Climate change not all bad for fisheries

[Alexander's Horse]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/2013/03/11/18/17/climate-change-not-all-bad-for-fish-study

So coral reefs and freshwater, pelagics like tuna do okay.

If it makes the Australian desert bloom I'm be happy with that.

I once asked a green spokesguy if there were any positive effects from climate change and he claimed there were none. That can't be true. It seems there will be winners and losers.

[Dinner]

Everything I've read has said Australia will get even less rain with global climate change but, yeah, good news for tuna fish, bad news for cold water fish like salmon, and worse news for coral reefs which will mostly get bleached.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Good news for Nordics, Greenland, Canada and Russia.

[Zevico]

Everything I've read has said Australia will get even less rain with global climate change but, yeah, good news for tuna fish, bad news for cold water fish like salmon, and worse news for coral reefs which will mostly get bleached.

Those predictions were made in 2001 (IPCC) and repeated in public statements in 2006-2007 by various Australian climate scientists. Well, in the past three years we've experienced record flooding. And the same pack of scientists are now saying global warming will lead to wetter weather. It's a farce.

[Zevico]

I once asked a green spokesguy if there were any positive effects from climate change and he claimed there were none. That can't be true. It seems there will be winners and losers.

See and compare this article:

When I studied ecology as an undergraduate a long time ago (back in the wet years) we were taught that in the wake of every environmental change or disturbance there would be winners as well as losers. This principle seems no longer to be taught or understood. The result is a community infected by doom and unable to enjoy the glorious uncertainty of fluctuating circumstances. Inevitably, some of these will be positive and some negative, and it would make for a happier world if the positives were celebrated, just as the negatives are bemoaned.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/02/a-good-word-for-drought

It should be borne in mind that "green spokesguys" have agendas to push--agendas that involve the accumulation of influence and power in green-aligned movements. Yes, they're idealists--but they never subject their idealism to empirical analysis. It makes them dangerous people. The proposition that climate change has no benefits, when climate change has occurred throughout history and brought with it amazing changes in ecology throughout, is nought more than propaganda.

As Vaclav Klaus puts it--

“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”

[Felch]

I once asked a green spokesguy if there were any positive effects from climate change and he claimed there were none. That can't be true. It seems there will be winners and losers.

Isn't it strange how some people think any change is catastrophic? As if longer growing seasons were evil.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

As if longer growing seasons were evil.

Compounded with the effects of enhanced CO2 fertilized growth.

[regexcellent]

I'm in favor of anything that causes less snow to fall in Rochester.

[Hauldren Collider]

Environmentalists are strangely the ultimate reactionaries. Everything has to be exactly as it is now--all the species that exist now can't go extinct, the environment as it is now can't change. Bizarro.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Isn't it strange how some people think any change is catastrophic? As if longer growing seasons were evil.

There is short term change and long term change. The whole point of the climate change issue is that you have an increasing level of human caused input with no natural or human counter.

Longer growing seasons may be good or they may be irrelevant. It depends entirely on the soil quality and availability (and quality) of the water supply in the area.

Where climate change gets screwed and gets silly is when it is dumbed down and oversimplified for whichever agenda is being served.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Environmentalists are strangely the ultimate reactionaries. Everything has to be exactly as it is now--all the species that exist now can't go extinct, the environment as it is now can't change. Bizarro.

I have yet to meet an actual environmental scientist working in the field who is like that. A lot of hippie-dippie treehuggers, yes, but I don't consider them environmentalists as much as scientifically illiterate whiners.

[dannubis]

Those predictions were made in 2001 (IPCC) and repeated in public statements in 2006-2007 by various Australian climate scientists. Well, in the past three years we've experienced record flooding. And the same pack of scientists are now saying global warming will lead to wetter weather. It's a farce.

If you would be ****ing honest you would also say where these floodings occurred. Hint, it is not in the deserts.

[regexcellent]

Who gives a **** about the deserts in Australia? Nobody lives there except for those military SIGINT types in Alice Springs and a bunch of native people who should pack up and move to the coasts anyway.

[Hauldren Collider]

I have yet to meet an actual environmental scientist working in the field who is like that. A lot of hippie-dippie treehuggers, yes, but I don't consider them environmentalists as much as scientifically illiterate whiners.

I didn't say environmental scientist. I said environmentalist--like the political movement.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I was contrasting the difference between the informed and the ignorant.