Global Climate Change as it Relates to Coral Reefs

[schminksbro]

Global Climate Change is one of the most serious yet most controversial subjects of our time. The controversy is largely divided along political lines. Generally those on the left believe that Climate Change is happening and it is caused primarily by man. Those on the right generally argue that it is not happening and if it is it isn't caused by man. What do you think? There is the topic. Let the fire storm begin! However lets keep it civil. We are all friends here

[creefer]

A very hotly contested issue, indeed. It does most certainly fall along political party line for the most part. I personally believe that the reasons for climate change are not attributed solely to man. Nor do I believe that it is solely attributed to cyclical changes in the dynamic life of the earth in general but more of a combination of the two. There is no doubt that man has had an impact on climate yet there is doubt to what extent. There is also no doubt that climate is dynamic and has experienced change in the course of the earth's recorded history.

Those things having been said, climate change and its effects on reefs is notable and worthy of discussion. I don't know all of the science, nor all the reasons, but I do know that reefs are bleaching. I also don't know if this fact is attributable to only climate change. I believe that there are pollution issues that have an effect on the general health of the reef regardless of climatic change.

In any case, I'm interested to read opinions on the matter. For now, I'll leave my politics out of the discussion.

[creefer]

I thought this thread might have more activity than it has.....

[redemer123]

i agree with creefer 100%

[Werdlone]

This is like talking about religion or politics on a first date. It rarely ends well. Schminksbro and I have had this argument/debate before and have agreed to disagree. We now stick to things we agree on and remain good friends.

The political issue comes in when the threat of climate change is used to: change laws, regulate people's choices, regulate business products and production, and add taxes. It is used for a power grab. The science has been largely falsified and was brought to light in the last year. The UN (IPCC) report on global warming that led to a nobel prize in 2009 was largely proved bogus. Conveniently, the raw data had all been destroyed, but the "converted" data is still around...yeah. Google it to verify. Scientists were converting raw data to fit their projections as well as leaving out certain data. The scientists emails were interceptied and they openly discussed it amongst themselves. If I did this in my field, I would lose my license to practice medicine and would probably be serving jail time. I think the IPCC just got some bad press from only a limited number of legitamate news outlets.

I am not saying that coral reefs are not bleaching and that rivers, lakes and inner cities are not getting polluted. I agree that is ocurring and we need to address it on a local basis. I don't feel we are changing our climate and I disagree with viewing carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Is climate changing..yes, daily as I can recall. I don't think we have anything to do with it.

[creefer]

Originally Posted by Werdlone

This is like talking about religion or politics on a first date. It rarely ends well. Schminksbro and I have had this argument/debate before and have agreed to disagree. We now stick to things we agree on and remain good friends.

The political issue comes in when the threat of climate change is used to: change laws, regulate people's choices, regulate business products and production, and add taxes. It is used for a power grab. The science has been largely falsified and was brought to light in the last year. The UN (IPCC) report on global warming that led to a nobel prize in 2009 was largely proved bogus. Conveniently, the raw data had all been destroyed, but the "converted" data is still around...yeah. Google it to verify. Scientists were converting raw data to fit their projections as well as leaving out certain data. The scientists emails were interceptied and they openly discussed it amongst themselves. If I did this in my field, I would lose my license to practice medicine and would probably be serving jail time. I think the IPCC just got some bad press from only a limited number of legitamate news outlets.

I am not saying that coral reefs are not bleaching and that rivers, lakes and inner cities are not getting polluted. I agree that is ocurring and we need to address it on a local basis. I don't feel we are changing our climate and I disagree with viewing carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Is climate changing..yes, daily as I can recall. I don't think we have anything to do with it.

Very well stated, Werdlone.

[schminksbro]

Of course there are astronomical amounts of corporate money being spent to muddy the waters on the issue. Being that corporations only exist to profit does anyone think that they would change their ways in the face of absolute proof that they were harming the global environment? Is it remotely possible for the average citizen to sift through all the propaganda on both sides of the argument and come up with the truth?

[chort55]

El Nino, La Nina... we have had extreme highs and lows temp wise for years, today we are having some recordish snow.... did someone kick up the pollutants yesterday? lol

While the "climate changes" may play a factor I don't believe thats the real primary cause of the issues at the reefs in the ocean, there are many other factors that could and most likely do play a larger part with pollution being one of if not the biggest IMO. We have more shipping, more divers, more columbians dropping packages, more oil companies.... more people ****in in the sea so to speak (literally and figuratively)... not just here but all over the world in all the oceans/sea's/lakes/rivers.

Sure temps in the water may be getting higher as some studies showed years ago when I looked at them, but is it not possible that is caused by the pollutants entering the waterways as well, not just climate change? I know if I put (baby) oil on my skin and go lay out in the sun I will burn alot quicker then I will without

[creefer]

Originally Posted by schminksbro

Of course there are astronomical amounts of corporate money being spent to muddy the waters on the issue. Being that corporations only exist to profit does anyone think that they would change their ways in the face of absolute proof that they were harming the global environment? Is it remotely possible for the average citizen to sift through all the propaganda on both sides of the argument and come up with the truth?

Why is it that you are placing the blame solely on corporations? I suspect that there are other issues not related to corporations that have a direct affect on the contamination of the environment. I don't necessarily believe that corporations are responsible for the overall health, or lack thereof, of reefs. Further, corporations do exist that are not solely for the purposes of profit. I happen to be a member of one where profits are virtually nonexistent. Any group of people can form a corporation for various reasons. And please, don't paint a picture that profitability is a bad thing. We are, after all, a capitalist society and the system works beautifully when our elected officials stay out of the way.

Chort55, I agree with everything you have to say, btw.

[schminksbro]

I am not solely placing the blame on corporations. However there are certain industries that are especially damaging including the petrol chemical industry, the automotive industry, and the coal industry to just name a few. I also don't think profit is a bad thing. That is what most companies existence is based on. However if the sole purpose is to make money do you think that in the face of proof that they are severely damaging the environment that they would cease to do so? Or would they simply seek to distort the evidence? Is profit more important that environment? Was BP dumping millions of barrels of oil into the oceans a good thing? Are there or should there be any limitations on greed in a capitalist society? Has there ever been any evidence that for profit corporations have policed themselves for the good of the environment excluding public relations campaigns?

Originally Posted by creefer

Why is it that you are placing the blame solely on corporations? I suspect that there are other issues not related to corporations that have a direct affect on the contamination of the environment. I don't necessarily believe that corporations are responsible for the overall health, or lack thereof, of reefs. Further, corporations do exist that are not solely for the purposes of profit. I happen to be a member of one where profits are virtually nonexistent. Any group of people can form a corporation for various reasons. And please, don't paint a picture that profitability is a bad thing. We are, after all, a capitalist society and the system works beautifully when our elected officials stay out of the way.

Chort55, I agree with everything you have to say, btw.