Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Climate change is NOT making tropical fish act odd


We hope nothing bad happens to these scientists who are making a point of not contributing to mere hysteria around climate change:

Over the last decade, several high-profile scientific studies have reported that tropical fish living in coral reefs are adversely affected by ocean acidification caused by climate change — that is, they behave oddly and are attracted to predators as levels of carbon dioxide dissolved from air pollution increase.

But now new research suggests that isn’t the case.

In fact, in the most exhaustive study yet of the impacts of ocean acidification on the behaviour of coral reef fish, headed up in Australia and co-authored by two Université de Montréal researchers, it turns out fish behaviour is not affected at all.

“The past decade has seen many high-profile studies that have found alarming effects of ocean acidification on coral reef fish behaviour,” with some reporting that “fish become attracted to the smell of predators in acidified waters,” said lead author Timothy Clark, an associate professor at Deakin University’s School of Life and Environmental Sciences in Geelong, a seaside city near Melbourne, Australia.

But when they tried to re-do those earlier studies with many of the same species, and by crunching the data in a new analysis, Clark and his team of Canadian and Scandinavian scientists — including UdeM biologists Sandra Binning and Dominique Roche — arrived at very different results.

It turns out the original results couldn’t be replicated.

University of Montreal, “Debunking previous studies that say tropical fish are behaving oddly” at ScienceDaily

Fancy that. This scene from climate change hysteria couldn’t be replicated.

But then how likely is it that haywire fish would actually be attracted to predators instead of just behaving in weird ways, getting themselves eaten?

But hey, here’s what the competition is doing: 800 Russian journal papers retracted: The most interesting question is undiscussed. To the extent that science is global, tolerated fraud in one milieu taints an entire discipline. Recall the smug people who think that science is an infinitely superior way of knowing, Won’t that be an increasingly harder sell as more people become aware of these tip-of-the-iceberg “bombshell” revelations?

Let's assume for a moment that we, humans, are the cause of 'climate change'. So what? 1. Physics is what causes our behavior, and 'we' are merely informed after the events (1st 'we' burn fossil fuels and then 'we' are informed 'we' have done so). 2. So only if 'physics' alters its behavior there will be changes regarding the 'climacaust'. 'We' will be informed of what physics has 'decided' after the events. And that is all, folks! We are 'meat robots' thinking we can alter climate on Earth, but everything is an illusion! Thank you deranged reductionist materialism! :) Truthfreedom
Patrick Moore a founding (now former) member of Greenpeace has argued that climate change “[is] taking over science with superstition and a kind of toxic combination of religion and political ideology.” In other words, it’s replacing religion with a belief system that is just as superstitious. He goes on to argue that like religion the dogmatic belief that man is the cause behind climate change is based on fear. "Fear has been used all through history to gain control of people’s minds and wallets and all else, and the climate catastrophe is strictly a fear campaign — well, fear and guilt — you’re afraid you’re killing your children because you’re driving them in your SUV and emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and you feel guilty for doing that. There’s no stronger motivation than those two." Please take a look at his testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight. It includes a chapter form his book, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist. https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03/22514hearingwitnesstestimonymoore.pdf If you’re a believer in man caused climate change and want to convince the skeptics you’re right using scientific evidence, you need to refute each of the scientific arguments Moore uses in this chapter to make the case that the alarmist view is completely unwarranted. Arguing that is what you believe or a lot of people believe is not a scientific argument; it’s a blind, irrational leap of faith. john_a_designer
Bob O'H
They start the discussion by explicitly putting their results in the context of an evolutionary arms race, and 3 of the 7 paragraphs in the discussion explicitly mention evolution.
Yes, I found the word evolution used 4 times. In a 6800 word paper. We learned that they were not merely talking about a "conserved mechanism" but rather an "evolutionary conserved chemotropic mechanism". Additionally, it was not merely "conserved macromolecules" but more specifically "evolutionarily conserved macromolecules". But the most important explanation of the evolution of the communication of chemical signals in plant biology was this:
In turn, microbial pathogens have evolved diverse mechanisms to counteract plant defense systems, in what has been referred to as an evolutionary “arms race” between plants and their pathogens.
I was wondering how they were going to explain that, since I've questioned how a blind, mindless natural effect could create a symbolic system to communicate information between entities. But there we have it. Neatly offered in one sentence. They "evolved diverse mechanisms". Silver Asiatic
Polistra - you might want to read the paper. They start the discussion by explicitly putting their results in the context of an evolutionary arms race, and 3 of the 7 paragraphs in the discussion explicitly mention evolution. Bob O'H
Life is 'pointless' anyway (according to naturalists). Why should 'we' care about 'Climate Change'? By the way, 'my' brain chemistry is forcing 'me' to do not give a cr*p about 'Climate Change'. There is nothing 'I' can do, since 'I' do not exist... Meanwhile, in the real world.... Truthfreedom
Regarding the wildfires in Australia, we get a view of how irrational Climate Changers are. Arsonists do far more damage to the environment than C02 ever could in millions of years, but Climate Changers can't think straight enough to understand where the problem is. They just regurgitate their memes louder. Andrew asauber
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm Looks like last update was in 2012. Andrew asauber
We’re getting a lot of uninformed (unscientific) hype and hysteria about wild fires in Australia. It's claimed, according to the news media, that has to have something to do with "climate change" which means that humans are causing climate change. Never mind the fact that the climate has been changing naturally for billions of years but now for some reason, some people think it’s all a result of human activity. However, here is a fact the mainstream media (MSM) is neglecting to tell you: the fires are not the worst we have seen in recent history. Take a look at the following chart: https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Australia-bushfires-hectares-burned-by-year-550x413.jpg According to the data this season (2019/20) wild fires have so far consumed about 7 to 8 million hectares. By contrast during the 1974/75 season fires consumed “over 100 million hectares (close to 15% of the total area of Australia.)” Has anyone in the MSM been reporting on this? According to *Dr. Roy Spencer:
There are multiple reasons why people have the impression that wildfires are getting worse and human-caused climate change is to blame. First, the news tends to report only disasters… not a lack of disasters. The desire for more clicks means that headlines are increasingly sensationalized. The media can always find at least one expert to support the desired narrative. Second, the spread of news is now rapid and it penetrates deeply, being spread through social media. Third, an increasing number of environmental advocacy groups seize upon any natural disaster and declare it to be caused by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. The hyperbolic and counter-factual claims of Extinction Rebellion is one of the best recent examples of this. This is all against a backdrop of government funded science that receives funding in direct proportion to the threat to life and property that the researcher can claim exists if science answers are not found, and policy is not changed. So, it should come at no surprise that there is political influence on what research gets funding when the outcome of that research directly affects public policy. My personal opinion, based upon the available evidence, is that any long-term increase in wildfire activity in any specific location like Australia (or California) is dominated by the increase in human-caused ignition events, whether they be accidental or purposeful. A related reason is the increasing pressure by the public to reduce prescribed burns, clearing of dead vegetation, and cutting of fire breaks, which the public believes to have short term benefits to beauty and wildlife preservation, but results in long term consequences that are just the opposite and much worse.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/01/are-australia-bushfires-worsening-from-human-caused-climate-change/ [*Roy Warren Spencer is a meteorologist, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.] john_a_designer
Here's a nice refreshing counterexample, a study of plant intelligence that doesn't blame Climate Change and doesn't focus on evolution. The authors show a sense of wonder and awe, and treat the plants as fully intelligent beings. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-01/bti-pft010920.php polistra
in 2017 BBC published this: "Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers'" "Science is facing a "reproducibility crisis" where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests. " https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778 martin_r

Leave a Reply