Greenpeace 's latest message

[blackjack]

before anyone gets any funny ideas, i want to point out that i am the messenger, so don't shoot me :rifle: i posted this latest message of Greenpeace's because i'd like to read the comments of the various knowledgeable persons on here who can give a more balanced view and because i know many ausfish members keep a close eye on their reef.
__________________________________________________ ________

"The Great Barrier Reef is a wonder of the natural world, and a $6 billion annual tourism magnet. It is in grave, grave peril as a result of coral bleaching and ocean acidification caused by climate change.
Yet, from this very region depart hundreds of coal ships, carrying millions of tonnes of dirty black coal for export. Contrary to popular opinion, most of this coal goes to developed countries in Europe and Japan, where they can and should switch to renewables. As I write, around fifty coal ships are queued up waiting to load coal from Hay Point Port in Mackay.
This morning, our crew of activists ventured out on inflatable boats from the Esperanza and painted slogans on eighteen of these giant pollution ships. We're taking photos we expect will be seen the world over, highlighting threats to our reefs, rivers and Pacific Island neighbours.


http://123campaign.com/mail_images/SC1776/mackay-coalkillingthereef.jpg (http://123campaign.com/link.php?ml=488d22233fce7&lk=488d0e0609b1b&lf=2008_07)

(Can't see the photo? Want to see more? Click here (http://123campaign.com/link.php?ml=488d22233fce7&lk=488d0e0609b1b&lf=2008_07))


Last week, we were joined on a scientific reef-dive near Airlie by Dr Charlie Veron, formerly chief scientist for the Australian Institute of Marine Science.

As he said, “By mid-century, the corals of the Great Barrier Reef will have been replaced by bacterial slime and the biodiversity we now see will be gone forever. We must never let this happen. We must reduce CO2 emissions urgently”.

Meanwhile, the Federal government has created a massive $20 billion fund, much of it intended to support the expansion of coal rail and port capacity.

If you share Dr Veron’s concern, please consider writing to the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and let him know you expect a switch to renewables and an end to government-funded coal export expansion. You can use the simple contact form on Mr Rudd's website.

http://www.pm.gov.au/contact/index.cfm (http://123campaign.com/link.php?ml=488d22233fce7&lk=488d0e060a2ee&lf=2008_07)

Thanks for your ongoing interest,

The Energy Revolution continues,

Simon

PS You won’t be alone. Our new independent poll, conducted by Essential Research, reveals 82% of Australians disagree with government plans to expand our export coal business. Tell Kevin we want the government to back renewables instead! (http://123campaign.com/link.php?ml=488d22233fce7&lk=488d0e060a2ee&lf=2008_07)

PPS We’ve prepared an accessible briefing paper on our policy position on export coal – including some answers to common questions. Click here to read it (http://123campaign.com/link.php?ml=488d22233fce7&lk=488d0e060aabb&lf=2008_07).



http://123campaign.com/mail_images/SC1776/EnergyRevolution.gif (http://123campaign.com/link.php?ml=488d22233fce7&lk=488d0e060934b&lf=2008_07)
http://123campaign.com/web_link.php?ml_uid=488d22233fce7&lf=2008_07
__________________________________________________ __________

in particular, is there proof that the coal ships are damaging the reef?
(i cannot help but smile at the use of the emotive language 'dirty black coal'. i wonder what colour would GP like it to be? Hmmm, GREEN maybe...)

if Japan and Europe should be using renewable resources as suggested, what would they be?

"Last week, we were joined on a scientific reef-dive near Airlie by Dr Charlie Veron, formerly chief scientist for the Australian Institute of Marine Science.
As he said, “By mid-century, the corals of the Great Barrier Reef will have been replaced by bacterial slime and the biodiversity we now see will be gone forever. We must never let this happen. We must reduce CO2 emissions urgently”."

to most punters like me, that sounds terrifying, but i know disagreement exists amongst the scientific world about global warming, and its basis

(as an aside, i remember giving my pocket money to save the reef in the late 60's, 70's to stop the crown of thorn starfish which, if the accounts back then were correct, would have eaten the GBR by now. I also remember the mining debate going around years ago too - and the bumper bar stickers "Ban Mining - and let the Bastards Freeze in the Dark")

also, it is interesting that GP have linked the above statement to this:
"If you share Dr Veron’s concern, please consider writing to the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and let him know you expect a switch to renewables and an end to government-funded coal export expansion."

i do not pretend to have the knowledge i need to fully understand these complex issues, but i do believe you need to carefully and critically examine things that are spouted by agencies with agendas, no matter who they are. i look out for sweeping statements, unsubstantiated claims and the use of emotive language as cover-ups for facts.

so without wanting to create WWIII, i pass this over to the forum.

blackjenny (dirty black jenny - lol)

[Jeremy87]

Just for those who don't know what coral bleaching is i'll give a quick run down. Living coral is comprised of a calcium carbonate skeleton secreted by something known as a polyp, a little animal similar to an anemone but instead of being a large single animal a coral structure is comprised of hundreds of tiny polyps living side by side. Polyps feed by collecting small particles from the water column. However they do not actually get enough energy to survive from filtering the water alone, so they have microscopic organisms called zooxanthele living in them. Zooxanthele are a photosynthetic organism ie like plants they use the energy from the sun to make sugars out of water and CO2. So the diet of coral is also supplimented by the sugars produced by zooxanthele which also give the corals their colour. When coral is bleached the zooxanthele desert their polyp host leaving the coral white. Bleaching normally occurs when water temps reach the low 30's. When bleaching occurs the coral is not dead, the water temp must remain high for a prolonged period for death to occur, which happens if the zooxanthele don't return to the coral host.

[mowerman]

A bit like the police wondering how to get the idiots off the smoke stack at Ipswich.

Ive got a 303 I could lend them.

That would do the job.



Rod.

[PinHead]

I do know one thing..Greenpeace are nothing more than a bunch of graffiti vandals.

[2manylures]

in particular, is there proof that the coal ships are damaging the reef? :o

Probably not as much as dropping your anchor in the coral everytime you do an exploratory.>:( ::)

A little reminiscent of whaling for science.;D

Once you've finished painting ships can you come over & paint my place please. Better bring rollers though as ya brushwork is a little sub-standard.

[Jeremy87]

For those who don't know i'm currently in my final year of ecology and zoology at uni, several subjects of my course focus on the marine environment. From what i've heard from the academic community global warming effecting the coral reef is plausable, but the extent at which it might occur or how corals might respond to this change is yet to be determined. Most of the marine science lecturers at UQ are of the general consensus that bleaching events will rise (studies are already showing an increase in already threshold reefs systems) and possible localised coral death is likely. Greenpeace is very good at quoting only the most extreme views in the scientific community and wording statements in such a way to cause maximum emmotive effect, and why not its a worthy cause. But for some reason I just can't stand the organisation itself. I think it's the attitude they portray that annoys me. They are all about problems rather than a solutions. They are quick to discredit energy sources both fossil and renewable but haven't actually come up with any themselves. And they always will because nearly every energy source has some sought of draw back.

Fossil fuels are dirty and unsustainable. Biofuel can only be made at the expense of large areas of land, either farm land or uncleared rainforest. Nuclear isn't a bad idea in theory but people are too opposed to it thanks to propaganda from organisations like greenpeace, also the fuel supply is finite. Hydroelectric is very popular but limited to countries with alot of water (count australia out) it also has problems associated with flooding large areas of land to create dams. Solar is still very expensive to produce but headway is being made. Probably the best alternative to coal at the moment is wind power, it's realtively cheap (initial price is about double of what a coal fire plant is to set up but runs for free) and can be done on reasonably large scale in suitable areas. The only con is that climatologists have raised the concern that large fields could change local weather patterns. We will inevitably have to change to alternative energy sources but i think economics rather than environmental factors will be the driver for this change.

[blackjack]

Once you've finished painting ships can you come over & paint my place please. Better bring rollers though as ya brushwork is a little sub-standard.

I hope you don't mean me bring my rollers over 2manylures. I'm sure you meant the Greenpeace dudes. I don't know any I can refer you to, sorry. ;) That said, I am pretty handy with a watercolour paintbrush, but more your still life or landscape.

Kind regards,
Blackjenny :gorgeous:

[Xahn1960]

If Greenpeace put half the effort into solutions as they do into vandalism then they may become credible, for the moment however they are no more than eco-terrorists. How can you have any respect for an organisation that promotes only the facts that support ther stand then use those half facts to promote acts of civil disobedience and vandalism.

My 2c
Bill.

[RFARREN]

greenpeace.........................where nimbin meets the ocean .

[billfisher]

The Great Barrier Reef and the prophets of doom

By Walter Starck - posted Thursday, 8 May 2008


I would like to make the following points in response to Charlie Veron’s article here in On Line Opinon.
Although Charlie Veron is a highly respected coral taxonomist many of the statements he made regarding climate change are at best doubtful. Like most biologists he appears to have accepted the "consensus" view of catastrophic climate change without being aware of a vast body of peer reviewed non-biological research that casts doubt on or directly refutes all of the major climatic claims he asserts as unqualified facts.

Here are some examples followed by my comments:

"… there have been several major episodes of mass bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef since this began in the late 1980s. Since then the frequency of bleaching events has increased ..."

Living, subfossil and fossil corals all indicate that bleaching associated with high temperatures is a common occurrence in reef corals. There is no evidence to indicate that either the frequency or severity of such events has increased.

"As the greenhouse effect from elevated carbon dioxide has increased, the oceans have absorbed more and more greenhouse heat."

Over the past several years global oceanic temperatures have in fact decreased.

"We are seeing abnormally heated water pulsed onto the Great Barrier Reef during El Niño cycles. When this happens, the ocean is further heated, to levels that corals have not experienced for millions of years."

Abundant uncontested evidence from numerous sediment studies indicates that the oceanic surface temperatures were higher than the present during the Medieval Warm Period about 1,000 years ago. There were even higher ones during the Holocene climate optimum 5,000-9,000 years ago and higher still during the last interglacial period about 125,000 years ago.

"Unfortunately, El Niño cycles appear to be becoming more frequent. This is because the oceans are reaching their upper temperature limit more and more frequently. In a couple of decades, every year will appear to be an El Niño year."

Five hundred years of historical records and several millennia of sediment records indicate that the recent frequency and intensity of El Niño events is well within past limits and some the strongest events occurred during the cooler period of the Little Ice Age.

"The frequency and severity of bleaching events will continue to increase. That is certain."

The severe global bleaching event of 1998 has not been repeated in a decade despite an ongoing increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and oceanic surface temperatures have markedly decreased. Projections from highly dubious climate models are anything but certain.
1 http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7322
"On present forecasts, the worst bleaching year we have had to date will be an average year by 2030. And it will be a good year by 2050."

This is an assertion based solely on an unqualified faith in the projections derived from unverified climate models which differ widely among themselves. These projections are also constantly changing with new "adjustments", are highly dependant on numerous uncertain assumptions and estimates, incorporate greatly simplified treatments of complex poorly understood phenomena and can be readily adjusted to produce a broad range of equally plausible projections. Most such models, in fact, predict little warming in the tropics but much greater increase at high latitudes.

"If we keep increasing greenhouse carbon dioxide, by 2050 at the very latest, the only corals left alive will be those hiding in refuges such as deep outer reef slopes. The rest of the Great Barrier Reef will be unrecognisable. Bacterial slime, largely devoid of life will be everywhere."

This isn't even supported by any model but might better be described as emotive dramatisation. Even the more extreme model projections only depict tropical oceanic warming still well within the limits that thriving reefs now tolerate in the Red Sea. Warmer water could also be expected to expand the geographic extent of reefs to higher latitudes.

"I cannot escape the conclusion that ocean acidification has played a major role in all five mass extinctions of the past."

"Cannot rule out the possibility …" would be the strongest statement sound science could support. It is entirely unclear whether past acidification episodes caused the mass extinctions or were simply one of a number of disastrous accompaniments to massive volcanic or impact events which were the primary cause of the extinctions.
Three widespread studies of reef coral calcification rates in South-East Asia, on the Great Barrier Reef and in the Caribbean, all found substantially increased calcification rates during the past half century: however, the reef catastrophists have now come up with a much smaller scale study that found reduced average calcification during a 16-year period encompassing two bleaching events in a few specimens from inshore reefs on the Great Barrier Reef. Much has been made from this barely detectable trend in a very limited, highly varied, sample. Without the tenuous suggestion of a link to global warming it is doubtful the study would have even found publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
During the Cretaceous period when vast marine carbonate beds were deposited carbon dioxide levels were far higher than anything projected in connection with anthropogenic emissions.

"Corals speak unambiguously about climate change. They once survived in a world where carbon dioxide from volcanoes and methane was much higher than anything predicted today. But that was 50 million years ago. The accumulation of carbon dioxide then took millions of years, not just a few decades. Then there was time enough for oceans to equilibrate."

Many current reef coral genera survived this event. The idea that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide associated with massive vulcanism or meteoritic impact events took millions of years is only a convenient but unlikely assumption.
"… the rate of carbon dioxide increase we are now experiencing has no precedent in all known geological history."

[billfisher]

Again, an unlikely assumption unsupported by any evidence. Although there is credible evidence for past carbon dioxide levels greater than any increase we may experience before all fossil fuel is consumed there is no evidence to indicate that past such increases took place much slower than the present one or that slower or faster would make any real difference.

"Reefs are the ocean's canaries."

The canary in the coal mine analogy has been so overused for so many different things it is almost embarrassing to see any literate person employ it, all the more so for something as vast, ancient and tenacious as coral reefs.

"Climate change is the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced."

Only in the event that it proves to be both real and as damaging as the prophets of doom proclaim. On the other hand, if it is indeed real but it prevents another ice age it could be the most fortunate event in human history.

"A brief look back at the staggering and accelerating technological advances of the past century is persuasive evidence that humans can find solutions if the political will is there to focus innovations in the right directions. We must buy ourselves time. Time for the innovators to do their job, to develop solutions and to create a future that is not dependent on fossil fuel. We, the citizens of the wealthy countries, are capable of achieving 50 per cent cuts in greenhouse emissions virtually immediately."

Australia's annual carbon dioxide emissions are about 1.5 per cent of the global total and barely equal to China's increase in six months. Estimates of natural uptake in our land and EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) area are greater than our emissions. As a nation we should be accumulating surplus carbon credits.
Without liquid hydrocarbon fuels for transportation and mobile machinery our existing economy cannot continue to function or to even feed the current population. It doesn't run on hypotheticals. At least several decades will be required for development and widespread implementation of alternative energy solutions. Premature attempts to adopt immature, unproven technology fostered by ill conceived subsidies and regulations entails a high risk of resulting in more harm than help. The emerging bio-fuels disaster is an example.
The biggest problem we face is not an unquantifiable risk of climate change at some unknown future time. It is keeping the economy functioning until energy alternatives are a functional reality. Inability of current fuel supplies to meet growing demand is confronting us now. Production of synfuel from coal is a proven technology that could fill the energy gap we face. The only obstacle to implementation is objections arising from the hypothetical danger of anthropogenic global warming.
The emerging choice is becoming more and more apparent. Do we adhere to the dogma of the climate change cult and endure consequent mass economic hardship including global hunger or risk a dubious prophesy to take a clear path to the future? Do we take the direct route down Easy Street or a detour through Jonestown?
The absence of ongoing global warming over the past decade and pronounced global cooling of the past year cannot credibly be dismissed as simple local variability in weather. It is clearly global and contrary to all predictions of carbon dioxide governed global warming.

3 http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7322 4
The media are beginning to find news value in anthropogenic global warming doubts and the costs of ill-conceived countermeasures. Skeptical scientific opinions are increasingly being heard and conflicting new evidence appearing.
The alarmists have gone too far out on a very long limb for any retreat. A cooling trend in climate would be disastrous for the whole anthropogenic global warming ideology and result in a catastrophic loss of credibility for a large sector of the scientific community. The escalating fears they express appear to be based not so much on any important new evidence as on their own increasingly desperate hopes.

As for coral bleaching, the central fact never mentioned is that the high surface water temperatures associated with bleaching events are not the result of exceptionally high air temperatures. They result from extended periods of calm weather during which mixing from wave action ceases and surface layer becomes exceptionally warm. Such warming is especially marked in very shallow water such as on reef flats. At the same time the absence of waves also eliminates the wave driven currents that normally flush the reef top.

Bleaching conditions require at least a week or more of calm weather to develop and this may happen every few years, only once in a century, or never, depending on geographic location. On oceanic reefs it is less common due to ocean swell and currents even in calm weather. In coastal areas it is more common due to the absence of swell and reduced currents. There is nothing to link extended periods of calm winds with global warming. In fact the climate models project increased winds.

Incidentally, I am a great admirer of Charlie Veron's outstanding work on coral systematics and have high regard for his knowledge of reefs but feel compelled to respectfully disagree with his pronouncements on climate change.

Comments
Looking at the "big picture" does indeed change the perspective. Most of the time over the past 2 million odd years the Great Barrier Reef didn't exist. During the two dozen or so glacial periods that prevailed during 90% of that time lower sea levels and colder climate turned most of what is now the reef into a coastal plain with any remaining coral reduced to a fringe along the shore of the northern portion. Unless global warming "saves" the reef by preventing the next glacial cycle the GBR will almost certainly be again reduced to a vestige. How soon this might happen is unclear. Most warm interglacial periods only appear to last about 10,000 years, which is now the age of the current one.
Posted by Walter Starck, Friday, 9 May 2008 2:52:47 PM

[Mike Delisser]

Green Peace wrote- "This morning, our crew of activists ventured out on inflatable boats from the Esperanza and painted slogans on eighteen of these giant pollution ships. We're taking photos we expect will be seen the world over, highlighting threats to our reefs, rivers and Pacific Island neighbours."

What I would like to know is what fuel is used by the Green Peace inflatables and their mother ship the Esperanza.
Wind or solar powered, not a chance, more like unleaded in the inflatables and deisel electric on the mother ship (fossil fuels). F####n Hypocrites.
Mike

[RFARREN]

seems to me like the greenies have crashed and burned
and u are right m62 they are hypocrites

[blackjack]

Thanks for posting that article billfisher. It makes for quality reading. I was curious about the author and have posted below his background. Obviously he is well-qualified to write with authority about the reef. I like the way he analysed the writings of Charlie Veron statement by statement.
Walter Starck

Walter has a PhD in marine science including post graduate training and professional experience in fisheries biology. His reef experience includes some 50 years of fishing and diving on coral reefs including those in the eastern, central and western Pacific areas as well as the Indian Ocean and tropical western Atlantic region. He has had the opportunity to study two reefs every year for 10 years each. One was in Florida the other on the GBR. He has also been able to extensively dive reefs in both overfished areas and sustainably fished ones as well as a number of remote un-fished oceanic reefs. His Barrier Reef experience includes over 1000 dives ranging from far northern Cape York to the Capricorn group at the southern end of the GBR.

www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=3923 (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=3923)
(http://www.goldendolphin.com/main.htm)
That website 'On line Opinion' is bookmarked into my favourites.
As I said before "I believe you need to carefully and critically examine things that are spouted by agencies with agendas, no matter who they are" and Walter Starck justified my suspicions. www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7322 (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7322)

Still hoping to hear of any real evidence that coal ships are damaging the reef.

Cheers, Blackjenny

[Mike Delisser]

Black Jenny & Billfisher
You'll see from my previous post that I have no time for the activist antics of Greenpeace hypocrites but if you're going to go down that well worn "scientist shopping road" I think you'd better find some one more eminent than good old Wally to fly the flag, though I'm sure his research/arguements are exactly what most here would love to read.

In the red corner representing Greenpeace and climate change
DR CHARLIE VERON

He is former Chief Scientist of the Australian Institute of Marine Science.
He has been the recipient of the Darwin Medal, the Silver Jubilee Pin of the Australian Marine Sciences Association, the Australasian Science Prize, the Whitley Medal and received special mention in the Eureka Awards.
He has discovered and described 20% of all coral species of the world. He has worked in all the major coral reef regions of the world, participating in 66 expeditions and spending 7,000 hours scuba diving.
He continues to work in many different fields although he now concentrates on conservation and the effects of climate change on coral reefs.
Veron is the author of 100 scientific articles, including 14 books and monographs, on subjects ranging from climate change, molecular biology, palaeontology, coral identification, biogeography, coral reefs, conservation, marine science policy, marine science history, cell biology, reptilian physiology and biography.

And in the blue corner representing climate change sceptics
WALTER STARCK

Walter has a PhD in marine science including post graduate training and professional experience in fisheries biology. His reef experience includes some 50 years of fishing and diving on coral reefs including those in the eastern, central and western Pacific areas as well as the Indian Ocean and tropical western Atlantic region. He has had the opportunity to study two reefs every year for 10 years each. One was in Florida the other on the GBR. He has also been able to extensively dive reefs in both overfished areas and sustainably fished ones as well as a number of remote un-fished oceanic reefs. His Barrier Reef experience includes over 1000 dives ranging from far northern Cape York to the Capricorn group at the southern end of the GBR.

Can you see my point, esp when considering the subject both scientists were debating was coral bleaching from climate change.


BTW I agree about www.onlineopinion.com.au (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=3923) though most of the time I think you need a Phd to understand it all.
Cheers
Mike

[Little grey men]

What I would like to know is what fuel is used by the Green Peace inflatables and their mother ship the Esperanza.


Like,....Rainbow power my friend.:)

Reminds me of when I was younger in the city one night, a couple of multi coloured veggie headed hemp huffers were getting stuck into me because I was eating a cheeseburger near them. Meat is murder blah blah blah, don't eat anything with a face blah blah......I asked them what their Doc Martens were made out of. This angered them greatly and they left. Yay...... one for me. I enjoyed my cheeseburger even more after that.

[bobp]

if green peace are so worried about the environment why they get rid or there ships and inflatables and stand up for what they believe and use renewable energy like sailing ships and rowing boats

bob

[billfisher]

Black Jenny & Billfisher
You'll see from my previous post that I have no time for the activist antics of Greenpeace hypocrites but if you're going to go down that well worn "scientist shopping road" I think you'd better find some one more eminent than good old Wally to fly the flag, though I'm sure his research/arguements are exactly what most here would love to read.

In the red corner representing Greenpeace and climate change
DR CHARLIE VERON

He is former Chief Scientist of the Australian Institute of Marine Science.
He has been the recipient of the Darwin Medal, the Silver Jubilee Pin of the Australian Marine Sciences Association, the Australasian Science Prize, the Whitley Medal and received special mention in the Eureka Awards.
He has discovered and described 20% of all coral species of the world. He has worked in all the major coral reef regions of the world, participating in 66 expeditions and spending 7,000 hours scuba diving.
He continues to work in many different fields although he now concentrates on conservation and the effects of climate change on coral reefs.
Veron is the author of 100 scientific articles, including 14 books and monographs, on subjects ranging from climate change, molecular biology, palaeontology, coral identification, biogeography, coral reefs, conservation, marine science policy, marine science history, cell biology, reptilian physiology and biography.

And in the blue corner representing climate change sceptics
WALTER STARCK

Walter has a PhD in marine science including post graduate training and professional experience in fisheries biology. His reef experience includes some 50 years of fishing and diving on coral reefs including those in the eastern, central and western Pacific areas as well as the Indian Ocean and tropical western Atlantic region. He has had the opportunity to study two reefs every year for 10 years each. One was in Florida the other on the GBR. He has also been able to extensively dive reefs in both overfished areas and sustainably fished ones as well as a number of remote un-fished oceanic reefs. His Barrier Reef experience includes over 1000 dives ranging from far northern Cape York to the Capricorn group at the southern end of the GBR.

Can you see my point, esp when considering the subject both scientists were debating was coral bleaching from climate change.


BTW I agree about www.onlineopinion.com.au (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=3923) though most of the time I think you need a Phd to understand it all.
Cheers
Mike

No, I can't see your point. Both have PhD's. Both have spent a lot of time studying coral reefs, ie both are qualified and experienced in the field. You don't seem to have much respect for Walter Starck if you resort to calling him "Wally" and saying he just tell us fishermen what we want to hear.

In the end what matters is the validity of the arguments and how well they match the natural observation. Why don't you tackle them, M62, instead of calling Walter Starck names?

[Mike Delisser]

No, I can't see your point. Both have PhD's. Both have spent a lot of time studying coral reefs, ie both are qualified and experienced in the field. You don't seem to have much respect for Walter Starck if you resort to calling him "Wally" and saying he just tell us fishermen what we want to hear.

In the end what matters is the validity of the arguments and how well they match the natural observation. Why don't you tackle them, M62, instead of calling Walter Starck names?

Billfisher, I agree they are both marine experts of amazing knowedge but in the field of coral bleaching they are not equally qualified or experienced, even Dr Starck would corroborate that fact.

No you're wrong Billfisher I have a lot of respect for Walter Starck or any scientist who devotes his or her life to their subject with such passion.
His name is Walter & I called him Wally, lack of respect??? calling him names???
You need to lighten up mate, my name is Michael, you can call me Mike or even Mick if you like.

And I think you might like to get your eyes tested Billfisher if you think I said Walter Starck only tells us fisherman what we want to hear, please try reading it again.

Who would I be tackling? Remember I was the one calling Greenpeace hypocrites. I just suggested that in the field of coral bleaching & CC, you could do better than putting up Walter Starck against Charlie Veron, hence the boxing analogy. Besides have you had a really good look at www.onlineopinion.com (http://www.onlineopinion.com) , although from what I've seen there so far, I must admire the way members on that site treat each other with respect even though they may have totally opposing views on a subject.
Cheers
Michael, Mike, Mick

[blackjack]

Black Jenny & Billfisher
You'll see from my previous post that I have no time for the activist antics of Greenpeace hypocrites but if you're going to go down that well worn "scientist shopping road" I think you'd better find some one more eminent than good old Wally to fly the flag, though I'm sure his research/arguements are exactly what most here would love to read.

Hi Mike/ M62

If I am not mistaken or presumptuous, Billfisher was referring to the last phrase of the above quote and he interpreted that as you meaning "he just tells us fishermen what we want to hear". I admit to being a little puzzled by that as well, and put it down to, without placing too fine a point on it, a general sense of rebelliousness that can be detected at times in the forum whenever green organisations are mentioned. Oh I feel like I'm treading on thin ice!!! Yikes. I'm outta here. LOL

M62 also said: "BTW I agree about www.onlineopinion.com.au (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=3923) though most of the time I think you need a Phd to understand it all."

(I haven't worked out how to quote multiple postings on here yet)
As I said in my post, I liked the way Walter Starck teased out individual points Charlie Veron had made and for me at least, who doesn't have a PhD, found it interesting reading without being too highbrow. Of course, many other articles in 'On Line Opinion' probably do require one to have a superior knowledge and background to understand.

I can't hold any one scientist above the other, but I can see the differing views, and that is what you need to see. Then, weigh up the points, add a bit of your own experience and hopefully come to some kind of balanced understanding or opinion. I do know from my own experiences that you'll find as many different perspectives as there are proponents in the scientific/medical world, each with their own standpoint, so it's no wonder mere plebs like me find it so difficult!

Little grey men I think you nailed M62's query as to the fuel GP use for their vessels "Like,....Rainbow power my friend."
Of course, they would be using the same fuel we do to power their vessels, and one can reasonably surmise that GP uses electricity too. Last month in Newcastle, they were around bringing attention to the "dirty, filthy Eraring Power Station". They were aboard a rigid inflatable vessel and were zooming around the Harbour as well, obviously trying to save the planet of some other industrial opponent or other.

I am sure we were given a look of suspicion as they pulled up next to us to collect some waiting colleagues at the wharf. Thinking back on it, I wondered at the time if they thought WE shouldn't be out in OUR boat wastefully using the earth's resources.

In any case, there were a number of Police SWAT (or whatever they're called) rigids as well, and I'm sure they weren't there by coincidence, more like keeping a very close eye on, shall we say, "proceedings" and waving the flag of Australian LAW in GP's face.

Anyhow, did anyone see the proceeds of the artwork or the activities of Greenpeace around Mackay?

Tonight I am wondering why they are targeting the coal ships alone, and not all the other ships that use that shipping corridor near the GBReef. I can't imagine the coal ships being any worse than any other ship, and in some cases considerably a lot better than some of the rusty hulks that get around. I'm also reasonably sure the coal ships wouldn't be throwing the "dirty black coal" over the corals. So am I being too blonde? It's just about the coal right. Greenpeace want it left in the ground. The reef and the so-called concern for its welfare is just another ploy. :hammer:

Oh, I think it's better if I just try to go to sleep. Blackjenny :)

[TimiBoy]

Anyone who's been reading my posts will know I'm a card carrying boots and all Greenie hater. BUT, I think it's unreasonable to pay them out for using RIB's and outboards, or electricity in their offices. Bear in mind it's highly likely that in order to counter this very claim they have probably planted one helluva lot of trees, and would argue that while they do use some fossil fuels, they take every requisite step to mitigate that use. Let's hate them, but that's a bit of a hick argument, so let's not give them ammo.

The solution to the coal ships is simple. Paint them Green. Then the bastards won't see them!

;D;D;D

TB

[billfisher]

Billfisher, I agree they are both marine experts of amazing knowedge but in the field of coral bleaching they are not equally qualified or experienced, even Dr Starck would corroborate that fact.

No you're wrong Billfisher I have a lot of respect for Walter Starck or any scientist who devotes his or her life to their subject with such passion.
His name is Walter & I called him Wally, lack of respect??? calling him names???
You need to lighten up mate, my name is Michael, you can call me Mike or even Mick if you like.

And I think you might like to get your eyes tested Billfisher if you think I said Walter Starck only tells us fisherman what we want to hear, please try reading it again.

Who would I be tackling? Remember I was the one calling Greenpeace hypocrites. I just suggested that in the field of coral bleaching & CC, you could do better than putting up Walter Starck against Charlie Veron, hence the boxing analogy. Besides have you had a really good look at www.onlineopinion.com (http://www.onlineopinion.com) , although from what I've seen there so far, I must admire the way members on that site treat each other with respect even though they may have totally opposing views on a subject.
Cheers
Michael, Mike, Mick

No I don't need my eyes tested. You made the suggestion that we accept Walter Starcks arguments just because that is what we want to hear. Then you threw in the "good old Wally". Just because Veron has published more in the field of coral bleaching and C&C doesn't make his aruments automatically more valid. Also you seem to have missed the point that Walter Starck quotes other published research in his rebutal. You seem to have also missed my main point which is that you should be attacking the validity of Walter's arguments and conclusions as to how well they match the natural observation - not the guy himself.

All you have done is made an ad hominen attack - which is what greeenies are so fond of doing.

[JIMBO99]

jimbo99
I Have Listened To And Read About Reef Bleaching, Crown Of Thorns Starfish, Asidic Pollution, Run Off And So Many Other Problems The Reef Has To Supposedly Contend With As Well As global Warming, as You All May Well Know If You Want To See Coral Reefs In Their Glory You Have To Go North Young Man, The Further South The Less Coral Is Encountered So Perhaps In About 20,000,000 Years Some Really Good Reef Should Start Showing Up Around Moreton Bay. Coral Loves Warm Water And As Far As I Can Tell Bleaching, Crown Of Thorns, Etc. Have Very Little Effect On The Reef As A Whole,coral Spawns At An Unbelievable Rate And The Spawn Drifts Far And Wide, I Have Steamed Through Patches Of It On The Surface That Were 10 Miles Wide And Endless Miles Long. I Have Also Seen Coral Bleaching Back As Far As My First Trip To The Reef, And Come Back Twenty Years Later To Find That Particular Reef Vibrant. If You Are Ever Up Lizard Island Way Go Out To Hicks Reef And There You Will Find Massive Boulders Of Coral Sixty Feet High And Half The Size Of A Football Field, Which Were Broken Off The Front Of The Reef And Thrown Back Across The Shallow Reef Top, Half A Mile. The Force That Would Have Had To Been Applied Must Have Been Horrific,these Massive Pieces Of Coral Were Left There By Some Long Past Storm, And Were There In 1770 Because They Were Noted By Captain Cook. Go In And Have A Look At The Pieces And You Will See The Layers Of Coral Laid Down One On Top Of The Other Since The Time Of The Dinosaures And The Coral Round The Base Is As Rich As If It Had Just Been Spawned.the Humane Race Is A Despoiler For Sure But The Great Barrier Reef Will Be There In 20,000 Years Long After Green Peace And The Rest Of Us Are Gooooorrrrnnnneee. I Can Remember When The Population Of Brisbane Reached The Unbelievable Ammount Of 100,000 What Is It Now?? No Mates Not Too Worried About The Survival Of The Reef At All. Get Carried Away Don't I. Reguards Jimbo99.

[Mike Delisser]

Billfisher, first you criticize me for somthing I didn't say, now your saying my words suggested somthing else, are you sure we're not married Billfisher????

Please please please read this carefuly Billfisher, I said " I'm sure his research/arguements are exactly what most here would love to read."
I'll say again "Love to read"
To the best of my knoledge most of Walter Srarck's recent work lends strength to the argument that reef lock-outs of recreational anglers and green zones are a poor choice as a fisheries managment tool and will not return the Government's and EPA's desired results.
A very topical subject on this web site and hence it would be what many Ausfishers (including me) would "love to read",
(we would find it useful). How you could conclude that I (quoting you) "made the suggestion that we accept Walter Starcks arguments just because that is what we want to hear" is beyond me, talk about putting words in my mouth.
I think Ausfish members are smart enough to make up their own minds.

Attack the guy or his arguments???? Why, I agree with just about everything he has to say. He's a brilliant man but isn't his specialty reef fish and not coral which is Veron's.
Here's a link to Walter Starck's web site, he sells his dvd's here and it looks like he's also a great photographer
http://www.goldendolphin.com

ad hominen ??????? Sorry, I'd try and answer this if I knew what it meant.

I apologise to fellow Ausfishers for straying off the thread but I didn't wish to have connotations placed on my post that were never intended, hope I have not bored you too much.
Cheers
Mike

[2manylures]

I hope you don't mean me bring my rollers over 2manylures. I'm sure you meant the Greenpeace dudes. I don't know any I can refer you to, sorry. ;) That said, I am pretty handy with a watercolour paintbrush, but more your still life or landscape.

Kind regards,
Blackjenny :gorgeous:




MEANT greenpiece!;D BJ

You're off the hook;D DAMN!;)

Wonder what sort of fuels they use for all their various machinaries/vessels plus at home.:-/

I'm green but not a greeny>:(

[billfisher]

Here's what it means M62.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

An ad hominem argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument), also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin): "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person) making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence) against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem as abusive, sexist, racist, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

[Mike Delisser]

Thanks for that Billfisher, I was hoping for an apology but after noting how often you thank fellow Ausfishers I think I'd better take what I can get and leave it at that.
Cheers
Mike

billfisher (http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/member.php?u=36119)
Ausfish Gold Member
http://www.ausfish.com.au/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/starsgold.gif


Join Date: Oct 2004

Thanks: 1
Thanked 56 Times in 29 Posts

http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/images/misc/_postbitspacer.gif

[JIMBO99]

Ad hominem?? sounds a bit sus to me, wouldn't want to run into one in a back alley at night, can't trust them latins can yer ???

[billfisher]

Here's part of an article which points to the studies which show coral calcification is actually increasing in the GBR:

Another major blow to the Kleypas et al. model was provided by the work of Lough and Barnes (2000), who assembled and analyzed the calcification characteristics of 245 similar-sized massive colonies of Porites corals obtained from 29 reef sites located along the length, and across the breadth, of Australia's Great Barrier Reef (GBR), which data spanned a latitudinal range of approximately 9° and an annual average sea surface temperature (SST) range of 25-27°C. To these data they added other published data from the Hawaiian Archipelago (Grigg, 1981, 1997) and Phuket, Thailand (Scoffin et al., 1992), thereby extending the latitudinal range of the expanded data set to 20° and the annual average SST range to 23-29°C.

This analysis revealed that the GBR calcification data were linearly related to the average annual SST data, such that "a 1°C rise in average annual SST increased average annual calcification by 0.39 g cm-2 year-1." Results were much the same for the extended data set; Lough and Barnes report that "the regression equation [calcification = 0.33(SST) - 7.07] explained 83.6% of the variance in average annual calcification (F = 213.59, p less than 0.00)," noting that "this equation provides for a change in calcification rate of 0.33 g cm-2 year-1 for each 1°C change in average annual SST."

With respect to the significance of their findings, Lough and Barnes say they "allow assessment of possible impacts of global climate change on coral reef ecosystems," and between the two 50-year periods 1780-1829 and 1930-1979, they calculate a calcification increase of 0.06 g cm-2 year-1, noting that "this increase of ~4% in calcification rate conflicts with the estimated decrease in coral calcification rate of 6-14% over the same time period suggested by Kleypas et al. (1999) as a response to changes in ocean chemistry." Even more stunning is their observation that between the two 20-year periods 1903-1922 and 1979-1998, "the SST-associated increase in calcification is estimated to be less than 5% in the northern GBR, ~12% in the central GBR, ~20% in the southern GBR and to increase dramatically (up to ~50%) to the south of the GBR."

In light of these real-world observations, and in stark contrast to the doom-and-gloom prognostications of the world's climate alarmists, Lough and Barnes concluded that coral calcification rates "may have already significantly increased along the GBR in response to global climate change." But in spite this compelling evidence, as well as the similar findings of others, claims of impending coral doom caused by rising air temperatures and CO2 concentrations have continued to rear their ugly heads ... on a regular basis ... and in the usual places.


Back to top (http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1206174117/60#top)

[TimiBoy]

The Greenie response to Billfishers post:

Billfisher is an ignorant person who doesn't understand that science is about reaching a specious (damn I love that word) conclusion, and then beating the world over the head with it until everyone believes it.

Lough is a person who likes doing it with animals, and his Scientific qualifications came from a Twisties packet.

Barnes are buldings found on farms and hardly capable of publishing reputable work.

Kleypas is, on the other hand, the undisputed Son of God, sent here to save the World from it's sinful ways, and any words said in rebuttal to his conclusions are heretical, and should be punishable by death.

Cheers,

Tim

[ManiaK]

What about clean burning gas fuel - Hydrogen? or natural gas. I have seen some info on Hydrogen extracted from water and used as fuel to power vehicles - the waste product............water. What of clean coal technology. It goes on and on.

[TimiBoy]

What about clean burning gas fuel - Hydrogen? or natural gas. I have seen some info on Hydrogen extracted from water and used as fuel to power vehicles - the waste product............water. What of clean coal technology. It goes on and on.

Hydrogen is one of the myriad of potential technologies, and it has legs, in the future, somewhere. The issues around it pertain to;

- infrastructure (stored and delivered differently to petrol, so you have to modify a lot of servos heavily, and build a new distribution network to get it to them),

- usage (you have to have enough cars using it to validate the investment in infrastructure, but which comes first, and who picks up the slack?) Good old economics...

- production (I don't know how much electricity is needed to crack water, but I know it's a lot, from school chemistry...) It's a cost vs output question here.

- safe storage (this stuff is really, really, explosive. I believe it's also a lot better at escaping from it's containment because of it's extremely small molecular size. (This may be malarchy, I'm just speculating!!))


So, a few questions, but not many answers. I would mind knowing more about this, so I might start reading about it.

Cheers,

Tim

[Outsider1]

Hydrogen is one of the myriad of potential technologies, and it has legs, in the future, somewhere. The issues around it pertain to;

- infrastructure (stored and delivered differently to petrol, so you have to modify a lot of servos heavily, and build a new distribution network to get it to them),

- usage (you have to have enough cars using it to validate the investment in infrastructure, but which comes first, and who picks up the slack?) Good old economics...

- production (I don't know how much electricity is needed to crack water, but I know it's a lot, from school chemistry...) It's a cost vs output question here.

- safe storage (this stuff is really, really, explosive. I believe it's also a lot better at escaping from it's containment because of it's extremely small molecular size. (This may be malarchy, I'm just speculating!!))


So, a few questions, but not many answers. I would mind knowing more about this, so I might start reading about it.

Cheers,

Tim

Hi Tim,

here are some links to get you started;

BMW already have a Hydrogen vehicle prototype under trial, there are a couple on Oz I believe!?;

http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/technology/efficient_dynamics/phase_2/clean_energy/overview.html?WT.srch=1

N675mHss_uQ

Good old Wiki's info;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle

The WA Government have Hydrogen Buses under trial in Perth;

http://www.gdc.asn.au/ecobus/

and a few others links worth a read;

http://www.fuelcells.org.au/

http://inventors.about.com/od/fstartinventions/a/Fuel_Cells.htm

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/tech/hydrogen

http://www.hfcletter.com/

There is heaps of info out there.

Cheers

Dave

[benjy]

Need another point of hypocrisy? The coal shipped out of Hay Point is high quality coking coal that is nearly all used for making steel, very little is burnt in power stations. The steel making process does not release carbon, as it's consumed to convert iron to steel.

The brown coal comes from further south, around the Hunter and Latrobe Valley.

[FNQCairns]

Hydrogen is the most exciting, imagine owning a car/boat that makes 80% of it's own fuel in almost real time, there are backyarders driving cars that can do this right now-does anyone know the octane rating of this gas??

cheers fnq

[Outsider1]

Hydrogen is the most exciting, imagine owning a car/boat that makes 80% of it's own fuel in almost real time, there are backyarders driving cars that can do this right now-does anyone know the octane rating of this gas??

cheers fnq

"Hydrogen has an octane rating of 130 because it can be compressed more than gasoline and 100% octane before the fuel automatically ignites in the engine. (Gasoline with 87-octane has 87% octane, a special kind of hydrocarbon that makes up gasoline and other fuels).

Here are some other octane ratings:
Methane: 125

Propane: 105

Octane: 100

Gasoline: 87

Diesel: 30"http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/general/faqs.asp

I am not sure though how relevant an Octane rating comparison is vs a relative energy comparison??

From the same link;

"How viable are hydrogen vehicles as an alternative to gasoline-powered cars?
In many ways, they are more viable than gasoline. A fuel cell electric vehicle is better suited to modern vehicles that increasingly use electrical systems in place of mechanical and hydraulic to steer, brake, and control the various functions of the vehicle. Also, in a fuel cell vehicle, the entire powertrain can be consolidated into a flat "skateboard" chassis, providing automakers much design freedom in latching all sorts of different vehicle bodies on to the chassis -- without having to work around a protruding, heat-producing engine and large mechanical driveline. A fuel cell is also 2-3 times more energy efficient than a gasoline engine.

Other vehicles that use hydrogen in a regular combustion engine are also very viable. They use existing engine technology, modified to use gaseous hydrogen. Hydrogen ICE vehicles are about 30% more efficient than comparable gasoline vehicles and produce ultra-low emissions, with no CO2.

Source
Q&A with Dan Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies; associate director of the Energy Efficiency Center and professor of Transportation Engineering and Environmental Policy at the University of California, Davis and the National Hydrogen Association"

Cheers

Dave