Corals are already adapting to global warming, scientists say

Corals are already adapting to global warming, scientists say
A new study shows that some corals, like these along the Northern part of the Great Barrier Reef, have the genes to adapt to warmer oceans. Credit: Line K Bay, Australian Institute of Marine Science

Some coral populations already have genetic variants necessary to tolerate warm ocean waters, and humans can help to spread these genes, a team of scientists from The University of Texas at Austin, the Australian Institute of Marine Science and Oregon State University have found. The discovery has implications for many reefs now threatened by global warming and shows for the first time that mixing and matching corals from different latitudes may boost reef survival.

The findings were published this week in the journal Science.

The researchers crossed corals from naturally warmer areas of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia with corals from a cooler latitude nearly 300 miles to the south. The scientists found that with parents from the north, where waters were about 2 degrees Celsius warmer, were up to 10 times as likely to survive heat stress, compared with those with parents from the south. Using genomic tools, the researchers identified the biological processes responsible for and demonstrated that heat tolerance could evolve rapidly based on existing .

"Our research found that corals do not have to wait for new mutations to appear. Averting coral extinction may start with something as simple as an exchange of coral immigrants to spread already existing genetic variants," said Mikhail Matz, an associate professor of integrative biology at The University of Texas at Austin. "Coral larvae can move across oceans naturally, but humans could also contribute, relocating adult corals to jump-start the process."

Worldwide, have been badly damaged by rising sea surface temperatures. Bleaching—a process that can cause widespread coral death due to loss of the symbiotic algae that corals depend on for food—has been linked to warming waters. Some corals, however, have higher tolerance for elevated temperatures, though until now no one understood why some adapted differently than others.

Corals are already adapting to global warming, scientists say
Flourescent coral larvae were use in experiments to determine that coral have the ability to adapt to climate change. Credit: Mikhail Matz, The University of Texas at Austin

"This discovery adds to our understanding of the potential for coral to cope with hotter oceans," said Line Bay, an evolutionary ecologist with the Australian Institute of Marine Science in Townsville.

Reef-building corals from species in the northern Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea are similar to those used in the study. There, too, reefs may benefit from conservation and restoration efforts that protect the most heat-tolerant corals and prioritize them for any restoration initiatives involving artificial propagation.

"This is occasion for hope and optimism about reefs and the marine life that thrive there," Matz said.

Corals are already adapting to global warming, scientists say
Many adult corals, like A. millepora shown here, can produce offspring who will have one parent from cooler water and one from warmer water. Larvae then inherit a trait that helps them adapt to warming oceans, scientists have found. Credit: Credit: Mikhail Matz, The University of Texas at Aust

Explore further

New study uncovers why some threatened corals swap 'algae' partners

More information: Genomic determinants of coral heat tolerance across latitudes, www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/ … 1126/science.1261224
Journal information: Science

Citation: Corals are already adapting to global warming, scientists say (2015, June 25) retrieved 19 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-06-corals-global-scientists.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
241 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 25, 2015
While attempting to help living things is noble, I found myself wondering...how does artificial tampering with ecosystems help them in the long run? It seems the best thing to do is to allow evolution to run its course; the strong and those with the best ability to adapt will take their rightful place...as has happened for millennia already.

If there are no clear human factors involved, none should be introduced.

Jun 25, 2015
There are clear human factors Denglish, it's called climate change. That's the whole reason this article needed to be written in the first place.

Sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, I can't remember if you're one of the "Nothing is changing at all", "the climate is changing but it's not our fault", or "we are causing climate change, but it's a good thing".
That's the problem with conspiracy theories, no one knows what you actually think so you are stuck constantly having to explain why you're a retard to everyone you meet for the rest of your life because when you just make stuff up, no one knows but you.

Jun 26, 2015
I would at least agree with the point that it is dangerous to tamper with ecosystems, but you are right: The situation, even if global warming were not an issue, is not "normal" .

And at the end of the day we are talking about ensuring the future of OUR species and civilization, trying to save infrastructures such as coral reefs that protect the land from hurricanes and cyclones and provide economical benefits such as fish.


Jun 26, 2015
trying to save infrastructures such as coral reefs

Life adapts.

AGWites have been proven wrong again in their warnings.

A broken clock shows the correct time twice a day. 'Science' based AGWite predictions should be more accurate than pure chance to be taken seriously.

Jun 26, 2015
I'm not arguing that the climate isn't changing. Climate change is a symptom of a living earth, and is a good thing. Will species suffer? Sure. Are they the first or the last? No. We need to overcome out compassion and let it be.

Human caused climate change is impossible. We can affect things locally, but globally? No.

Imagine. What would happen if we converted all the coral that is sensitive to warm water (but not to cooler water) to warm water coral, and then the oceans cooled. All the coral would die, not just the coral that was better off in warm water.

Ecosystems are far more complex than pop science articles will say. When we think we can come up with solutions for a system that is far bigger than us, and with infinite variables, we are akin to the people that thought the earth was the center of the universe...simply because we could conceive it.

Jun 26, 2015
foo: yes, life will go on and adapt. Some of it, at least. The rest is likely to face a mass extinction event. Life has always made it through such bottlenecks, and it will again. Fundamentally, the discussion about mitigating the effects of AGW climate change is whether we can minimize human suffering. That is to say, some people have had very comfortable lifestyles driven by abundant and cheap fossil fuels... and other people will lose homes due to coastal flooding, crop loss due to droughts or flooding or local climate changes... and so on. Is it an ethically good thing to balance the comfort of some people with cost to other people?

Denglish: again you just make assertions "We can affect things locally, but globally? No." Prove it. Prove humans can't affect global climate. Prove that nothing humans ever do could force the climate one way or another. Write a paper on it. Please. Please prove us wrong. That'd be super awesome if we were wrong and could go on using cheap oil.

Jun 26, 2015
Prove humans can't affect global climate.

Would it matter even if I could? I can no more prove AGW isn't real than you can prove it is real. Neither of us are climatologists.

However, there is plenty of information out there that show the AGW theories to be falsified, that all the variables have not been explored, that there are political interests at work, that there has been deceit in the community, and that this enormous planet does what it wants no matter what; and has been doing it since the very beginning.

Thinking we have our arms around climate change and ecology to the point where we should start changing ecosystems is arrogant, misguided, and much more dangerous to the system than letting it be.

hat is to say, some people have had very comfortable lifestyles driven by abundant and cheap fossil fuels

This says it all. For some reason, you're a hater.

Jun 27, 2015
However, there is plenty of information out there that show the AGW theories to be falsified
No, there isn't
whereas we might not have found *all* the variables... we have found plenty enough demonstrating the human interference called AGW...

there are blogs and personal opinion which state AGW isn't real, which you link, and there are your links to dr roy which are nothing more than personal opinion asking you to accept dr roy as authority... but like all the blogs/opinion etc, and dr roy, there is no *scientific evidence* which refutes the evidence thus far. if dr roy had that kind of evidence, it would be in a peer reviewed paper in a reputable journal and he would be the most famous scientists in the world (and he would be promoted by Koch's and big oil into every television/laptop worldwide, guaranteed)

and we already have changed climate and ecosystems... so thinking we can't change them for the better is simply an extension of the known

Jun 27, 2015
No, there isn't

Yes, there is:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

nothing more than personal opinion

Wrong. The studies are a result of collected data.

peer reviewed

Let's see what the IPCC thinks of peer reviewed status:

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Regardless. Anyone interested in a compilation of Dr. Spencer's peer reviewed and science-heavy work may go here:
http://www.drroys...rticles/

so thinking we can't change them for the better is simply an extension of the known

Well played.

Jun 27, 2015
Reasonable Doubt re: AGW. Granted, this was written by a PhD, not a MIT free-class internet maven, but certainly raises some interesting points re: systems that may effect climate. Easy to read, and designed for the layman:

Global Warming as a Natural Response to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation

http://www.drroys...esponse/

Jun 27, 2015
I mostly ignore denglish because he's said that it's ok for him to lie and he's ok with people lying to him as long as their lies agree with denglish's politics. But I happened to notice these comments and thought I'd reply. Anyone who doesn't like being lied to might be interested.

First, we have: http://www.drroys...2013.png

Ignoring the facts that short term temperature projections are not what models do and that climate science doesn't depend on the models in any way, it's useful to note that Spencer "showed" that models were bad by shifting the models relative to the surface temperature readings (http://blog.hotwh...ion.html and http://blog.hotwh...ier.html ). Why Spencer felt he needed to deceive his readers is anyone's guess.

Jun 27, 2015
Second, we have
Global Warming as a Natural Response to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
http://www.drroys...esponse/

The title seems to indicate that he's going to show that the current warming is due to the PDO. But, as Spencer shows in his figure 4, the PDO can only explain the global temperature until ~1976 or so - which mostly agrees with the science. After that, Spencer needs to include the warming due to the increase in CO2 to explain the current warming. So, according to Spencer, the current warming has been primarily caused by increases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Since it's very well known that the increase in CO2 levels is almost entirely due to humans, Spencer seems to be trying to prove that the science is correct and seems to be succeeding.

Jun 27, 2015
I mostly ignore denglish...as long as their lies agree with denglish's politics.

Therefore, anything following is politically motivated.

After that, Spencer needs to include the warming due to the increase in CO2 to explain the current warming.

No, he adds CO2 to the PDO. This is the thing about intellectual honesty. Of course he recognizes CO2 as a forcing factor. It must be added in order to maintain the veracity of the study. Is it the primary forcing factor? Maybe. Is man-made CO2 proven to be a primary forcing factor to the point that moral and economic chaos is initiated? No.

So, according to Spencer, the current warming has been primarily caused by increases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

This is wrong due to your improper analysis of PDO+CO2, not just CO2.

Since it's very well known that the increase in CO2 levels is almost entirely due to humans

There are many contributors. Some that crush human contribution in terms of qty.

Jun 27, 2015
that climate science doesn't depend on the models in any way

The point stands that the models (that were used to terrify and tax), were not true. Thus, the science was falsified.

it's useful to note that Spencer "showed" that models were bad by shifting the models relative to the surface temperature readings

According to Spencer, observations were aligned so that the 5 year average at the beginning of the record was the starting point. The emotional attack to Dr Spencer's reply is unfortunate, but revealing.

So, what do we have? Two conflicting positions.

Which position should be endorsed? One of those positions leads to economic ruin, the set-back of humanity, the enrichment of bureaucrats, the realization of socialist agendas. The other position? Maintenance and advancement of human overall general wealth and prosperity, and a fair chance to make one's own way based on their merit and hard work.

Socialism vs. Capitalism. I prefer to make my own way.

Jun 27, 2015
Let's take a look at how CO2 levels fluctuate. Many of these spikes were formed without human help:

https://en.wikipe...data.svg

Humans: give a monkey a brain and he'll swear he's the center of the universe. Especially when there is profit to be had.

Jun 27, 2015
Let's take a look at how CO2 levels fluctuate. Many of these spikes were formed without human help:

https://en.wikipe...it_data.

@denglish

But not the present spike.

https://en.wikipe...0kyr.png


Jun 27, 2015
Moral Chaos you ask? What the folks behind AGW say to each other:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." – Phil Jones

"I simply would not like to see you write a paper that puts out a confused message with regard to the global warming debate…I am totally confident that after a day's rephrasing this paper can go back and be publishable to my satisfaction by Science." – Keith Briffa

"We also have a Data Protection Act, which I will hide behind." – Phil Jones

"If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political, it is being selfish." – Phil Jones

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." – Kevin Trenberth


Jun 27, 2015
But not the present spike.

https://en.wikipe...0kyr.png

Good point. So, knowing how dramatic the fluctuations can be, is the extra 100 parts per million (.04% of the Earth's atmosphere iirc) actionable to the point of creating moral and economic chaos, especially in the face of the political deceit and falsified theories re: expected temperatures and effects to our planet (arctic ice totally gone)?


Jun 27, 2015
The point stands that the models (that were used to terrify and tax), were not true. Thus, the science was falsified.

Except, of course, for the fact that Spencer lied in his graph.
According to Spencer, observations were aligned so that the 5 year average at the beginning of the record was the starting point.

But the model anomaly was created against the 1981-2010 mean whereas Spencer's surface temperature data was against the 1979-1983 mean. He just made all the plots align in 1983 - which they don't do if all sets of data use the 1981-2010 mean. He was forced to raise the model results by ~0.3C to get everything to align in 1983. His whole graph is a work of fiction. That you believe his lies is fascinating.

Jun 27, 2015
There are many contributors. Some that crush human contribution in terms of qty.

And, yet, according to your link from Spencer, all that are needed to explain almost all the current temperature rise is the PDO and anthropogenic CO2. Since your claim is without any references, I'm going to say that Spencer is more correct than you here (but since I know your claim is incorrect, that's an easy choice to make ;). And his talk about PDO doesn't include the influence that global warming, caused by CO2 levels, has on El Nino (and, hence, PDO): http://www.resear...0000.pdf .

So when Spencer says that the warming is due to PDO and CO2, you need to remember that part of the PDO is due to global warming from CO2.

Jun 27, 2015
Except, of course, for the fact that Spencer lied in his graph.

That is one interpretation. Another interpretation is that his starting points were not understood or mis-construed.

A little bit like your CO2 sans PDO argument.

His whole graph is a work of fiction.

From one point of view. Hence the controversy.

That you believe his lies is fascinating.

Climategate.

"completely ice free within the next 5 to 7 years"
https://www.youtu...yTbPwhlw

So, which side is lying?

So when Spencer says that the warming is due to PDO and CO2, you need to remember that part of the PDO is due to global warming from CO2.

Except that CO2 levels raise after temperature raises.


Jun 27, 2015
And, yet, according to your link from Spencer, all that are needed to explain almost all the current temperature rise is the PDO and anthropogenic CO2

No; specific factors are considered. Not all.

Jun 27, 2015
AGW has not been proven to the extent that meddling with ecosystems is justified.

Jun 27, 2015
Climategate.

As you admitted, there was no lying on the part of the scientists.

"completely ice free within the next 5 to 7 years"
https://www.youtu...yTbPwhlw

As you admitted, that was you lying.
So, which side is lying?

Still, as you've said, your anti-science side.
No; specific factors are considered. Not all.

Hmmm. And, yet, you're link to Spencer indicates that any other factors are minor. So either Spencer is wrong or you are (and why did you link to him if you thought he was wrong?).

Yeah, I don't see that you've been able to improve your ability to understand science (or, as we've seen here, math), or the willingness to learn or think beyond politics. That seems sad to me. Why people find politics interesting is beyond me.

Anyway, I think my first impression of you was correct: You really don't have anything interesting to add to any conversation.

Jun 28, 2015
As you admitted, there was no lying on the part of the scientists.

Just deceit and intellectual dishonesty.

As you admitted, that was you lying.

I'm Al Gore now?

Still, as you've said, your anti-science side.

This makes no sense.

And, yet, you're link to Spencer indicates that any other factors are minor.

Your.
Huh? You're reaching pretty far to maintain your position. Its not a bad thing to admit your initial analysis was wrong; it'll help you learn.

ability to understand science

Falsified theories are false. Not hard to understand.

You really don't have anything interesting to add to any conversation.

Censorship via humiliation is a quite juvenile, and indicative of possessing an argument that has no other tactic, such as logic. All the same, thanks for playing. You may take your ball and go home now that you have learned (just as your friends have) that the rules you play by aren't the real rules.

Jun 28, 2015
AGW has not been proven to the extent that meddling with ecosystems is justified.

Jun 28, 2015


AGWites have been proven wrong again in their warnings.


Where? Sorry, didn't see it. Was it per chance you who did proved them wrong? Whaooo, Iḿ impressed mate.

Life adapts.
You should too ;)


Jun 28, 2015

Would it matter even if I could? I can no more prove AGW isn't real than you can prove it is real. Neither of us are climatologists.


BUT, you can recur to available information.

Jun 29, 2015
Denglish

Oil and coal are made of fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels are made out of plants.
Plants make themselves out of carbon.
Burning carbon in our oxygen atmosphere makes CO2 out of that carbon that was previously stored underground.

What's so hard to understand about that? Nuclear bombs effect the whole world, why wouldn't hundreds of years of releasing stored carbon have no effect? The atmosphere is only about a 100km thick, at least the part that is consequential to us.

Jun 29, 2015

Would it matter even if I could? I can no more prove AGW isn't real than you can prove it is real. Neither of us are climatologists.


BUT, you can recur to available information.

I think you meant refer.

And yes, reference to the available information is what makes me think that AGW is not proven to the point that meddling with ecosystems (not to mention inflicting moral and economic disaster on humanity) is justified.

Jun 29, 2015
why wouldn't hundreds of years of releasing stored carbon have no effect?

The amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is not a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)

A confusion between forcing and feedback (aka cause and effect) when observing cloud behavior has led to the illusion of a sensitive climate system, when in fact our best satellite observations suggest an insensitive climate system.

If the climate system is insensitive, this means that the extra carbon dioxide we add to the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming.

Jun 29, 2015
Denglish,
climate.nasa.gov
This isn't "theoretical". We have real data. This is the agency the Pentagon listens too, when the air force needs to get creative, they go to NASA, when Billionaires want to invest, they often consult NASA.
Why would NASA be one of the most reliable sources on scientific information in the world on virtually every subject of consequence, except for climate change?

Jun 30, 2015
Reasonable Doubt re: AGW. Granted, this was written by a PhD, not a MIT free-class internet maven, but certainly raises some interesting points blah blah blah blah
Global Warming as a Natural Response to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation

http://www.drroys...esponse/


i will say it AGAIN... if dr roy had legitimate science that was relevant and capable of meeting the criteria for peer review, he would have published to a reputable peer reviewed journal, NOT to a blog looking for converts

IOW- all you have is "Just deceit and intellectual dishonesty"

Jun 30, 2015
I mostly ignore denglish .... Anyone who doesn't like being lied to might be interested.
@zz5555
i find it rather interesting that he accepts blogs and personal conjecture as long as it looks "legit" or "official"... or comes from one of his "trusted sources" like WUWT and dr roy... but absolutely refuses to read anything refuting his political and personal stance. that is why he thinks it is ok to lie about his life, his being a small business owner, the science, his interpretations of science and the rest... his is only here to TROLL...

best bet is to ignore/report the posts and his diatribes/trolling because he has YET to be able to refute a single study with legit science and only uses blogs etc for "evidence"... but thanks for providing that feedback! it helps those learning and seeking actual science answers to what is going on!

THANKS

Jun 30, 2015
My, aren't we impatient? Why interfere with something that's working exactly as it's supposed to? Nature obviously has the capacity to deal with change. We know this intellectually but of course some egos are disappointed because they believe our intellect has surpassed Nature, that Nature needs US to survive. Even when it's working fantastically, we decide it needs to be "enhanced". Why can't we just let a successful system do what it does best?

Jun 30, 2015
Why would NASA be one of the most reliable sources on scientific information in the world on virtually every subject of consequence, except for climate change?

Because their theories were proven to be false:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

Should we meddle with ecosystems when we're proving we don't really know what we're doing?

if dr roy had legitimate science that was relevant and capable of meeting the criteria for peer review

Dr. Spencer's peer-reviewed literature:
http://www.drroys...rticles/

it is ok to lie about his life

Show where I have said anything about my real life. And while you're at it, tell us about your MIT degrees, your experience as a truck captain, being shot, etc ad infinitum. Everyone knows what you are.

When theories do not match reality, then one must ask themselves: Why is moral and economic chaos being thrown upon us?

Jun 30, 2015
Why would NASA be one of the most reliable sources on scientific information in the world on virtually every subject of consequence, except for climate change?


Because they are not very reliable.

There are many dead astronauts to prove it.

"Let us make recommendations to ensure that NASA officials deal in a
world of reality in understanding technological weaknesses and
imperfections well enough to be actively trying to eliminate
them."

http://science.ks...ix-F.txt

Jun 30, 2015
Because they are not very reliable.

Evidently your down-voter doesn't know who Richard Feynman is.

"nature cannot be fooled"

Jun 30, 2015
Hey @zz5555!
check this out! - so... i point out that dr roy's link that the dung used here: http://www.drroys...rticles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/]http://www.drroys...esponse/[/url]

I proved it was NOT a published paper and that it is posted on dr roy's blog because it lacks scientific integrity... so guess what dung does?
YUP! she actually linked dr roy's "research articles" here:
http://www.drroys...rticles/

notice anything MISSING? ROTFLMFAO

yup! that's right! his BLOG post about global warming as a natural response (which is obvious if you simply google scholar the title- NOT PUBLISHED)

talk about someone having "intellectual dishonesty"... we link studies and valid science to dung, she links back what?
an OPINION that has NO scientific credibility!
WOW, right?

LOL

IOW- dung lies and then tries to convince us she is "human" with her stories of woe, which are supposed to make us feel sorry for her? she is TROLLING!
LOL

Jun 30, 2015
Show where I have said anything about my real life.
@D
ok... i will use your own words VERBATIM
this one is so political its absurd. meanwhile, the bureaucrats get rich, and the dependent class grows. My company requires a strong oil market to be well off. We had lay-offs last week? AGW regulation related? Yes.

You bet I'm concerned that not everyone is agreeing on a very complex subject and that there are victims and victors already.
you can find that sob story here:
http://phys.org/n...ate.html

the post date is: Jun 03, 2015 (bring tissues-NOT)
now that i've proven YOU to be a consummate chronic liar WRT your own posts as well as scientific information and studies... how about showing where i claimed degree's from MIT? LOL
troll-dung, i will conclude this post to you with your own words-
Everyone knows what you are.


Jun 30, 2015
http://www.drroys...2013.png
Dr. Spencer's peer-reviewed literature:
http://www.drroys...rticles/
When theories do not match reality, then one must ask themselves: Why is moral and economic chaos being thrown upon us?

... doesn't know who Richard Feynman is.

"nature cannot be fooled"

you should take your own advice:

Stop posting and referring to what you don't understand. It is ridiculous.

Jun 30, 2015
ok... i will use your own words VERBATIM

You read into things, and make your own stories. That is a big problem, and a large part of your delusions. I don't own a business. I am employed.

you should take your own advice:

Imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

Presenting a repository of work is different than presenting work pretending to understand it.

an OPINION that has NO scientific credibility!
WOW, right?

LOL
troll-dung

YUP! she actually linked dr roy's "research articles" here:

now that i've proven YOU to be a consummate chronic liar

My god, you are emotional. What's wrong?

I find this sad. People are actually engaging in emotional ad hominem attacks in order to defend attacks against wildlife. It makes one wonder...who is truly on the side of nature? Those that want to screw with it, or those who accept its course?


Jun 30, 2015
This may be a good time to show 2,000 years of global temperatures. Notice the graph. Earth's temperatures go up and down. It is a result of Earth being a living thing. It is good, and not only should it be accepted, it should be worshiped as a life-giver, and a life-taker.

Good for the coral that will adapt. Bad for the coral that won't. In the end, the strong survive, as has always been. Then come the humans. Suddenly the weak are important, and must be protected. The Earth cares nothing for the weak. Survive, or die.

http://www.drroys...ratures/


Jun 30, 2015
I found this interesting. Many times, one wonders...what is the motive behind convincing humans that their advanced lifestyle is wrong? What could possibly be gained from keeping empowerment from people?

Dr. Spencer:

"Why do I support Cornwall? The central reason is I believe that current green energy policies are killing poor people.

Anything that reduces prosperity kills the poor. This is the single biggest reason I speak out on global warming, and why the Cornwall Alliance speaks out against policies which end up hurting the poor much more than they help.

Radical environmentalism is interested in seeing more people dead than alive. I don't care what their press releases say. I've debated enough of these folks to know that their biggest complaint is that there are too many people in the world. They have told me so."

So, where do you stand? For sources of power that enable and develop society, or that cripple society?

Jun 30, 2015
Radical environmentalism is interested in seeing more people dead than alive.


To AGWite socialists, to save humanity, millions of humans must die.

Jun 30, 2015
Radical environmentalism is interested in seeing more people dead than alive.


To AGWite socialists, to save humanity, millions of humans must die.

Don't forget, mass profit too.

Get 'em Out By Friday:

https://www.youtu...mnCzmiwY

Jun 30, 2015
I proved it was NOT a published paper and that it is posted on dr roy's blog because it lacks scientific integrity... so guess what dung does?
YUP! she actually linked dr roy's "research articles" here:
http://www.drroys...rticles/

I think the funny thing is that Spencer's article about the PDO indicates that the current warming is almost entirely due to CO2, which refutes all of denglish's claims. But that's the insanity that is the denglish's anti-science movement. I also note that Spencer lists Spencer & Braswell 2011 as one of his papers. The fundamental flaws of that paper are pretty well known (http://www.skepti...ons.html ), but it seems to go beyond just flaws: he claimed that he examined 14 models, but he only showed 6 of them. The 3 models that completely refuted his claims were mysteriously left out of the paper. Was it fraud? Given the manipulations that Spencer did with the models, linked above, it seems likely.

Jun 30, 2015
I should note that anyone interested in how well the models do work (and a comparison between the various climate drivers) might look at http://www.bloomb...e-world/ . Yeah, it's a business site, but it seems to have been constructed with the help of two climate scientists: Kate Marvel @ LLNL and Gavin Schmidt @ NASA Goddard. I haven't heard either of them trying to disavow the Bloomberg graphics, so they seem to approve of them. (And they seem to correspond well with other discussions of models - at least other discussions that don't fraudulently represent the models. ;)

Jun 30, 2015
best bet is to ignore/report the posts and his diatribes/trolling because he has YET to be able to refute a single study with legit science and only uses blogs etc for "evidence"... but thanks for providing that feedback! it helps those learning and seeking actual science answers to what is going on!
It's a pity, though. It's good to have a devil's advocate - someone to challenge your ideas and correct you if you're wrong. It drives you to learn more. But to be useful, such a person would need to have the capability to understand science (and the willingness to do so). I don't see this coming from the anti-science groups I meet on the Internet. That may be the biggest condemnation of the anti-science groups - the only people (at least on a site like this) that oppose mainstream science, like climate or evolution or astrophysics or etc., are precisely the people that lack the ability (or desire) to understand the science they oppose.

Jul 01, 2015
Reasonable Doubt re: AGW. /


Yes, there will always be some guys trying to make a good money or boost their numbers from you guys. Greetings to the Kochs.


Jul 01, 2015
Radical environmentalism is interested in seeing more people dead than alive.


To AGWite socialists, to save humanity, millions of humans must die.

Don't forget, mass profit too.

Get 'em Out By Friday:

https://www.youtu...mnCzmiwY


Calling funny names to people doesn't make your claims more real ;)

So, answer me: Now that international Big Oil is out of the Denialists game and only your Kochs remain adamant... what are you going to do when these guys also start drilling in the ice free Artic or Greenland (yes, I know Greenland is part of the Arctic)?

I assume you will focus on denying Evultion... or gravity ;)

Jul 01, 2015
funny names to people

AGWite socialist is an accurate term for those who believe in AGW and advocate socialist policies to 'save humanity' from itself.

Jul 02, 2015
I think the funny thing is that Spencer's article about the PDO indicates that the current warming is almost entirely due to CO2, which refutes all of denglish's claims.

I already explained that to you. See above.

anyone interested in how well the models do work (and a comparison between the various climate drivers)

That was fun to watch, but without numbers its only fun to watch.

the only people (at least on a site like this) that oppose mainstream science, like climate or evolution or astrophysics or etc., are precisely the people that lack the ability (or desire) to understand the science they oppose.

Appeals to censorship via populism and projection of conjectured attributes in order to achieve authority are transparent, and do not add to credibility.

Greetings to the Kochs.

You are politically motivated. Therefore, you are blinded. I am sorry for you; I truly am.


Aug 23, 2015
Re: denglish, cherry picks with nil idea of Robust Statistics
https://en.wikipe...atistics

Acts like ubavontuba, similarities abound. Key issue they both fail, other than statistics/means/medians etc are failures to understand key settled physics
https://en.wikipe...transfer

further detailed re greenhouse gases here
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

Is well proven, never refuted. So question arises Where is the heat going, answer is obvious to anyone who has done high-school physics - the material with the higher specific heat/mass. That is, Oceans !

denglish's reporting is an outright lie, his naive attempt to pursue propaganda here, Eg my last post
http://phys.org/n...ght.html

denglish FAILs to address the warning by RSS
http://www.remss....eratures

ie Last sentence of 1st para

Aug 23, 2015
How ironic that an ignored person would remind me that I have this thread pegged to watch. Thanks, I unchecked it.

Aug 24, 2015
denglish FAILs in logic (again)
How ironic that an ignored person would remind me that I have this thread pegged to watch.Thanks, I unchecked it
Proof you ignore dissent with your arbitrary cherry picked view to promoting propaganda !

Why is denglish here in the first place, he starts with a conviction, he confirms he isn't a scientist but, acts with immense certitude scrambling to find anything to support a preset view ?

ie. Ignores the Physics, doesn't get an education in essentials, ignores the warning of the agency he relies upon (RSS) etc

But, whats worse is he claims my posts are on 'ignore' but, can see them, how does that work ?

Caught denglish being a flake, a liar, a cheat but at least confirms some integrity that he is NOT educated !

There is Zero evidence denglish has ever understood Robust Statistics, he has accepted that !
https://en.wikipe...atistics

Therefore logically denglish cannot ever be trusted ignoring education !

Aug 24, 2015
trying to save infrastructures such as coral reefs

Life adapts.

AGWites have been proven wrong again in their warnings.

A broken clock shows the correct time twice a day. 'Science' based AGWite predictions should be more accurate than pure chance to be taken seriously.


Answering with a few generalizations won't make you more credible either.
I suggest you take your clock to repair or buy a new one.


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more