Moderator
Global Climate Change as it Relates to Coral Reefs
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
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.
I thought this thread might have more activity than it has.....
i agree with creefer 100%
It takes a long long time to build a coral reef. Step by step the reefs survive on partnerships. And the most important partners are you and I.
CR Member
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.Originally Posted by Werdlone
Moderator
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.
Thanks, schmiksbro. I must say however that you appear to be an advocate of lots of regulation. Who pays for that? Certainly not the corporations regardless of their political fund donations.....more likely you and me. In my case, I'd rather hold my money and be a wise consumer than advocate more regulation that will ultimately cost more money. If it's my wise consumption that causes me to spend more on a product, so be it but I care not to pay for further regulations. But again, this may be out of the scope of this particular discussion considering its intent was to discuss reef health against "climate change".
Moderator
You are correct the tax payers would have to pay for the regulations. However who pays the price for a collapsed oceanic ecosystem? Those same tax payers do only the price is much higher. If as a wise consumer you had the choice of which companies you supported then the free market works. However in terms of fossil fuels there is no free market. I guess it comes down to whether you believe Exxon's profits are more important than your environment.
I am sure murder for hire is profitable for some but as a society we find it to be intolerable so we pass laws to protect our citizens. Why should industry be held to a different standard?
Posting Permissions
