4 ms·

Your last sentence would have been a fine reply to the GP without any meta level commenting. And GP's main point was that the data from the experts monitoring

Your last sentence would have been a fine reply to the GP without any meta level commenting. And GP's main point was that the data from the experts monitoring the reef did not line up with the climate change predictions of the reef. He didn't say HE knew the truth, he's saying the truth from scientific reports are not matching the predictions. If anything, he's pointing out the real "experts" data. The opposite of what you are accusing him of.

digging 2y ago
> Your last sentence would have been a fine reply to the GP without any meta level commenting. I get that but I stand by all of it though. > data from the experts monitoring the reef did not line up with the climate change predictions of the reef. That's normal. > He didn't say HE knew the truth, Well, that was a paraphrase of the unwarranted confidence in each of these statements, which I find extremely dubious: > This fact is already a major problem for the claim that corals are hurt by global warming - if it were true, there should have been declines in this period It's easy to imagine that warming would not have any effect up until reaching a certain tipping point, so this is overstated as evidence-against. > This time series is incompatible with the idea of a link between CO2 and coral health. Basically a restatement of the above. They're not incompatible. > Whatever caused this set of changes is unlikely to be human driven "Unlikely" is also an overstatement. These data can cast doubt but aren't strong enough to say that anthropogenic causes are unlikely, given how likely it frankly is due to the scale of changes in the ocean. > But we can safely say that corals are already heat tolerant. No, we can't say this. Some corals are heat-tolerant. > they have existed throughout history in which natural climate change has created vastly greater differences than seen in the last 100 years. This is... borderline misinformation. It ignores the rate of change, which is just not really a credible way to discuss climate change. Also, specifically, which changes has coral survived? I don't actually know how old coral is or which mass extinctions it has survived which is actually pretty important for making a comparison. Etc. Not really worth going over every point, you get the idea.

digging 2y ago

> Your last sentence would have been a fine reply to the GP without any meta level commenting. I get that but I stand by all of it though. > data from the experts monitoring the reef did not line up with the climate change predictions of the reef. That's normal. > He didn't say HE knew the truth, Well, that was a paraphrase of the unwarranted confidence in each of these statements, which I find extremely dubious: > This fact is already a major problem for the claim that corals are hurt by global warming - if it were true, there should have been declines in this period It's easy to imagine that warming would not have any effect up until reaching a certain tipping point, so this is overstated as evidence-against. > This time series is incompatible with the idea of a link between CO2 and coral health. Basically a restatement of the above. They're not incompatible. > Whatever caused this set of changes is unlikely to be human driven "Unlikely" is also an overstatement. These data can cast doubt but aren't strong enough to say that anthropogenic causes are unlikely, given how likely it frankly is due to the scale of changes in the ocean. > But we can safely say that corals are already heat tolerant. No, we can't say this. Some corals are heat-tolerant. > they have existed throughout history in which natural climate change has created vastly greater differences than seen in the last 100 years. This is... borderline misinformation. It ignores the rate of change, which is just not really a credible way to discuss climate change. Also, specifically, which changes has coral survived? I don't actually know how old coral is or which mass extinctions it has survived which is actually pretty important for making a comparison. Etc. Not really worth going over every point, you get the idea.