover and species diversity between 1995 and 2009.

Edited June 29, 2011 by rahli

[hutch]

Oh yeah and a link to the paper you referenced stating that there was no significant decline of coral cover on the GBR between 1995 and 2009.

It is interesting that they did't mention species diversity. The link might give a bit of a clearer picture on this.

I was expecting something a little more specific with the forecasts. There was one probable, one anadotal report and one openstatement that the gbf faces risks from climate change. I thought you were going to provide a peer reviewed paper that outlined a modeled forecast in decline in coral cover and species diversity between 1995 and 2009.

 

Let me get this straight....

Climate scientists can claim in their presentations and verbally at press conferences that the GBR will be bleached, is bleaching (should have been by now on earlier predictions) and lost to us forever (those links are everywhere and easily retrievable) but when a study shows them to be wrong or at the very least over exaggerated I must then provide a peer reviewed paper proving that that was their claim. So if one does not exist as you say, then why are our climate scientists alarming us with predictions based on no valid science? Was that just "best guess"? Do you support best guess as science?

Now that don't seem quit right to me.....In the words of another great bogan.....please explain!

[rahli]

Let me get this straight....

Climate scientists can claim in their presentations and verbally at press conferences that the GBR will be bleached, is bleaching (should have been by now on earlier predictions) and lost to us forever (those links are everywhere and easily retrievable) but when a study shows them to be wrong or at the very least over exaggerated I must then provide a peer reviewed paper proving that that was their claim. So if one does not exist as you say, then why are our climate scientists alarming us with predictions based on no valid science? Was that just "best guess"? Do you support best guess as science?

Now that don't seem quit right to me.....In the words of another great bogan.....please explain!

 

So show me the link to your reference not just an underlined tidbit and a link to a forecast that is debunked by your reference. This is what you are stating. Whether you are right or wrong you should give people the opportunity to assess the information for themselves so the can come to their own conclusion. Or would you rather that we all just relied on others to tell us how it is. Doen't sound like you Hutch.

Edit -

Found the link embedded in the tidbit. I still think those forecasts are a bit lame for the reasons I have already stated. I am sure you can find an off handed statement on the record made by a scientist or two that is refuted by the paper you linked. But the same could be said for near any study of your choosing. Your still yet to provide one though.

Edited June 29, 2011 by rahli

[hutch]

So show me the link to your reference not just an underlined tidbit and a link to a forecast that is debunked by your reference. This is what you are stating. Whether you are right or wrong you should give people the opportunity to assess the information for themselves so the can come to their own conclusion. Or would you rather that we all just relied on others to tell us how it is. Doen't sound like you Hutch.

 

Go back to post 101...its in the quote, you just need to click on it....but here you go

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3053361/

[hutch]

and you won't be able to have fun exploring the Great Barrier Reef because it won't be there anymore.

Could anyone take this guy seriously? Anyone? Act of desperation? Not winning the argument? Why must he now resort to scaring children?....Some one should take an AVO to keep him away from schools. Would you want him around your children?

Hi there,

There's something you need to know about your father.

Your dad's job is to try to stop the government making laws to reduce Australia's carbon pollution. He is paid a lot of money to do that by big companies who do not want to own up to the fact that their pollution is changing the world's climate in very harmful ways.

Because of their pollution, lots of people, mostly poor people, are likely to die. They will die from floods, from diseases like dengue fever, and from starvation when their crops won't grow anymore.

The big companies are putting their profits before the lives of people. And your dad is helping them.

Your life is going to be worse too because of what your dad is doing when he goes to work each morning. By the time you are as old as your parents, Australia will be having a lot more heat waves, like the one in Melbourne earlier this year, and there will be more bush fires too.

Droughts will be worse, and you won't be able to have fun exploring the Great Barrier Reef because it won't be there anymore.

Deep down your dad knows all this, although he probably pretends he doesn't. If you've asked him about it he probably said that the scientists are not sure what's going to happen, or that Australia's carbon pollution is not very big, or that business is business.

He has to tell himself these things because otherwise he would feel too guilty and could not sleep very well at night.

So your dad is not really a bad person. He is not deliberately making the world a worse place for you and all the other kids. But he is telling lies to himself so he does not have to face up to the truth about what he does at work.

The thing is, though, that what your dad is doing is wrecking the future for my children too, and that makes me feel upset. Many Australians feel the same way; they think that what your father does is just plain wrong, and that he should stop.

I am sure it's hard for you to hear these words, but there is something you can do to help. Why not sit your dad down and have a good talk to him. Tell him you want him to stop helping the big companies that are spoiling the future for you and all the other kids at school. Tell him that the family would rather have less money if he had a different job, one you could be proud of.

Tell him that you know he will feel much happier inside if he is doing something to make Australia and the world a better place, instead of going to work every day to make it a worse one.

Your dad has lost his way, and you might be the only person in the world who can help him find it again. So talk to him.

Yours sincerely

http://www.abc.net.a...shed/28372.html

Edited June 29, 2011 by hutch

[hutch]

A desperate desperate government......another cash cow for getup...

[rahli]

Hutch I just read your whole paper but I'm not sure that you have. There was numerous mentions of the impacts climate change is predicted to have on coral reefs. The stability in coral cover observed during the study is thought to have come from a reduced baseline due to major impacts prior to the study taking place. There are many other predicted declines stated within the paper but I can't see the point in cutting and pasting each one and commenting on it. This study as with all others has to be considered in it's entirety to get a clearer picture of where it is heading.

[rahli]

and you won't be able to have fun exploring the Great Barrier Reef because it won't be there anymore.

Could anyone take this guy seriously? Anyone? Act of desperation? Not winning the argument? Why must he now resort to scaring children?....Some one should take an AVO to keep him away from schools. Would you want him around your children?

http://www.abc.net.a...shed/28372.html

 

This guy is an ethicist not a scientist.

Edited June 29, 2011 by rahli

[hutch]

Hutch I just read your whole paper but I'm not sure that you have. There was numerous mentions of the impacts climate change is predicted to have on coral reefs. The stability in coral cover observed during the study is thought to have come from a reduced baseline due to major impacts prior to the study taking place. There are many other predicted declines stated within the paper but I can't see the point in cutting and pasting each one and commenting on it. This study as with all others has to be considered in it's entirety to get a clearer picture of where it is heading.

 

They are predictions. The report does show that the reef is coping much better than their predictions...It shows clearly that the reef is not living up to their predictions. And thank god for that....

[rahli]

From what I can gather, the whole point of the study is to record the reduced baseline so it can be compared against any future declines. There is no suggestion that it will stay stable let alone improve for very long. They did not undertake the study to disprove climate change will serverly impact the reef. That is your own personal spin Hutch.

Edit- the study shows that the reef is doing much better then which predictions?

This is going nowhere fast Hutch and I'm starting to feel like I'm cluttering up the thread with a pointless exercise as you don't seem to get where I'm coming from so - I bow out.

Edited June 29, 2011 by rahli

[tripsis]

Oh bugger....Even the great barrier reef wont do as was forecast....I understand this report as saying quite the opposite.....but I only just doned grade school......I'm sure Woody will find some slime to discredit the authors, if not me...I love the great barrier reef and its great that we continue to look after it...just don't use it's demise as an excuse to tax me to death when it is clearly flourishing..

 

To start with hutch, you're already contradicting yourself. First you say the reef is flourishing, then you agree that in the article you linked to states that the reef is merely coping better than the predictions had you believe, which is a far cry from 'flourishing'.

People cannot read the future. The best we can do is look at what's happening in the present and make educated extrapolations about what may happen in the future. That's what scientists are doing, looking at the information and data available to them and using their expertise to make educated predictions about what is expected to happen if things continue the way they are at present. They will not always be right. It's like the weather forecast. Do you discredit it on the whole because they sometimes get it wrong? I doubt it. The weather forecast is based on science and is often correct, but as nature is dynamic and there are many variables to consider, sometimes the weather will change without much warning.

Your problem hutch, as has already been pointed out, is that you don't want to listen to the science that inconveniences you. You pick and choose what you will, to weakly defend your position, but as you are so inept as debating, you seemingly misinterpret information, and your 'evidence' has so many holes in it, you don't stand up to scrutiny. Subsequently, you flame people, call them juvenile, troll because you have 'too much time on your hands'. You obviously need to get a life. You want solar panels? Then get off the computer and do some work. Arguing with you is a lost cause because you don't learn.

Edit: typo

Edited June 30, 2011 by tripsis

[hutch]

To start with hutch, you're already contradicting yourself. First you say the reef is flourishing, then you agree that in the article you linked to states that the reef is merely coping better than the predictions had you believe, which is a far cry from 'flourishing'.

People cannot read the future. The best we can do is look at what's happening in the present and make educated extrapolations about what may happen in the future. That's what scientists are doing, looking at the information and data available to them and using their expertise to make educated predictions about what is expected to happen if things continue the way they are at present. They will not always be right. It's like the weather forecast. Do you discredit it on the whole because they sometimes get it wrong? I doubt it. The weather forecast is based on science and is often correct, but as nature is dynamic and there are many variables to consider, sometimes the weather will change without much warning.

Your problem hutch, as has already been pointed out, is that you don't want to listen to the science that inconveniences you. You pick and choose what you will, to weakly defend your position, but as you are so inept as debating, you seemingly misinterpret information, and your 'evidence' has so many holes in it, you don't stand up to scrutiny. Subsequently, you flame people, call them juvenile, troll because you have 'too much time on your hands'. You obviously need to get a life. You want solar panels? Then get off the computer and do some work. Arguing with you is a lost cause because you don't learn.

Edit: typo

 

Yeah yeah same old, over and over again..blah blah blah..feel better now?

[woof woof woof]

Hutch - the desalination plants are a good thing. Maybe you have record floods now,... but wait a few years.... then you'll be happy you have them.

Globe waremed up. It didnt cool down,.... Just look at the North West Passage.... Ice free after many years of having been closed. Greenland is melting at an ever faster rate.... so are the many Gletsjers all over the world receding.

If your government will Carbon Tax your asses,.... then you better make sure that the governments ass is using that tax money for development of ''greener'' solutions!!

[The Dude]

If your government will Carbon Tax your asses,.... then you better make sure that the governments ass is using that tax money for development of ''greener'' solutions!!

 

heh.. that won't happen. Trusting the government = Stockholm syndrome. They are our captors, not servants, but it's for our own good remember. The science is settled, now it's a matter of deciding how best to sell this idea of wealth redistribution.

Whoever said something about reducing our military spending and using that to fund green energy was on the money. R&D into green transportation and the whole idea of war for oil won't exist anymore and there'd be no need for the military spending and no more neo-colonial fascist control trip... oh wait, what do governments do again?

[Slybacon]

Globe waremed up. It didnt cool down,.... Just look at the North West Passage.... Ice free after many years of having been closed. Greenland is melting at an ever faster rate.... so are the many Gletsjers all over the world receding.

 

South pole contains over 90% of the worlds ice, It is growing ???? I still can't make sense of this!