It was the WWF Save the Reef Campaign that really developed my interest in environmental campaigns and through my public criticism of the same I have meet some wonderful characters.
Dr Walter Stark grew up in the Florida Keys and was awarded his PhD at the University of Miami the year after I was born – in 1964.
Walter now lives in Townsville and has a tremendous general knowledge of the world’s coral reefs.
Just today his review article titled ‘Threats to the Great Barrier Reef‘ was published by the IPA. It is an interesting read and includes information on everything from the population dynamics of crown-of-thorn starfish to global warming.
I found the fisheries information particularly interesting.
There exists 20 years of data on coral trout numbers estimated from surveys where divers count individual fish. Not a bad job.
Walter contends that arguing “that the GBR is overfished at an annual harvest of 17 kg/km2, when over a broad range of other Pacific reef areas an average of 7,700 kg/km2 is sustainable, is beyond ridiculous.”
If you have a query and post a comment below, Walter may post a reply.
If you don’t have time now to read the detailed review, On Line Opinion has published a shorter piece which is also a good read.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The section on global warming and coral bleaching is of poor quality. Without a single citation to the scientific literature it assumes that global warming will be lower projected figures. When Starck writes:
“Geologists, on the other hand, have powerful tools for investigating past climate and relevant expertise regarding climate variability. Many of them are much less alarmist.”
It would be nice if he supplied some examples (I assume that he refers to Plimer and Carter). It would be nicer if unnamed geologists who believe that recent warming trend is not unprecedented or even unusual, but simply the current phase of a millennial-scale cycle last experienced as the Medieval warm period and a thousand years earlier still as the Roman warm period would but forth their case in the scientific literature. In the absence of this, I can only conclude that their standard of evidence isn’t particularly high.
I do find it amusing that Starck can claim that “Proper science is based not on authority, but solely on reason and evidence”, when in the global warming section he relies on a argument from authority.
With all due respect to the author, if the rest of essay is similar quality (I have no expertise to tell) then the backgrounder is worthless, except as propaganda.
Hi Ken, I also always like everything to be well referenced, but it doesn’t seem to be the way things are going. I have just finished reviewing Chapter 13 (the chapter on Australia) of Jared Diamond’s new book “Collapse” for the journal Energy and Environment. The book has been promoted as a work of science by a University Professor. He makes so many claims – but not referenced! It can be so frustrating.
Diamond does put in a large number of references at the end of Collapse. Have you checked there?
Ken,
Unnamed geologists don’t get published and when it comes to having contrary views published in the major scientific journals, you don’t get published as most climate sceptics discover.
I had personal experience some years back writing some articles on classical Euhemerism which the editor thought were important to publish. Unfortunately her masters did not like those views being publsihed in their prestigious journal, and I was censored.
In fact we still do not know what causes ice ages, and yet they happened quite a few times in the geological past.
However there is no empirical evidence of global warming, since all warming scenarios are the result of computer modelling.
Global warming is a belief, and not a scientific fact.
Also, on Diamond – while I’m a big fan of his work, the chapter on Australia was pretty weak.
Louis, given the views on various scientific subjects that you’ve expressed all over the internet, I’m not surprised you got rejected.
If one wants to make the case that global warming skepics and creationists go hand in hand, you’re the perfect datapoint.
Ken,
1. All over the internet? Good grief I only post on one site, hardly all over the internet. I was censored Ken, not rejected. The editor wanted to continue the thread but was rapped over the knuckles for pesistence. She asked to to resubmit a fwew month later. I did not as other matters interefered.
2. I am not a creationist Ken, never have been, never was. I am also areligious, so your datapoint just disappeared.
What ever happened to the ‘separation of powers’?
Joh was pilloried because he was reported as being unclear as to the meaning – this was used as evidence of corruption.
Yet here we have science arguing about religion, and vicky verka.
Religion only corrupts science, and science has no business with religion.
To my simple mind; good science relies on factual data, hard evidence, and good religion deals with the other stuff – feelings, emotions and sundry affairs of the spirit and never the twain should meet (except socially over a few drinks, of course).
Rog, spot on but the secular religionists don’t see it like you do.
It is extricating science from religion that is difficult, and so far as geology is concerned, the separation has not yet happened, though it is commonly thought otherwise.
But enough, these comments are off topic for coral trout 🙂
Global warming is only a hypothesis although many have made the leap of faith to a belief. Regardless, there does exist voluminious references published in mainstream peer reviewed journals that report findings contrary to various claims of the GW hypothesis. For anyone unaware of this literature the following are a good starting point:
PREDICTING CLIMATE CHANGE
‘Global Temperature’,William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, Melbourne http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05kininmonth.pdf
What is the “Hockey Stick” Debate About?, Ross McKitrick,Department of Economics University of Guelph
http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CLIMATE CHANGE MODELS
http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/models.pdf
Lessons & Limits of Climate History: Was the 20th Century Climate Unusual? Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, Marshall Institute
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/136.pdf
Scientific Alliance Statement on Climate Change, January 2005 http://www.scientific-alliance.org/pdf/Scientific%20Alliance%20Statement%20on%20Climate%20Change%20as%20at%20Jan%2
02005.pdf
THE ICE AGE IS COMING! Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate- Zbigniew Jaworowski, 21st Century Science & Technology, Winter 2003-2004, Issue Vol. 16, No. 4
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter2003-4/global_warming.pdf
Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle- Ján Veizer, Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, University of Ottawa- CEOSCIENCE CANADA Volume 32, Number 1, March 2005, pp.13-28
(An excellent overview on decadal to billion year scales. Cites 86 references from primary sciuentific literature)
CO2 Science at http://www.co2science.org contains hundreds of reviews of and references to primary scientific literature that presents findings contrary to various claims of the Global Warming scenario. This site contains an extensive index of hundreds of such references and is updated weekly. Subscription is required but at U.S. $7.95 its a a very affordable relief from ignorance.
Walter, Thanks for all the info.
Ken, Are you familiar with the C02 science site? What do you think?
I’m not particularly familiar with CO2 Science and I have no intention whatsoever to fund global warming skeptics, so I’m not planning on purchasing a subscription.
That said, they do have a free issue which I went to and checked out this article: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/Template/MainPage.jsp?Page=free/v7n49edit
Their description of the scientific article wasn’t to bad, however, they do cherry pick what parts of the article which they quote (for example, they miss out this line; “The SWT record from Farewell Lake, however, is inadequate for understanding the context of the 20th century climate”).
However, my big problem with it, isn’t their description of the science, but rather their overall analysis. You simply cannot look at a single (or even a number of) regional paloclimate sites and get useful information on global (or hemispheric) climate change. A more sophisticated analysis is required (Walter falls for this hook, link and sinker when he cites Soon and Baliunas). Additionally, when they state “[t]hese earlier periods of warmth were unquestionably not caused by elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations (which were 100 ppm less during those periods than they are today), nor were they due to elevated concentrations of any other greenhouse gases; they were manifestly due to something else, which fact makes it very clear that the warmth of today could be due to that same “something else” as well”, it would be appropriate to throw in something on the attribution studies in the scientific literature (which try and identify the “something else”). Of course, they don’t. I suppose that this is to support the strawman argument that climatologists believe that all climate change is caused by greenhouse gases.
Walter, because of the large volume of material you’ve posted I’ll have to get back to you later. But suffice to say, it isn’t a particularly impressive list – most of it, I’ve seen debunked before, the exception being Zbigniew Jaworowski’s article, which is terrible.
Ken,
You might be averse to funding global warming sceptics, but I see that I have no say at all in my taxes funding the global warming believers.
And just what is terrible about Jawrorowski’s article?I’ve just done a quick scan of it, and it summarises the situation quite accurately.
Cognitive dissonance on your part perhaps?
And Ken Parish’s lastest change of mind is interesting – temperature drops now two years in a row. These are empirical facts which fly in the face of the global warming hypoethesis.
A scientist would jetison the theory and get on with life.
I see the usual suspects going to enormous efforts to nullify the effect of the latest data showing a slight cooling.
That is because they are not scientists, but ecnomists and computer programmers.
So Ken thinks the Jaworowski article is unconvincing. Louis suggests it is a good summary. Sometimes it is useful to consider one issue at a time? What are the issues in this article? Alternatively I could post two different perspectives on the Joworoski aricle as one new post?
I am curious to know have the authors (Manne & Richels) of ‘hockey stick’ fame actually made publicly availabe their source/original data or are they still claiming commercial in confidence?
Ken,
Full access to most scientific journal websites are by subscription only. Your objection to spending $7.95 to “support” GW skepticism sounds like an excuse not to confront evidence contrary to a preferred belief. You admit the single article you accessed “wasn’t to bad” but criticise some details. Full access to the site provides hundreds of more references to studies published in peer reviewed journals that contradict GW claims.
Regardless of what one thinks of any single study or its interpretation they all can’t be dismissed. To anyone with an open mind, they, at the very least, raise serious doubts about many aspects of the GW scenario and conclusively illustrate that the claimed consensus is far from true. It also clearly indicates that GW skepticism is not simply a ratbag fringe as the GW faithful like to portray.
As for the references I listed, they only provide an overview of the skeptical argument. Before you can knowledgeably disagree you will really need to examine the primary references to which they refer.
In the end, no matter what you, I or even the experts believe, unfolding reality will prevail and prophets of doom have a very poor track record.
Jennifer
Mann et al still won’t release the data. Steve McIntyre reports on the whole saga on http://www.climateaudit.org
Walter,
It is important to stress that science does not involve belief in some or other dogma – the evidence/facts must rule.
That said, we are always interpreting the evidence with the ideas inculcated in our learning experience.
Pauli noted many years ago (Pauli?) that paradigm shifts in science don’t result from the youngsters disproving their elder’s theories, but from a dissipation of opposition. This, from a scientific view, is problematical and suggests what we do is not science!
Ken has still to detail what he finds terrible about ZJ’s paper cited above.
What don’t a like about ZJ’s paper?
Let me think…
Could it be the blatant lie in the second paragraph?
Could it be the selective editing on the Schneider quote (I guess that ZJ has made his choice between effectiveness and honesty)?
Could it be that he doesn’t understand how much carbon dioxide contributes to the greenhouse effect?
Could it be that he uncritically accepts Shaviv and Veizer theory while ignoring the flaws in it?
Could it be that he doesn’t understand McIntyre and McKitrick work?
Could it be that he doesn’t know that global warming contains the work “global”?
Could it be that he doesn’t know how sea-level trends are changing?
Could it be that he ignores every single scientific paper on solar cycles (and there are a lot of them) which doesn’t support his argument?
Could it be that he ignores all of the hemispheric and global temperature reconstructions (the exception being Mann’s and this is only so that he can misinterpret McIntyre and McKitrick)?
Could it be that he ignores all of the work on removing the influence of heat islands on the temperature record?
Could it be that he ignores the flaws in Marsh and Svensmark’s work on low cloud cover and cosmic rays?
Could it be that his paper is so bad there is no way that it could be published in a scientific journal, and is hence published along side “LaRouche on the Pagan Worship of Newton”? (Actually I don’t dislike this one – it strikes me as an appropriate place for ZJ’s work [I wonder where he will go next? Energy & Environment?]).
And “terrible” was an understatment.
Louis,
I was wondering if you still that ZJ’s paper “summarises the situation quite accurately”, given that he disagrees with you about heat flows from the earth being unimportant?
In case you’ve forgotten, your original argument can be found here: http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2004/12#hissink
Walter, I also don’t subscribe to the creationist journals. I will not fund peusdoscience.
While I’m not an expert in the climate sciences, I do make a hobby of reading the primary scientific literature. And as such, I can see no intellectual difference between the creationists and the global warming skeptics (with two prominent exceptions).
It’s hard to understand the motives of the skeptics. Given the reasonable chance that human-induced global warming is occurring I would have thought any reasonable person would work damn hard to try to bring about a radical reduction in fossil fuel use. We are suffering an incredible lack of imagination as well as foresight. At the risk of sounding holier than thou, my family has made many of the necessary behavioural and technology changes and…guess what, life is even better. I’m also the chairperson of a group called Climate Friendly Schools which has, with the aid of state government and my money, recently implemented changes in six local schools. This will almost certainly result in a 30-50% reduction in energy use. There is enormous scope for energy conservation. It’s not as interesting as sniping cleverly and selectively at the huge majority of the world’s climate scientists and it’s not all that palatable to those who can’t see beyond a high consuming lifestyle I suppose but ….
from a lapsed economist and recently retired business-owner
It is perhaps about the truth – see post by Walter of 11th June titled ‘truth and beauty’.