Slashdot Mirror


How Coral Researchers Are Coping With the Death of Reefs (theatlantic.com)

Ed Yong, writing for The Atlantic: The continuing desecration has taken an immense toll on the mental health of people like Colton, a director at Coral Reef Alliance, who have devoted their lives to studying and saving these ecosystems. How do you get up and go to work every day when every day brings fresh news of loss? "Are we going to lose an entire ecosystem on my watch? It's demoralizing. It's been really hard to find the optimism," she says. "I think Miss Enthusiasm has gone away." There was a time, just a few decades ago, when this crisis seemed unimaginable, when reefs seemed invincible. This catastrophe has unfolded slowly. [...] But she also recognizes that she and other scientists are privileged. They care about reefs, but they're not like the 450 million people around the world who rely on reefs for tourism revenue, food from fish, and protection against storms. For them, the losses are a daily reality. The last time Bette Willis, from James Cook University, went out to the Great Barrier Reef, the woman who ran her boat "would alternate between rants and depression," she recalls. "She's out there several times a week. She knows each coral. She could see her whole livelihood go down the drain." Everyone I spoke to talked about becoming very good at compartmentalizing -- at acknowledging the scale of the tragedy, but also putting it aside to focus on their work. "I don't find it productive to be angry or depressed all the time. It's corrosive, and it isn't going to solve the problem," says Knowlton. She is perhaps the poster child for ocean optimism, having created a movement called ... Ocean Optimism.

57 comments

  1. Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lots and lots of whiskey?

  2. Impossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The media tells me there are no female scientists just like programmers. She must not be a real scientist.

  3. Are reefs really that endangered though? by SuperKendall · · Score: 0, Troll

    Once reefs were being really demolished, but most things killing reefs off have greatly diminished - and reefs appear to be able to rebound really well.

    It just doesn't seem like there is enough danger to warrant this level of depression.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Are reefs really that endangered though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. "Human Events - Powerful Conservative Voices" (Redstate.com offshoot) is your citation?

      Trump supporters are dumber than cattle.

    2. Re: Are reefs really that endangered though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cattle that get to kill the rest of the planet just like Jebuus intended.

    3. Re: Are reefs really that endangered though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moo! You are all cows! Moooo you PLANET KILLING COWS!

      Um where's the app apper guy?

    4. Re: Are reefs really that endangered though? by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm sure you know more about it than the actual scientists who work in the reefs.

  4. Untreated and poorly treated sewage is the real by xtronics · · Score: 1

    Problem.. Of course you get more research money if you blame climate change..

    1. Re:Untreated and poorly treated sewage is the real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely you can provide a citation for this. Thx.

    2. Re:Untreated and poorly treated sewage is the real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Untreated and poorly treated sewage is the real problem.

      While I agree that the Trump administration is a big part of the problem, it's not the whole story.

    3. Re:Untreated and poorly treated sewage is the real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about all these Chinese supertankers plying the oceans burning the worst kind of crude, all while leaking who knows what from the bilge. Of coarse you cant go after those guys because China runs the U.S. media. If you really wanted to save the oceans you would be using nuclear reactors or wind power to move the ships across the pacific.

      The USAian media run by the stock holders in China and Russia keep forcing climate change and identity politics to keep the country divided while they profit.

      Fuck climate change. We really need to worry about the oceans. Fish stocks have dramatically decreased over the past 100 years. There are entire sections of the ocean devoid of fish life and not a word is hear about it in the media.

  5. Scientists emotions are now the story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Has journalism fallen so far from reporting facts that scientistsâ(TM) emotions now constitute the news? Whatâ(TM)s next, interviews with losing politicians on what being rejected by the majority of oneâ(TM)s fellow citizens feels like?

  6. Chicken Little? by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 2, Informative

    For months, scientists have been reporting the Great Barrier Reef is recovering.

    http://www.cairnspost.com.au/n...
    https://www.theguardian.com/en...
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:Chicken Little? by gaiageek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Parts of the Great Barrier Reef (system) are recovering. Big difference.

    2. Re:Chicken Little? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Some part of some reef somewhere is recovering. Climate change == debunked.

      /s

    3. Re:Chicken Little? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:Chicken Little? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      Somebody smoked a reefer somewhere, then debunked climate change?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re:Chicken Little? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Informative

      I recommend people read the articles, not skim them. The scientists being quoted in two of the articles (the third is behind a paywall) all seem to say that coral shows surprising resiliency and can probably recover IF they don’t keep getting stressed by heat events.

      That’s not even close to “hey, false alarm, the corals are actually okay after all”. It’s more like “we can still save them if we do something about anthropogenic climate change”.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  7. Fire these cunts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could we get some men researchers looking at the coral? These hysterical women are too caught up in there feelings to get any real work done. Having these women "scientists" crying instead of working is the reason coral will be extinct in our lifetime!

    The effort to put women in STEM fields is severely misguided.

    1. Re:Fire these cunts by blindseer · · Score: 1

      James Damore? Is that you?

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:Fire these cunts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we have found the Trump supporter.

      Why don't you go rape your daughters and let evolved human beings discuss those issues, caveman.

  8. Corals Move by pubwvj · · Score: 0

    What seems to be missed in all this negativity is the very positive thing that vast new parts of the oceans are now the right conditions for corals and the corals are moving into them. Part of the biology of corals is they squirt out their gametes into the currents which then for a mobile stage of the coral that floats and eventually settles somewhere in the world. If it settles in a viable spot then the coral flourishes causing the corals to spread.

    This is a very good strategy, it works and people are ignoring it.

    Probably people ignore this because most people don't know much about corals and it makes better headlines if you say gloom and doom.

    1. Re:Corals Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What seems to be missed in all this negativity is the very positive thing that vast new parts of the oceans are now the right conditions for corals and the corals are moving into them. Part of the biology of corals is they squirt out their gametes into the currents which then for a mobile stage of the coral that floats and eventually settles somewhere in the world. If it settles in a viable spot then the coral flourishes causing the corals to spread.

      This is a very good strategy, it works and people are ignoring it.

      Probably people ignore this because most people don't know much about corals and it makes better headlines if you say gloom and doom.

      Certainly some of the tropical corals that we are losing will move to where the ocean temps at their particular species depth will support them. And in time some species of trees will move further north and adapt to a slightly different light cycle duration. The problem is that the forced evolution is far faster than the rate of adaptation so the diversity of species will plummet dramatically until new species adapted to the individual environments can evolve in diversity. What is happing is much faster than what occurs on the Galapagos, yes some species will evolve and move but the diversity drop will be a major extinction event that is accelerated beyond the capacity of animals to adapt and to a greater extent will be human caused this time around.

      I will give you the example of the West Coast of North America. We are currently losing the anadromous variant of Oncorhynchus mykiss and O. tshawytscha south of the 54th parallel and even in river systems north of Prince Rupert to a lesser extent. At the same time some southern species are moving north to sections of the Pacific Ocean where they feed. Humbolt Squid are starting to move north and are washing up dead on the beaches of Vancouver Island this has never in recorded history or in the oral history of our indigenous peoples been seen before. I really like love to eat fried Wzéi but come on, not at the price of losing the once worlds greatest steelhead spey rod fishing on the Thompson River and the Chilcotin.

      There is one thing the pseudo scientific climate change deniers all seem to harp at and that is how great it is to suddenly warm the surface of the Ocean and the land... Wake up and look at the evidence and then speak, otherwise STFU

    2. Re:Corals Move by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry you missed my point. This is not about evolution of the various species but rather that the species are gaining new environments that were previously not hospitable.

      As the northern waters warm a little the motile forms of the young corals drop into those newly hospitable areas and colonize.

      This is not about evolution. Evolution's great but this is about how existing species can take on new areas because those areas become hospitable. The environment is changing rather than the species.

      Shame on you for reducing to name calling - ref: your last paragraph.

  9. Another Suspect by Nexion · · Score: 1

    https://www.divingcairns.com.au/reef_crownofthorns

    But as xtronics said it is easier to get funding if you blame climate change rather than the fact that we really don't know all that much about the oceans as we think we do. There are so many factors involved in what shapes this world, and scientists often fail to consider that the problem is much more complex than an excess of carbon dioxide that should really be a boon to plant life. While I cannot say definitively that human caused climate change is false at least I don't pretend it is "settled science". To me there is no such thing as "settled science". Gravity in physics seems somewhat settled, but just recently an article pondered the possibility that our sense of physics could be controlled by a far more advanced race of being. Likely, no, but questioning our universe and the reality we hold true is the cornerstone of science.

    Far too often science is politicized, and it is nothing new. In our history many suffered greatly for believing that earth was not the center of the universe. Fortunately the majority of climate change zealots aren't violent. To anyone who is concerned with decreasing the buildup of carbon dioxide; perhaps your time would be better spent planting and irrigating land then on slashdot being political.

    1. Re:Another Suspect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a non-scientist opining on whether climate change is settled science or not, your thoughts on the matter are irrelevant. Opinions and anecdotes are cute and may mean a lot to you. To the rest of the world: nada

    2. Re:Another Suspect by Nexion · · Score: 0

      There is where you are wrong. I am actually a scientist. Not that I work on anything having to do with climate or even weather, but I am a person who is both curious skeptical in nature. I may work in a different field, but I know baseless bullshit when I see it. I can also tell when predictions fall sort of reality over time. You don't even need a degree for that. It is something I would hope even you could understand, but I guess not. I want things proven. Many think like I do, but I can accept liberal cowards, like yourself, may disagree... and that is nice.

      I really don't care what democrat voting "climate experts" feel on the matter. In fact a huge part of why I say anything is that I like to watch liberals squirm. Like voting for Trump. I hated the man, but watching the longest running tantrum play out has been a guilty pleasure of mine. To be honest there are things I would prefer he do just to avoid pollution, but torturing liberals is epic. :)

      Like this... meaningless move by chump. It did very little, but the liberal butt hurt was EPIC!

      https://science.slashdot.org/story/17/05/31/1213234/trump-is-pulling-us-out-of-paris-climate-deal-sources?sdsrc=popbyskid

    3. Re:Another Suspect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that I work on anything having to do with climate or even weather,

      Then shut the fuck up.

    4. Re:Another Suspect by Nexion · · Score: 0

      LOL says the anonymous idiot. How about you consider that I'm someone who is watching FOX news on a loop, fscking my cousin, cleaning a shotgun on a couch with no less than three hound dogs! Oh, and for that matter I think of you as a Birkenstock wearing, patchouli oil stinking, tree humping, Prius riding, mother earth humping, pot smoking worthless druggie degenerate douche bag, child abandoning, can't hold a job worthless ass human being who isn't worth ANYONES time.

      Imagine, how much your opinion hurts me. I know, I know.... it will fry those last brain cells.... but imagine it little child. :)

    5. Re:Another Suspect by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Of course those starfish are themselves promoted by warmer water, so aside from the fact that large-scale problems often have multiple causes, in that particular case the cause you're trying to deny actually applies anyway (albeit less directly and almost certainly with less overall influence.)

      I don't pretend it is "settled science"

      Things that are 100% settled:
      - CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is easily tested by building a greenhouse and comparing the temperatures over time under various atmospheric conditions.
      - We're pumping a boatload of it into the atmosphere.
      - The world average temperatures are going up at an alarming rate.
      - Some of the more obvious effects, such as the shrinking of the polar ice cap and the opening of the northwest passage.

      Things that are less settled:
      - Whether the cause is human. I mean as noted above, CO2 is absolutely 100% known to be a greenhouse gas, and there's been no natural events in the past 100-200 years that would account for the warming. So its about 99% settled but not 100%.
      - Exactly how hot is "too hot." Models seem to estimates around 2 degrees C over current temperatures, but some have suggested maybe 6 degrees or more before we're completely screwed. Of course models are always restricted by both the limits of our knowledge and the limits of our computing power, so there's always the possibility (however small) that all of the models are completely wrong.
      - Exactly how long it will be before we're past the point of no return. Models show anywhere from already too late up to to the end of the century. Again with the disclaimer about the limits of models though.
      - Exactly how big an impact it will have on the planet. Most models show somewhere between fairly large ecological disaster up to converting our planet into Venus II. Very, very few models show low or no ecological damage. Model disclaimer again.
      - And of course, the less direct effects such as the coral reef problems that are only "probably" severely affected by rising temperatures rather than "definitely" affected.

      To me there is no such thing as "settled science"

      No, but there is science that's so incredibly close to settled that it makes no difference. My first example above regarding CO2 being a greenhouse gas. Yes its possible that every single experiment with greenhouses we've ever done has somehow been done wrong. And its slightly more plausible that the large-scale "greenhouse" of our atmosphere somehow compensates in a way that we can't even detect never mind compensate for.. but both of those possibilities are extremely low at this point, and even if one or both are wrong it will almost certainly be a small deviation to correct -- no more than a couple percent I'd hazard. Yes that technically means its not fully settled, but by the time you've done many independent experiments of many different types by many different people in many different countries and they all have the same conclusion well.. its probably not worth talking about the tiny potential deviation unless you're an actual climate scientist trying to tweak their models to be just a little more accurate.

      Gravity in physics seems somewhat settled

      No it doesn't. Not even close. Its well-known (at least among physics geeks) that our modern understanding of gravity and our modern understanding of quantum mechanics are fundamentally incompatible, meaning at least one (and most likely both) are incomplete at some (very, very, very tiny) level. Unfortunately that tiny level is something like 17 orders of magnitude smaller than what the LHC can probe, so we're not likely to get a conclusive theory any time soon. Our current collider designs will never ever be able to reach that power level (saw a video where Leonard Susskind did a napkin calculation and come up with a ring diameter approximately the size of earth's orbit around the sun, if we were going to stick with the circular bea

    6. Re:Another Suspect by Nexion · · Score: 1

      Actually you can't build a single greenhouse and compare temperatures over time given various atmospheric conditions as you would need multiple instances in the same and varied conditions to truly determine anything meaningful.

      Boatload? Is that a metric boatload???

      The world averages temperatures are going up at an alarming rate by who's opinion. I'm not alarmed.

      Recently they found that increased geologic stresses were causing ice shelves to move at a higher rate in Antarctica. ...but you say this is all 100% settled with such precision?!?!?! :P

      All in all however I found your post an interesting read and quite honest. I'm definitely not saying that man caused climate change isn't possible. I just don't think it is as critical as some make it, and that improvements we will make over the upcoming decades will prevent us from ever getting close to a real problem. If a real problem was ever even possible in the first place. As you said the starfish "themselves promoted by warmer water"; so are plants promoted by CO2. We live in a world of balance that didn't really need you to come along and meddle with it, and this planet will still be thriving long after you are dead.

      The starfish have had population booms before, and they will have them again. This planet is a massive collection of cycles that I sincerely doubt we are capable of factoring completely, and as such nothing will ever be settled. We will continue to be born , live, discover and die. The sky really isn't falling.

      As for the article suggesting that physics could be technology controlled by some alien life I was referring to a recent article here. Likely pure fantasy, but I can't say with 100% certainty that it is untrue. However I do like to use religion as an example of something that can't be proven, but is often fervently believed. Typically I use this to show how much some of the most confident of the climate change crowd seem to have almost a religious reverence for the subject and are devout believers who will attack heretics to something in which they merely believe deeply. Yet they are unable to actually ever prove, and likely will never as they would need many earths under the exact same base conditions to accomplish proving it out completely. Something that is entirely impossible.

      Before you start please don't try to explain computer simulations this and test gas chamber that... it is just ridiculous to think we can ever actually prove something out completely with so few factors or computer simulation. All you prove in those cases is that a gas in a chamber will do x when you apply y, and that when you program a computer to do something it does it.

      That of course is not to say that we shouldn't consider the possibility and move responsibly in the appropriate direction. Most even might agree with that statement. Unfortunately the "move responsibly" is completely subjective, and I don't feel either political party is apt to facilitate such a move.

  10. If it is any consolation by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 0

    corals have been around for about half a billion years.

    Scientists not so much.

    1. Re: If it is any consolation by Organic+Brain+Damage · · Score: 1

      They had a good run.

    2. Re: If it is any consolation by Nexion · · Score: 1

      And they will outlive you little girl.

    3. Re: If it is any consolation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy fuck, you tough as nails!! And wrong. RTFA.

  11. How to save the coral reefs... by blindseer · · Score: 1

    I'll believe that people are taking the saving of the coral reefs seriously when we get over this unfounded fear of nuclear power. If we fear nuclear power more than global warming then we have some seriously messed up priorities.

    Can we solve this problem of CO2 production without nuclear power? Perhaps. What we know for sure is that we can solve this problem faster with nuclear power than without. Nuclear power is safe, inexpensive, and has the lowest CO2 output than any other energy source we have available to us today. If the governments of the world don't allow the building of more nuclear power plants then they are, IMHO, denying the threats that global warming pose. I'd think it is possible to erect windmills as well as nuclear power reactors, doing one doesn't mean we cannot do the other.

    As of today, right now, nothing is a better solution to reducing our CO2 output than nuclear power. That might change in the future but right now, today, solar, wind, or whatever else someone might pose as a solution is inferior to nuclear power. By not allowing the building of nuclear power reactors, today, they are making the problem worse.

    If the governments of the world are not issuing licenses for new nuclear power reactors then I can only assume they are not convinced of the threats the global warming poses to the coral reefs of the world, or they are completely ignorant of how nuclear power works and how it competes with other energy sources. Is there a third option?

    Maybe this isn't ignorance but incompetence, that's the third option. Maybe they know about global warming and nuclear power but they lack the competence to issue licenses. Which is it? Incompetence or ignorance? Perhaps it doesn't matter which, we need to replace them with people that are knowledgeable and competent enough to issue new nuclear reactor licenses.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:How to save the coral reefs... by Nexion · · Score: 1

      Yes, seriously, we need nuclear power. We need to facilitate off hours power with power caches. While I loathe that chump Musk I can't help but cheer him on when he does well. Beyond that we need to start replanting the forests we have lost because we really need wood for fires and buildings. I really can't understand how these worthless hippie bastards can't understand how important it is to replant what was lost to logging. Like they can come on here and bitch about chump or this or that, but will they plant one fucking tree? No, they wont fix these problems. All they can do is bitch... like a bitch.

      Why can't they plant even one tree?!?!?!?!1

      No, they get all crazy terrorist antifa and think that it somehow mitigates the problems they theorize that we face.

      What a disgrace liberalism has become.

    2. Re:How to save the coral reefs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beyond that we need to start replanting the forests we have lost because we really need wood for fires and buildings. I really can't understand how these worthless hippie bastards can't understand how important it is to replant what was lost to logging. Like they can come on here and bitch about chump or this or that, but will they plant one fucking tree? No, they wont fix these problems. All they can do is bitch... like a bitch.

      Why can't they plant even one tree?!?!?!?!1

      No, they get all crazy terrorist antifa and think that it somehow mitigates the problems they theorize that we face.

      What a disgrace liberalism has become.

      The vast majority of the tree planters that I know are considered to be fucking hippies and usually smell just about as bad during the tree planting season. They by and large they have long hair, smoke grass allot and were either the original ones like myself from the 60's who were involved in the original environmental movements or they are long haired new generation hippies trying to pay their way through college. Many of them are sons and daughters of the hippies that started the environmental movement and have read Rachel Carson. Which obviously the arm chair idiots here on slashdot with no fucking knowledge of what being an environmental hippie actually means frequently conflate and misuse said label.

      No you are a fucking arm chair idiot sir and as such do not have a fucking clue as to what is really happening in the field. The fact is a great many young people with college degrees are going into farming with an aim to get the fuck away from the mess that our society is making with rabid consumerism and environmental stupidity and greed. They look to begin to change the way the industrial farm corporations, walmart nation, big oil and the chemical industries have come to control and fuck us all over. They are intelligent enough to see alternatives and that these alternatives take real action. We are not talking of the Cultural Revolution bullshit of communism but we are talking about a revolution and one that is a revolution of survival of the smartest who value the ecology of the earth that sustains us. Not at all the same as the neo nazi red necks going into the hills with a shit load of guns, Ted Nugent records and locking themselves away in hopes of returning to the cities after we all kill ourselves off with consumerism.

      These new revolutionaries don't talk much about the vision they have, they work to make it happen, they are engaged, connected and technically educated and can and will make a difference.

      If it were not for the marks who were largely enlightened farm folks of the depression of the mid 20th century a great many good people displaced by failing industry especially during the dirty 30's would have starved. I have much more faith in these new techno hippie "liberals" making a difference than the right wing anti social morons who are currently running the show in Washington and on Wall Street.

    3. Re:How to save the coral reefs... by Nexion · · Score: 1

      What is funny is that I can respect that response. Passionate and as wonderful as it is in all of its glory.

      No, I like that there is a resurgence of farmers. I'm actually a fan of how we are getting more efficient in our use of energy and water. I find the advances we make in improving the world to be something exceptional.

      I should apologize to you that I might somehow link you, an old school hippie, to the antifa garbage that has taken your place. That I would link you to someone who fervently believes that solar panels are the way while they completely disregard the fact that massive pollution was caused creating them. Lets call them the "out of sight out of mind hippie". Truly however, calling them hippie is inappropriate. How about, wannabe hippie hipsters?

      I do see what is happening in the field. I see cities as a cancer upon this planet, and I see that the majority of people in those cities tend to be liberals. Another cancer upon this planet. Do you remember sir, decades ago, when we had a deposit on bottles? When we returned bottles to be cleaned and reused? Glass bottles once actually held a value. Today they are broken upon a beach.

      Obama was a Wall Street guy. So are the Clinton family and so was Bernie when he got paid off with cash and an airplane. I hate chump, but I love the 383 days and counting of delicious liberal butt hurt I have enjoyed since that traitor lost the election. I savor every delicious moment of liberal sadness. It isn't that I wouldn't prefer sanity return to our country, but failing that watching liberals lose their fucking minds comes as a worthy consolation.

    4. Re:How to save the coral reefs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is funny is that I can respect that response. Passionate and as wonderful as it is in all of its glory.

      No, I like that there is a resurgence of farmers. I'm actually a fan of how we are getting more efficient in our use of energy and water. I find the advances we make in improving the world to be something exceptional.

      I should apologize to you that I might somehow link you, an old school hippie, to the antifa garbage that has taken your place. That I would link you to someone who fervently believes that solar panels are the way while they completely disregard the fact that massive pollution was caused creating them. Lets call them the "out of sight out of mind hippie". Truly however, calling them hippie is inappropriate. How about, wannabe hippie hipsters?

      I do see what is happening in the field. I see cities as a cancer upon this planet, and I see that the majority of people in those cities tend to be liberals. Another cancer upon this planet. Do you remember sir, decades ago, when we had a deposit on bottles? When we returned bottles to be cleaned and reused? Glass bottles once actually held a value. Today they are broken upon a beach.

      Obama was a Wall Street guy. So are the Clinton family and so was Bernie when he got paid off with cash and an airplane. I hate chump, but I love the 383 days and counting of delicious liberal butt hurt I have enjoyed since that traitor lost the election. I savor every delicious moment of liberal sadness. It isn't that I wouldn't prefer sanity return to our country, but failing that watching liberals lose their fucking minds comes as a worthy consolation.

      I concur on some of what you allude. But your insistence upon thinking the liberal minded but hurt and your feeble stereo typing of the liberal minded with your use of the word as a derogatory epithet does little to convince me of your sincerity or higher intellect. My butt does not hurt when greedy assholes screw over the system and do shit like Enron did to the California energy sector. I know that they are just greedy assholes who cannot see beyond their portfolio.

      I do also realize that there is no quick replacement for fossil fuels on farms. I also realize that a large part of the recycling industry has simply become a touchy feely good response by those in power to what we started in the sixties. As a result us old farts are using reusable shopping bags, making sure that our cars and trucks don't smoke, even if we do, just to feel that we are doing something about greedy idiot consumerism run amok.

      The three Rs of environmentalism still come to mind and until we start to truly understand that wisdom especially the wisdom of the first of the Rs there is little to no chance that our actions will make a global difference. The fossil fuel industry thrives on consumerism run amok and the only viable solution to the problems of created by the over burning of our petro resources and the myriad of pollution problems the petrochemical industry creates world wide at the moment is REDUCE.

      Put it this way I don't think that the plastic in the Pacific garbage patch and plastic pollution elsewhere and the real problems plastic is slowly creating in the worlds fish and wild life hormone biology is just due to a lack of recycling or the dumping of plastic by cargo ships crews. Other than perhaps the undocumented ones that are doing it illegally since China and Taiwan told us to fuck off with sending them all our plastic garbage.

      No sir; we have a much greater problem going on, and the very heart of the problem is our economy being solely predicated upon a ridiculous push for continuous growth in consumerism. A twisted pseudo Darwinian come Adam Smith economic theory based upon survival of the mostest and not the most suited to sustainability either in an economic sense or ecological sense. The fundamental flaw in our economic theory is that it separates the physical living world from the economy, I say in all due respect "the ecology of the planet is th

    5. Re:How to save the coral reefs... by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      I do see what is happening in the field. I see cities as a cancer upon this planet, and I see that the majority of people in those cities tend to be liberals. Another cancer upon this planet.

      You do realize you're a liberal too, don't you? Modern conservatism is basically "delayed liberalism". Take almost any policy defended by conservatives today. Rewind the clock and check who defended it first. Almost invariably you'll find a liberal of some previous decade (or century) arguing for it against the conservatives of the age.

      Proof: do you think that, let's say, women shouldn't vote and should have their husbands chosen for them by their parents? If you don't, then you're a 1st wave feminist, that is, at a minimum a 1930's liberal.

      Eyeballing the issue I have the impression that conservatism and liberalism are on average 40 to 60 years apart. If this trend continue then we can look forward to 2070's conservatives defending current liberal notions about the environment, women role and transsexuality against whatever the then liberals will be for.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    6. Re:How to save the coral reefs... by Nexion · · Score: 1

      You really should post non-anonymously as you are a fun read.

      I'm a big fan of reuse myself. I also don't care much for buying the latest and greatest just for the sake of having the latest and greatest. I do live in California, and they try to force us to use those nasty reusable burlap bags. I always just pay ten cents and whenever they suggest I buy the burlap ones I tell them that I am saving the plastic bags to build an effigy of liberal voters to burn in protest of the law requiring them to charge for bags.

      Most laugh it off as the joke it was intended to be, and I'm just glad I can still either use them as bags for small trash cans or eventually return the surplus to be recycled.

      As for that flamebait poster, go get em. My wife was a math major and is closing on her doctorate so I'm not someone who will even take the time to reply to someone like that.

    7. Re:How to save the coral reefs... by Nexion · · Score: 1

      OMG, I need some steel wool and some borax soap. I must... wash... the liberal stink....

      I understand the point you want to make here, and in some ways it has merit. It is actually close to some of my own thoughts on the subject. One thing I need to impress upon you is the type of Conservative I am. In short that the bill of rights is an awesome document, I want a smaller less expensive government, I don't want my resources wasted by the government and I'm not a big fan of social programs.

      I'm pro-not-my-choice, because it isn't my choice. At the same time it is the murder of a human being so I would prefer people didn't do it, and I want it stopped after the first trimester.

      I voted no on prop 8 in California. The "defense of marriage act" I believe they called it. It bothers me that anyone feels it is their place to get involved in someone else's marriage, and that in the end it is only to "protect" the word "marriage". Some called me liberal for that. I pointed out that over reaching "demandy" government is a liberal thing. They couldn't counter cause it is true. :P

      I don't think you should be able to force anyone to make a cake or provide services to someone they do not wish to provide services too. I don't care how stupid their reason is... slavery is slavery. The democrat party was pro-slavery long ago, facilitate illegally migrated labor that pays slave wages and want to enslave us all in a socialist nightmare. Thus the democrat party is, was and will continue to be the party of slavery for many decades to come! I could never vote democrat, but the party isn't really liberal in a true sense, are they?

      I could go on, but the fact is my wife makes as much as I do, is about to clear her doctorate and was always my equal. I'm not some new age feminist. That opinion is pretty basic to many conservative types already, and often driven by religion (definitely not Mormons). Honestly I think the world really started to change in the 1920s and later that really started moving us here, and true sexism is pretty rare these days; in at least the circles I dwell. Maybe you need better company to keep?

      I may share some liberal values, but this doesn't make me feel as much a liberal as it makes me think you might have a little conservative in you. ;)

    8. Re:How to save the coral reefs... by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      In short that the bill of rights is an awesome document

      Well, that actually is pretty liberal. Not in the contemporaneous "freedom of speech isn't freedom to hate speech" nonsense, but in the actual liberal tradition of the Enlightenment movement of the 18th century. Back then the actual Conservatives were all pro-absolute-Monarchy and pro-religious-rules-in-everything, so they didn't think very highly of the principles in the Bill of Rights. Luckily for the US, most people with the power to decide were progressives. ;-)

      At the same time it is the murder of a human being

      Well, that depends. The idea that killing a fetus is the same as killing a human being has always been a strong Catholic belief, supported by the Aristotelian notion that equated the soul with the metaphysical form of the body so that one cannot be really distinguished from the other. Protestants in contrast used to prefer to follow the Old Testament teaching according which killing a fetus is neither assassination nor manslaughter but, on the contrary, is at worst an aggression against the mother (not even the fetus, mind).

      That changed in the 1970's, when the Conservative Catholic interpretation became mainstream among American Protestants and Evangelicals, but a few still stick to the former Protestant view that no, fetuses don't have souls, and that souls are joined to the body at birth.

      It bothers me that anyone feels it is their place to get involved in someone else's marriage, and that in the end it is only to "protect" the word "marriage". Some called me liberal for that. I pointed out that over reaching "demandy" government is a liberal thing. They couldn't counter cause it is true. :P

      True. :-) And the History of that is also interesting. Until 19th century marriage was something religion dealt with. There was some government recognition of whatever religions declared in that regards, with some restrictions here and there, but overall States were pretty hands off on the matter of who should be considered married to whom and under what circumstances.

      Alas, by the second half of the century a movement of strongly pro-State-interference-on-the-matter grew among Protestants, until finally the former Conservative principle of non-interference was overcome and the US as a whole began determining that.

      So in that I agree. Your decision was indeed Conservative. And of a Conservatism that goes way, way back!

      Funnily enough though, that makes current Liberals more Conservative on that respect than most self-proclaimed Conservatives, which goes to show how ironic most of the current usages of these terms are.

      I don't think you should be able to force anyone to make a cake or provide services to someone they do not wish to provide services too.

      I agree as a general principle. There's a complication though in that, there's an argument for the fact that any open-to-the-public space is supported by taxes in the form of roads and other services, which in turn are paid for by all citizens, not only citizens aligned with those spaces like, and thus that citizens the establishment refuses to serve should either a) either be granted tax exemptions so as to compensate them for the diminished services they get in return for their tax payments, or b) have those establishments forced to provide them service due to their equal status as citizens.

      IMHO "a" would be a better alternative than "b". But I also think anyone seriously discussing this, in either direction, is being utterly silly, with Liberals being the most silly of the bunch. :-)

      The democrat party was pro-slavery long ago

      Bringing that up isn't very accurate historically. I mean, sure, the parties themselves were as you describe, but parties don't have a life of their own, at any moment they're the sum total of th

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    9. Re:How to save the coral reefs... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      I really can't understand how these worthless hippie bastards can't understand how important it is to replant what was lost to logging.

      It's the fucking logging companies that can't be bothered to replant the clear-cut forests.
      What the fuck do "worthless hippie bastards" have to do with it?

  12. Yes, anger DOES solve problems! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By smashing the skulls of those who harmed one!
    That is the purpose and point of anger! That's what it's there for!

    This is not compartmentalization. This is willful ignorance, unhealthy repression, and the start of a split personality, all for reasons of protecting your mind from breaking down.

    We humans are FAR to well trained to be "civilized". Our natural urges have reasons. Which, in village-like societies below Dunbar's number, worked exactly as they should.
    But now the psychopaths with said skulls are faar to far away, too anonymous, too well hidden in the masses.
    Otherwise shit like this would NEVER fly!

    1. Re:Yes, anger DOES solve problems! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are we talking about again?

  13. Whiskey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Followed by suicide frequently.

    The world is fucked, get your Mad Max ready.

  14. Really? by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    Corals are one of the oldest forms of multicellular life on the planet.
    They've thrived when the earth has been both much cooler, and much warmer than it is today.
    They've thrived when CO2 was both higher and lower than today.
    They've thrived when the climate has changed both more slowly, and more quickly. Sometimes radically quickly.

    Seriously, if you're going to pick a poster child for 'most likely to not give a shit about warming' - that would be corals. For every coral that bleaches because of slightly warmer water, another two whole latitudes toward the poles are opened for coral growth and exploitation.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Really? by Nexion · · Score: 1

      Sush, stop making sense. You'll make liberal heads pop.

    2. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These researchers are bonkers. The Great Barrier Reef is more than 2000 kilometers long, north to south. To believe that an average change in temperature of less than 1 degree across that distance could wipe out the whole reef is absolutely crazy considering the temperature variance from the northern most tip to the southern most tip must be at least 5 degrees, yet that has been the consensus with these researchers.
      To witness such a total lack of common sense is truly eye opening.
      The lesson here is that scientific consensus sometimes isn't worth a pinch of shit.

    3. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Corals are one of the oldest forms of multicellular life on the planet. They've thrived when the earth has been both much cooler, and much warmer than it is today. They've thrived when CO2 was both higher and lower than today. They've thrived when the climate has changed both more slowly, and more quickly. Sometimes radically quickly.

      Seriously, if you're going to pick a poster child for 'most likely to not give a shit about warming' - that would be corals. For every coral that bleaches because of slightly warmer water, another two whole latitudes toward the poles are opened for coral growth and exploitation.

      Too bad that they taste like shit and the fish species that rely upon them are not quite as adaptable. In case you have not noticed the price of protein produced in the oceans has gone crazy. You can put on rose colored glasses and say "OH but coral is more well adapted to Oceanic changes than higher organisms", but the problems for local environs become much more complex when coral reefs are destroyed. Answer this, how long did the giant grouper take to adapt to the habitat of the great barrier reef and how many millennium did it take for the reef to built the enormously complex ecosystem that it supports?

      By contrast the largest fish market in the world in Tokyo only took a few centuries to evolve and was greatly increased only starting in the 1950's when fishing technology moved over to huge fleets of freezer and refrigerated factory ships raping the worlds oceans all over the planet.

      The problems are much more complex and we are very quickly screwing up the Ocean and the land in ways that can and will eventually lead to mass starvation. Take for instance the over harvesting of Orange Roughy or the collapse of the Grand Banks fishery, both great instances of our ignorance and greed as a species.

      Just perhaps our penchant for overusing some technologies is the limiting factor of our growth as a species and the knowledge of how to use and extract fossil fuels is an end point of our evolution. With plastics used in netting and fuel created by the oil industry we very quickly over harvested huge fisheries and at the same time we prematurely created a viable North West Passage. Ironic as hell that our technology could very easily become much more than a fish species limiting factor when compounded by greed. No the industrialized environmental stupidity of today not driven by a survival need the way coral reproduction works it is driven by our worst enemy as a species, our greed.

    4. Re:Really? by galenanorth · · Score: 1

      This post is completely and utterly wrong, neglects how coral numbers dwindled to almost nothing during major extinction events related to temperature, and makes the common mistake that it isn't just the temperature, it is the rate of change. Thrived when the environment changes quickly when, exactly? Not the Ordovician extinction event! Extinction is what happens when species fail to adapt to changes in their environment. Never has the Earth been warming more rapidly than it is now. https://climate.nasa.gov/evide...

    5. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crass simpleton blather. Where is your evidence to back your assertion? The Earth is not some uniform temperature per area ball. The sun shines more and less over the seasons the further from the equator, so it is not at all given that conditions matching historical conditions at one latitude will be replicated at a different latitude. In fact it is impossible because the temp will swing the further from the equator.

    6. Re:Really? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      If coral numbers "dwindled" during major temp-related extinction events, you've proved my point: they *dwindled* means they survived...like 70%, 80%, 90% of other species DIDN'T.
      In that context, merely 'dwindling' is a victory.

      And I knew someone would haul out the 'rate of change' nonsense. When you and your ilk assert that +2.5 deg C and 3000+ PPM CO2 is 'catastrophic', it's easy to point to times when both were higher, and coral was thriving. Then, you assert "but...no, it's the RATE of change...!"
      But - In the ~240 million year span of corals, there have been at least 4 extinction events that have been more or less "instant" (impactors). It doesn't GET "faster" than that.

      So it's provably not the levels alone, and it's provably not the rate.
      Please ascribe your falling sky to some other reason.

      --
      -Styopa
  15. Really cope a coral ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the Weinsteinian era I thought at least ... copp a Carla ! How fecking-a gaffot does a corabore-a need to be to ---cope--- over a poisonous red piece of shit ? Can ya hear them ... oh da pookiee-poo corra ... oh da nancyfanc borra ... think I'm gonna vomit ...

  16. What makes you think that??? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Too bad that they taste like shit and the fish species that rely upon them are not quite as adaptable.

    And what exactly prevents fish populations from migrating to an area they prefer, or adapting to slowly changing conditions where they are??

    If anything fish are MORE adaptable simply because they have more mobility and generally shorter lifespans (though some fish can grow quite old, but the they usually get so big they do not care about much)..

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley