The Environment

[DevoHusker]

39 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

From the report zero hedge is citing (note the last sentence of the summary):

 

It's good that there's been recovery of the Great Barrier Reef over the last year, but if you read the report it's mostly because the last year the ocean around the reef did not have heat spikes and no major cyclones. Those gains can be lost relatively quickly.

 

A single year of data is insufficient to "shame" anyone talking about the climate.

 

This gain puts the cover at its highest point since 1985, so hopefully it could mean a trend in the other direction as well. 

[Archy1221]

41 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

From the report zero hedge is citing (note the last sentence of the summary):

 

It's good that there's been recovery of the Great Barrier Reef over the last year, but if you read the report it's mostly because the last year the ocean around the reef did not have heat spikes and no major cyclones. Those gains can be lost relatively quickly.

 

A single year of data is insufficient to "shame" anyone talking about the climate.

[Guy Chamberlin]

If you are using a scientific report to claim good climate news, you are obliged to accept the many other scientific reports that have concluded "yikes."

 

It doesn't mean the bit of good climate news is wrong, it just means you can't use it to counter the larger "yikes" argument. 

[Archy1221]

43 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

If you are using a scientific report to claim good climate news, you are obliged to accept the many other scientific reports that have concluded "yikes."

 

It doesn't mean the bit of good climate news is wrong, it just means you can't use it to counter the larger "yikes" argument. 

The GBR “destruction” was one point of constant fear porn used by the tree huggers in order to try and get the costly legislation they looked for.  
 

So ya, you kinda can 

[Guy Chamberlin]

But, like coral reefs almost everywhere, large swaths of the world-famous Great Barrier Reef are, in fact, in decline. The Australian government’s latest five-year report card on the status of the Great Barrier Reef acknowledged in 2019 that the outlook is very poor and deteriorating. The reef is endangered and struggling to cope with the cumulative impacts of water pollution from agriculture, coastal development, dredging, shipping and especially climate change. Ambitious plans to further develop and export coal and fossil gas across the reef from the adjoining catchment of the World Heritage Area, if they come to fruition, will only cause further damage.

 

Bowing to earlier pressure from UNESCO, in 2015 Australia developed a new blueprint to stave off an in-danger listing by improving the condition of the Great Barrier Reef — the Reef 2050 Plan. However, the plan has been widely criticized for ignoring Australia’s contribution to climate change. While it includes ambitious targets for reducing runoff of pollution from land, the plan is underfunded and, after 5 years of operation, is failing to reach most of its targets.

Australia clearly views an in-danger listing by UNESCO as an undesirable sanction, which it argues would damage reef tourism. But the purpose of the in-danger list is to highlight World Heritage properties that are in trouble, identify the causes of their decline and address them. Currently, 53 World Heritage properties are on the list. The Galapagos Island and Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System have both gone on, and off, the in-danger list, with no apparent impact on international tourism.

 

Australia’s recent record on tackling climate change is poor. It is the only country in the world to have legislated and then repealed a carbon pricing mechanism, and Australia has no meaningful policies in place to electrify transport. Australia also has one of the highest levels of per-capita emissions of greenhouse gases in the world, with domestic emissions higher than the UK, France or Italy. On top of its domestic pollution, Australia is the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world, after Saudi Arabia and Russia. In the lead-up to the COP26 meeting in Glasgow, Australia has not committed yet to net-zero emissions by 2050 and has not increased its comparatively weak Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement since 2015.

So far, Australia has not acknowledged the obvious link between its responsibilities for managing the Great Barrier Reef for future generations, and the damage caused by its ongoing promotion of fossil fuels. Australia can, and must, do better.

[Scarlet]

 

We're using zerohedge as a source now?  Lol....

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/%3famp=1

 

"Overall, we rate ZeroHedge an extreme right-biased conspiracy website based on the promotion of false/misleading/debunked information that routinely denigrates the left."

 

 

 

[RedDenver]

2 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

 

This gain puts the cover at its highest point since 1985, so hopefully it could mean a trend in the other direction as well. 

It could, but we'd want at least a couple of years to start showing a trend though.

 

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

The GBR “destruction” was one point of constant fear porn used by the tree huggers in order to try and get the costly legislation they looked for.  
 

So ya, you kinda can 

Note that "coverage" is the total area of the reef. Most of the reef can be sickly or dying and still be part of the coverage. So the reef can be expanding at it's edges but still mostly being destroyed.

 

As I posted, let's see if this is a single data point or a trend develops before we start drawing conclusions about the climate.

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Scarlet said:

 

We're using zerohedge as a source now?  Lol....

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/%3famp=1

 

"Overall, we rate ZeroHedge an extreme right-biased conspiracy website based on the promotion of false/misleading/debunked information that routinely denigrates the left."

 

 

 

Why not.  The facts in his story are not made up are they?  If you believe they are why don’t you cite relevant facts that disprove his article instead of mediahahafacthahacheck.com

[RedDenver]

Just now, Archy1221 said:

Why not.  The facts in his story are not made up are they?  If you believe they are why don’t you cite relevant facts that disprove his article instead of mediahahafacthahacheck.com

Zero hedge is very slanted in reporting on the facts. Using "shaming" when the facts don't actually support that conclusion is but one example.

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

The Australian government’s latest five-year report card on the status of the Great Barrier Reef acknowledged in 2019 that the outlook is very poor and deteriorating.

That seemed a little off now didn’t it.  I feel bad things didn’t work out the way they wanted. 

[Archy1221]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Zero hedge is very slanted in reporting on the facts. Using "shaming" when the facts don't actually support that conclusion is but one example.

“Shaming”.  That’s pretty rich considering it’s the go-to move for all the ‘world is going to end in 12 yrs if we don’t immediately stop carbon emissions’ crowd.   

Just now, Archy1221 said:

“Shaming”.  That’s pretty rich considering it’s the go-to move for all the ‘world is going to end in 12 yrs if we don’t immediately stop carbon emissions’ crowd.   

Or is 8 now?   It changes so fast who can keep up

[RedDenver]

3 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

“Shaming”.  That’s pretty rich considering it’s the go-to move for all the ‘world is going to end in 12 yrs if we don’t immediately stop carbon emissions’ crowd.   

Or is 8 now?   It changes so fast who can keep up

[Scarlet]

44 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Why not.  The facts in his story are not made up are they?  If you believe they are why don’t you cite relevant facts that disprove his article instead of mediahahafacthahacheck.com

Lol....you used ZeroHedge as a source.....haha... hehehe.  

 

You're at least good for a chuckle now and then.  Thanks 

 

[Archy1221]

54 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

LOL…the person bringing up shaming now says it’s changing the subject when speaking of shaming.  

[RedDenver]

21 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

LOL…the person bringing up shaming now says it’s changing the subject when speaking of shaming.  

Wherein Archy pretends that nebulous claims about another "crowd" is a defense of the specific and cited thing that Zero Hedge did. Kids around the world blaming their sibling for a different offense would be proud.