JF Aus

I'm retired.

I'm not a member of any political party nor do I have any intention to join one.
My children and young relatives will be hit by climate change, already we are seeing changes. Many people apparently couldn't give a stuff about what they present to their children or the next generation.

I'm sorry if what I have written previously is not clear.

Eunice Foote was the first person to show the relationship between CO2 and light, fairly recently discovered information. Tyndall had previously been thought to have had that distinction.

The point of my last post was to state while you suggest you support science, you do not support the physics and chemistry that support climate science, nor the other disciplines, or the peak bodies that support them. That equals anti-science.

In relation to the Great Barrier Reef it were areas that were most remote (Northern areas) that were hit hardest by coral bleaching ... waste from farms and sewage had nothing do with those areas. Anthropogenic waste from farms or sewage has been discounted many times and it amounts to lying to keep pushing that barrow.

An individual's perceptions fall a long way down anything scientific...first come questions arising from perceptions...afterwards a reference search, then a hypothesis might be created, then collection of data. The hypothesis might be changed depending on data collected and then further data is collected.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well.

ant, (or is it Tony.. or are you calling yourself something different today?),

You claim to only follow the science, but we both know you only follow that science which suits your preferred positions. So you ignore Stein et al because its behind a paywall, while we both know the real reason is that it says that which you'd prefer to not be true. Yet when the Exxon papers were freely available you ignored them (no reason given) because, we both know, they said things that contradicted your preffered postion. That, my boy, ain't science - although it is something like climate science as it now, sadly, exists.

Re the GBR.

As I showed you a while back in one of those papers you've decided to ignore, over the past 10000 years temperatures have been higher than at present for 25% of the time. The GBR existed and survived throughout those warmer periods. (ant, will now assert that the speed of the rise exceeds the past, but Marcott has already advised that he, and we, don't know that to be true).

So if the warmer past didn't destroy the reef, why should we think the current warm is the casue for whatever perceived problems the reef currently has?

It may be that run-off and nutrient overload is the problem. It may be that the reef has always bleached and we haven't been studying it long enough to know better. But there's no reason to think that a warming world is the problem since, in the past, a warming world wasn't a problem.

mhaze

Pure garbage.
I have seen too much science research either lied about (tampering with graphs), misunderstood, or where authors have had to repudiate what deniers have been suggesting about their research.
I do go to denier sites when they are referred.

Your No Tricks referral offers rubbish, the synopsis by Kenneth Richard is highly suspect as a result. I illustrated previously why I believe Kenneth Richard offers rubbish by providing examples.

It would appear that Kenneth Richard is making much fuss about nothing in relation to the reference you provided:

http://youtu.be/GGEjfUHPVcE

JF Aus

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/despair-is-not-an-option-when-it-comes-to-climate-change-20170312-guwguk.html

Well ant,

I have read the paper via a login provided by my local library. I think most council run libraries offer that service.

The summary I originally linked is correct.

The data in the graph is taken directly from the paper and its attachments.

But since its not what the alarmist community wants to hear, it will be ignored and I don't imagine ICN will be covering it any time soon.

mhaze

I think your referral does not differ much from the video clip I supplied. Hence my comment about Kenneth Richard is making much fuss about nothing in relation to the reference you provided:

ant,

I am also retired but would like to come out of retirement.
Nor am I a member of any political party and nor do I have any ambitions whatsoever to be a politician.

I think you are incorrect, ant, in saying your children WILL be hit by climate change, future tense, when in reality they are already being hit by higher energy cost caused by AGW alternative energy politics.

We are all being hit right now today, present tense, because unchecked damage and bad word of mouth in the international tourism market is reducing tourism revenue for Australia.
Many people don't want to see dead reef.

Damage to the GBR and loss of tourism is continuing and worsening because Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority associated science is continuing to ignore the northward flow of city and town sewage nutrient dumped daily into the sediment transport system associated with alongshore current on the east coast of Australia.
Because the GBRMPA southern boundary ends north of Fraser Island the nutrient flow from south of Fraser Island is being officially ignored. The flow is strong enough to move over 500 cubic metres of heavy sand past the Gold Coast annually. The flow is a sediment transport system. See: http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/08-1120.1?code=cerf-site

Consequently GBRMPA associated science is not measuring and assessing impact and consequences of the total nutrient load flowing into GBR waters.
Think about it.
The hard hit bleached northern area of the GBR is downstream from massive estuary excavation that resuspended solid and dissolved nutrient matter within the actual GBR ecosystem.

ant or anyone, answer this.
What scientific reference exists to show that the Australian east coast southern city sewage and land use nutrient total loading has been discounted?
Just show reference and let us see who is telling the lies.