Conserve & Manage Australian Trout and climate change

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 149 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #860523

    Boris
    Participant

    Dr. Graham,

    Michael Mann of  “hockey stick” fame stood in a court of law and lost to Tim Ball. Yes, lost!! too afraid to provide his raw data sets lest they be examined.

    If it wasn’t so serious it’d be funny.

    Research the origin of this environmental campaign –  Club of Rome – UN and their spokesman Maurice Strong who said that if we can convince enough people we can have a global government!

    But don’t just rely on google searches – they censor lots of stuff down the memory hole.

    #860529

    MJL
    Participant

    Wrong! Hotter -Mildura 1906 – 124’F or 52’C look at the photo and read the temps in the clippings – lots more at very high temps such as Adelaide 127’F etc etc

    ‘authority’ – the weakest argument 😆

    The official record for Mildura isn’t 52 degrees. Anecdotal information is typically unreliable.  Inconsistent measurement techniques make comparison with these very old and poorly documented records difficult.  You have to do some sort of QA/QC on the data.  Berkeley do this.  Tony Heller does not.

    #860534

    woody-wood
    Participant

    The aboriginals must have been worried about climate change when the land bridge between Australia and Asia, and between Australia and Tasmania went under water.

    Not as worried as the dinosaurs thou.

     

    #860557

    Fish4Sport
    Participant

    To Dr Graham

    Hi

    I liked your recent post but I thought you detracted from your arguments by using the derogative and deliberately dishonest term “climate change denier”.

    “Climate change denier” directly implies that such a person denies that the climate changes – i.e. extremely ignorant of the well- known fact that the climate changes or has a serious cognitive problem. I would be interested in knowing names of Australian Members of Parliament, if any, who have specifically claimed that the climate does not change.

    The term “climate change denier” is a misleading term usually deliberately directed at people who are NOT “deniers” but are sceptical of AGW, or the extent of AGW or the dire predictions of AGW. Being a scientist you are no doubt aware of other scientists, e.g. Prof. Judith Curry; Dr. Patrick Moore; Prof. William Harper (you probably will be able to extend this list) who have examined the issue of AGW and have a very different conclusion than yours.

    However, If you are correct then it follows that millions of anglers, when they are travelling in planes, petrol powered cars and boats, to go fishing, are increasing co2 emissions, adding to global warming and the demise of some trout fisheries.

    Interesting issue but I am confident that at least 99% of anglers (myself included) will continue travelling in planes, petrol powered cars and boats, to go fishing, until there are cheaper, less co2 emitting methods of travel to go fishing.

    Although I remain sceptical of the extent of AGW and the dire predictions of AGW I sincerely wish you all the best in obtaining “an effective and coherent water policy in Australia”.

    Regards

    #860558

    MJL
    Participant

    The term skeptic went out of favour because there was little in the way of scepticism being shown (doubt) and a lot of outright denial (e.g dismissing thorough science because YouTube). In any case, the term has entered the lexicon. It also has a defined and widely accepted meaning that in no way confuses man made and geological climate changes.

    #860575

    Boris
    Participant

    MJL is wrong!

    The term “denier” was originally used as a weapon to silence and or character assassinate without offering a cogent argument the person objecting or questioning the orthodoxy.

    The weaponisation of the term denier stems from the weaponised words  “holocaust denier” which proved to be a group psychological trigger and label that no discussion is to be entered into but only derision of the most vociferous type for the person questioning the event or events.  As if they were beyond the pale and pathologically crazy.

    It’s just a psychological trick that has lost most of it’s potency for those who don’t want admit their weak intellectual position.

    Unfortunately, well meaning people use it without really understanding its full history.

    #860577

    mitch aka 2 fish
    Participant

    well that’s me triggered. hopefully I’d be radicalised (maybe change my gender as well) by this afternoon.

     

    we live in clown world.

    the only thing that’s given me hope in the last year is the result in britain. this proves to me that the media is full of shit. its leaning and agenda is false and most of the (western) world knows that we are lied to on a daily basis.

    pick up your local rag and see if you can get past pg3 without reading someone’s opinion.

     

    cheers,

    shawn

    #860581

    MJL
    Participant

    Boris

    The word denier, as in somebody who denies something or refuses to admit the truth of the position, is used because it fits.  It fits so well it is now accepted and in common use.

    That weaponised word stuff and imaginary link to other types of denier is all you.

    Nevertheless, complaining about what people call you doesn’t make climate change any less likely. Got no science? Get upset about a label.

    #860587

    Moderator 3
    Keymaster

    Test

    #860602

    Boris
    Participant

    Happened again.

     

    here’s my intended post below:

     

    Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball who was sued by Dr. Michael Mann for libel and finally won after 4 years of legal examination as MM elected not to present his raw data for the infamous “hockey stick” that featured in Al Gore’s propaganda film.

    Tim Ball has written an excellent book correcting many of the errors and myths that have been perpetrated by the AGW side as well as the media.

    It’s well worth a read for those who want to know the science from the other side.

     

    #860603

    MJL
    Participant

    Luckily we don’t do climate policy based on libel trials.

    The hockey stick paper came out 20 years ago.  Science has well and truely moved on.   Pages 2K is the latest reconstruction if you are interested. Turns out Mann was correct.

    #860604

    bribri
    Participant

    When I read comments that climate change is some sort of hoax, I am not just frustrated but deeply, deeply offended by such ignorance.

    Great post mate.

    I was hoping FlyLife might be a safe haven relatively free from such outspoken idiocy; alas the youtube academics in this thread prove otherwise. If you don’t laugh, you cry.

    My main cause for optimism trout-wise is that headwaters, lakes and tailraces should (in theory) be buffered somewhat from increasing competition over water use.

    #860606

    bribri
    Participant

    here’s my intended post below:

    Look mate, I was really hoping this thread wouldn’t degenerate into a climate change conspiracy debate – plenty of other dark corners of the internet for that.

    I know there’s little chance you’ll change your mind, no matter how much evidence you’re presented with, but consider this:

    Fact: Australia has always had droughts, heatwaves, floods, bushfires and bloody hot weather. Literally no one disputes this.

    Fact: Climate records from the 19th century were measured using fundamentally different equipment and non-standardized methods compared to modern records, and so cannot be directly compared. This does not mean that historical evidence is being ‘hidden’ or ‘ignored’ – it just can’t be treated as like for like.

    Fact: In the current and recent bushfire seasons, areas of temperate forest that have been too wet to burn on evolutionary timescales (i.e., thousands of years) have started burning.

    Fact: As someone who works in fisheries research, the distributions of many fishes are demonstrably shifting towards the poles, and to increased depths as they track cooler water temperatures. These are things we can measure, analyse and quantify.

    These are just a couple of direct examples. Literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies, across a whole range of scientific fields, have reached the same conclusion.

    There simply is no logical explanation other than that climate is rapidly changing.

    This doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the end of the world, but it’s probably not a good thing for the future of Australian trout.

    #860609

    mitch aka 2 fish
    Participant

     

     

     

     

     

    #860644

    codfather
    Participant

    i imagine there wouldn’t be many, if any trout left in the new england after this summer. it’s viability as a trout fishery must surely be questionable assuming that the climate is trending warmer.

    hell, there’s places near me (stanthorpe, QLD) where the creeks and rivers are completely dry or reduced to puddles and the natives have died or will die this summer. it will will take many years of average/above average seasons and lots of restocking to get back to anywhere near what it was. when the waterway dries up even the invertebrates die. the pigs like digging mussels and yabbies that have buried themselves trying to survive.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 149 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.