• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Great Barrier Reef: Signs of recovery despite major coral bleaching

Renae said:
It appears, that despite some claims to the contrary, the Great Barrier reef is not on deaths doorstep. Do we, need to make sure we are not polluting the waters, doing what we can to negate our impact to this natural treasure? Certainly, but hysteria doesn't help.
Click to expand...

Coral bleaching is poorly understood by most people. Corals are incapable of photosynthesis on their own. That job belongs to protozoa that live within the coral tissues and give the skeletal structure it's color. Coral bleaching is what happens when the protozoa die or are otherwise expelled from the coral. The corals can survive for a period of time, but they can't survive in this state indefinitely and will die unless condititions improve and the protozoa return. This also means that the ecosystem of affected area of the reef collapses.
 
Oceans
[h=1]Despite worries, some coral reefs ‘doing much better than we anticipated’[/h]From the ARC CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE IN CORAL REEF STUDIES and the “Nature always finds a way” department Bright spots shine light on the future of coral reefs Researchers have discovered a handful of ‘bright spots’ among the world’s embattled coral reefs, offering the promise of a radical new approach to conservation. In one of…
 
Jack Hays said:
Oceans
[h=1]Despite worries, some coral reefs ‘doing much better than we anticipated’[/h]From the ARC CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE IN CORAL REEF STUDIES and the “Nature always finds a way” department Bright spots shine light on the future of coral reefs Researchers have discovered a handful of ‘bright spots’ among the world’s embattled coral reefs, offering the promise of a radical new approach to conservation. In one of…
Click to expand...

LOL.

Again, when you actually read the paper, you find that it has found a few places doing better than expected, and over twice as many that are doing much worse, on the backdrop of a trend where virtually ALL CORAL REEFS ARE DEGRADING.

What they conclude in the paper is that reefs need intensive management and oversight to be healthier in the face of the many threats, including AGW, they face.

We surveyed local experts about social, institutional, and environmental conditions at these sites to reveal that bright spots are characterized by strong sociocultural institutions such as customary taboos and marine tenure, high levels of local engagement in management, high dependence on marine resources, and beneficial environmental conditions such as deep-water refuges. Alternatively, dark spots are characterized by intensive capture and storage technology and a recent history of environmental shocks. Our results suggest that investments in strengthening fisheries governance, particularly aspects such as participation and property rights, could facilitate innovative conservation actions that help communities defy expectations of global reef degradation
Click to expand...
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

Again, when you actually read the paper, you find that it has found a few places doing better than expected, and over twice as many that are doing much worse, on the backdrop of a trend where virtually ALL CORAL REEFS ARE DEGRADING.

What they conclude in the paper is that reefs need intensive management and oversight to be healthier in the face of the many threats, including AGW, they face.
Click to expand...

Your point?

This type of bright spots analysis has been used in fields such as human health to improve the wellbeing of millions of people. It is the first time it has been rigorously developed for conservation.
“We believe that the bright spots offer hope and some solutions that can be applied more broadly across the world’s coral reefs,” says Prof. Cinner.
“Specifically, investments that foster local involvement and provide people with ownership rights can allow people to develop creative solutions that help defy expectations of reef fisheries depletion.
 
Jack Hays said:
Your point?

This type of bright spots analysis has been used in fields such as human health to improve the wellbeing of millions of people. It is the first time it has been rigorously developed for conservation.
“We believe that the bright spots offer hope and some solutions that can be applied more broadly across the world’s coral reefs,” says Prof. Cinner.
“Specifically, investments that foster local involvement and provide people with ownership rights can allow people to develop creative solutions that help defy expectations of reef fisheries depletion.
Click to expand...

Oh. I forget.

Sometimes your cut and vomit blog copies don't actually support anything said in the thread at all, and are just test nibbles to help deniers feel good about themselves.

15 out of 5000 reefs are doing great! Coral bleaching is a myth!
 
Threegoofs said:
Oh. I forget.

Sometimes your cut and vomit blog copies don't actually support anything said in the thread at all, and are just test nibbles to help deniers feel good about themselves.

15 out of 5000 reefs are doing great! Coral bleaching is a myth!
Click to expand...

So . . . you've got nothing.
 
Alarmism / Bad science / Bad science journalism / Climate News / Environment / Ocean acidification / Sea Surface Temperature
[h=1]Modern Scientific Controversies Part 2: The Great Barrier Reef Wars[/h] Guest Essay by Kip Hansen Prologue: This is the second in a series of several essays that will discuss ongoing scientific controversies, a specific type of which are often referred to in the science press and elsewhere as “Wars” – for instance, this essay covers the Great Barrier Reef Wars. The purpose of the…
 
Ocean Temperatures
[h=1]Hoegh-Guldberg’s Coral Sophistry Triggers Sagan’s Science Baloney Alert![/h]Guest essay by Jim Steele Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism Recently The Australian published an article by Graham Lloyd, “Great Barrier Battleground Over Coral Bleaching”. Lloyd quotes 2 of Hoegh-Guldberg’s claims that are not quite an honest representation…
 
[h=2]Great Barrier Reef: 5% bleached, not 93% says new report “discrepancy phenomenal”[/h]
great_barrier_reef-flynn.JPG
In a nutshell: a government funded group finds some bleached coral on the Great Barrier Reef, and repackages the stats to come up with the apocalyptic statistic that only 7% of the reef is not bleached! The SMH reported that “93% of the corals” are damaged. The reef is 2,000 kilometers long. Did anyone really think about these headlines?
Then in a development that “no one” could see coming, local tourism is damaged, potentially costing a lot of jobs.
“And the loss of these tourists could cost our tourism industry a whopping $1 billion a year, a report out today by The Australia Institute warned.”
This inspires local dive operators (who possibly know what the reef looks like) to pay for a two week expedition to survey 28 sites. They find about 5% damage and describe the difference asphenomenal. Indeed, they say the reef is pretty much just like it was 20 years ago when they last did a survey.
We know that both sides have an interest finding a healthy or unhealthy reef. The problem starts with self-serving taxpayer funded scientists who are paid to find a crisis. But they would not get away with it if the media didn’t let them. Blame sloppy gullible journalists like Tom Arup (SMH), and Stephanie Smail (ABC) who should have asked some hard questions, and protested at the surreal headlines. Will the job-destroying ABC report the new survey?

Great Barrier Reef only 5% bleached, Cairns Post
Keep reading →
 
That's the problem with these government funded never ending grants. It becomes the primary job for a scientist to use weasel words and equivocate in their findings.

They are paid to look for an outcome. If they don't find that outcome, will they get another grant?
 
Lord of Planar said:
That's the problem with these government funded never ending grants. It becomes the primary job for a scientist to use weasel words and equivocate in their findings.

They are paid to look for an outcome. If they don't find that outcome, will they get another grant?
Click to expand...

"Paradigm protection."
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Great Barrier Reef: 5% bleached, not 93% says new report “discrepancy phenomenal”[/h]
great_barrier_reef-flynn.JPG
In a nutshell: a government funded group finds some bleached coral on the Great Barrier Reef, and repackages the stats to come up with the apocalyptic statistic that only 7% of the reef is not bleached! The SMH reported that “93% of the corals” are damaged. The reef is 2,000 kilometers long. Did anyone really think about these headlines?
Then in a development that “no one” could see coming, local tourism is damaged, potentially costing a lot of jobs.
“And the loss of these tourists could cost our tourism industry a whopping $1 billion a year, a report out today by The Australia Institute warned.”
This inspires local dive operators (who possibly know what the reef looks like) to pay for a two week expedition to survey 28 sites. They find about 5% damage and describe the difference asphenomenal. Indeed, they say the reef is pretty much just like it was 20 years ago when they last did a survey.
We know that both sides have an interest finding a healthy or unhealthy reef. The problem starts with self-serving taxpayer funded scientists who are paid to find a crisis. But they would not get away with it if the media didn’t let them. Blame sloppy gullible journalists like Tom Arup (SMH), and Stephanie Smail (ABC) who should have asked some hard questions, and protested at the surreal headlines. Will the job-destroying ABC report the new survey?

Great Barrier Reef only 5% bleached, Cairns Post
Keep reading →
Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

So now the reefs are dying? :sigh: Glad to see the 93 percent figure has been debunked! Small wonder that some are urging that laws be passed to silence those who don't agree with the "official" pronouncements of those with an agenda, but with the billions - perhaps even trillions - of dollars up for grabs, that shouldn't surprise anyone! :no: And, as usual, the comments section made for interesting reading, too! :thumbs:
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Great Barrier Reef: 5% bleached, not 93% says new report “discrepancy phenomenal”[/h]
great_barrier_reef-flynn.JPG
In a nutshell: a government funded group finds some bleached coral on the Great Barrier Reef, and repackages the stats to come up with the apocalyptic statistic that only 7% of the reef is not bleached! The SMH reported that “93% of the corals” are damaged. The reef is 2,000 kilometers long. Did anyone really think about these headlines?
Then in a development that “no one” could see coming, local tourism is damaged, potentially costing a lot of jobs.
“And the loss of these tourists could cost our tourism industry a whopping $1 billion a year, a report out today by The Australia Institute warned.”
This inspires local dive operators (who possibly know what the reef looks like) to pay for a two week expedition to survey 28 sites. They find about 5% damage and describe the difference asphenomenal. Indeed, they say the reef is pretty much just like it was 20 years ago when they last did a survey.
We know that both sides have an interest finding a healthy or unhealthy reef. The problem starts with self-serving taxpayer funded scientists who are paid to find a crisis. But they would not get away with it if the media didn’t let them. Blame sloppy gullible journalists like Tom Arup (SMH), and Stephanie Smail (ABC) who should have asked some hard questions, and protested at the surreal headlines. Will the job-destroying ABC report the new survey?

Great Barrier Reef only 5% bleached, Cairns Post
Keep reading →
Click to expand...

Funny how all the scientific reports say one thing, but you guys fall all over yourself on a report from 'tour operators'.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yeah.

Tough choice.

Which group do you believe knows the science more?

I wonder who?
Click to expand...

Which group sucks in billions of dollars worldwide through government grants, and has been caught numerous times manipulating data to achieve their desired results.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Which group sucks in billions of dollars worldwide through government grants, and has been caught numerous times manipulating data to achieve their desired results.
Click to expand...

The tourism industry? Not sure if it's *billions* in government grants...

I bet you were the guy who believed the tobacco companies when they said smoking doesn't cause cancer...
 
Threegoofs said:
The tourism industry? Not sure if it's *billions* in government grants...

I bet you were the guy who believed the tobacco companies when they said smoking doesn't cause cancer...
Click to expand...

You bet wrong again. How many times have your GW scientists been caught lying, and manipulating data to maintain their premise??

How many times?

C'mon..............you can say it.
 
RetiredUSN said:
You bet wrong again. How many times have your GW scientists been caught lying, and manipulating data to maintain their premise??

How many times?

C'mon..............you can say it.
Click to expand...

I'm going with 'never' for this one, Bob.

But I'm sure you have a lot of wingnut blogs that say differently.
 
Threegoofs said:
I'm going with 'never' for this one, Bob.

But I'm sure you have a lot of wingnut blogs that say differently.
Click to expand...

Then you are not being truthful....are you? There are thousands of articles out there where your GW supermen have been caught red handed manipulating data. 60 minutes even questioned the GW warriors plaing temp sensors over black top and concrete surfaces years ago.

But, to you, they are all lies!

Who is the fool?
 
RetiredUSN said:
Then you are not being truthful....are you? There are thousands of articles out there where your GW supermen have been caught red handed manipulating data. 60 minutes even questioned the GW warriors plaing temp sensors over black top and concrete surfaces years ago.

But, to you, they are all lies!

Who is the fool?
Click to expand...

And then if these supposedly misplaced temp sensors are taken off the record, the wingnuts scream 'manipulation of data'!!

I don't doubt there are thousands of wingnut articles out there. They seem to cater to a large audience of rubes.
 
Threegoofs said:
I bet you were the guy who believed the tobacco companies when they said smoking doesn't cause cancer...
Click to expand...

I thought the big push since the 60's or 70's was second hand smoke. Not smoking.

If you are going to Klingon about such very old things, then you do not accept that science advances...

No wonder yo are stuck in the dark ages when it comes to global warming!
 
Threegoofs said:
I'm going with 'never' for this one, Bob.

But I'm sure you have a lot of wingnut blogs that say differently.
Click to expand...

d'Nile is not just a river.

Yo are a true denier of science!
 
Threegoofs said:
I wonder why *I* am the one who agrees with the NAS and you call them (the most respected scientific organization in the world) 'pundits'....
Click to expand...

They simply haven't studies facts to disagree with the supposed experts of a field in its infancy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom