Did anyone see the climate-gate news

[ctenophore]

I have posted studies that showed Junk science proof and now it seems they were all correct. This current scandal is so major that already the rest of the science community is pulling away from Copenhagen (more than 25 percent of attendees have canceled in the last 3 days)

 

I believe something is wrong with what we are doing to the planet and I want to know how to make changes that are real.

I have put major cash into a low footprint lifestyle, solar & wind powered house, and being careful with all of the things that matter what if its all wrong.

 

I am not really anti AGW I am anti misinformation. we have watched any study group that disagreed be shut out of all publications for twenty years or more. I agree with lanman I want to know what is the factor so we don't keep doing what is not the real. if we don't then someday we are going to discover that it is something else and it will be to late.

 

So what if it's all wrong? You've stimulated the US economy by buying technology that was likely invented and made here in the states, an increasingly uncommon phenomenon these days. How can you possibly think that technology that enables clean air and water through energy efficiency is a bad deal, even if by some miracle we find that increasing CO2 levels are somehow good for the planet?

 

I dislike misinformation as well, and normally I wouldn't respond to a flamebait thread like this. But the stuff about CO2 being good for reefs was too much to pass up. I get really fired up when somebody comes along saying that what we're doing to the environment is just fine and that reefs are going through some sort of natural cycle or similar BS. You may not feel you fall into this category, but in my mind all of the problems we're seeing are being caused by the basic attitude of overconsumption and overpopulation. By saying that it's okay to generate CO2, you're implicitly condoning a status-quo lifestyle.

[lanman]

So what if it's all wrong? You've stimulated the US economy by buying technology that was likely invented and made here in the states, an increasingly uncommon phenomenon these days. How can you possibly think that technology that enables clean air and water through energy efficiency is a bad deal, even if by some miracle we find that increasing CO2 levels are somehow good for the planet?

 

I dislike misinformation as well, and normally I wouldn't respond to a flamebait thread like this. But the stuff about CO2 being good for reefs was too much to pass up. I get really fired up when somebody comes along saying that what we're doing to the environment is just fine and that reefs are going through some sort of natural cycle or similar BS. You may not feel you fall into this category, but in my mind all of the problems we're seeing are being caused by the basic attitude of overconsumption and overpopulation. By saying that it's okay to generate CO2, you're implicitly condoning a status-quo lifestyle.

 

Ummm... did you actually read the post?

 

I have put major cash into a low footprint lifestyle, solar & wind powered house,

 

If anyone is NOT saying that it's okay to generate CO2 - that would be him.

 

As far as so what if it's all wrong? If it's wrong - well, SOMETHING is killing the reefs. And we aren't fixing it.

 

bob

[extreme_tooth_decay]

If there are such darning quotes, please post them.

 

 

+1

 

A lot of words written here so far, but where is the content?

[lanman]

+1

 

A lot of words written here so far, but where is the content?

 

I quoted one earlier. There are thousands, and you have to read a lot of them to get the idea of what is going on, and you have to put them in context. The 'AGW' people are pretty much in control of all of the "peer-reviewed" publications. However, one of them, "Climate Research" has allowed some 'skeptics' on their editorial board, and has allowed opposing views to actually be published. This is what one of the scientists wrote to his associates about that:

 

 

[lanman]

Another ... apparently the data show a decline in temperatures, instead of the anticipated rise, so...

 

"I

[steveoutlaw]

If you actually do the research, the impact that human beings and fossil fuels have on the environment is negligable. There have been well respected climatologists who lead their field that have said that global warming is a bunch of crap from the beginning. Are the ocean temperatures rising??? I don't know because there is so much conflicting data that it's not even funny. I do know that this has been one of the coolest years in in quite a while. Also, who is to say that this isn't a cycle? We've been keeping records for such a short amount of time that we have NO IDEA if this is global warming, global cooling, or what.

 

So everyone just chill (no pun intended). Let's wait and see what happens as a result of this information.

 

I am all for leaving the smallest carbon footprint possible. But, when it comes to the argument of corals bleaching.......I'm sure it could be due to increased water temperatures, but no one, I repeat NO ONE can possibly give an accurate accounting as to the cause of the increased water temperature. The earth is about 4.55 billion years old and the earliest weather records date back to the 5th century, with detailed records being kept for the last couple hundred years.

 

In other words, we don't know **** when it comes to the weather.

Edited December 8, 2009 by davelin315
Please don't try and get around the filters, just find another word.

[ctenophore]

Ummm... did you actually read the post?

 

 

 

If anyone is NOT saying that it's okay to generate CO2 - that would be him.

 

As far as so what if it's all wrong? If it's wrong - well, SOMETHING is killing the reefs. And we aren't fixing it.

 

bob

He is trying to tell us that CO2 is good for reefs, because it is good for plants in an aquarium and in a greenhouse. That's wrong. We know what's killing reefs: pollution, low seawater pH, increased sea surface temps, lack of keystone species. Knowing what is happening is easy, fixing it is hard.

[Aquariareview]

I never said CO2 is good for reefs all I said is we don't know if that is the reason for the falling PH

 

We at this point have to realize that every thing the AGW people are saying is suspect

 

as to the thought "You've stimulated the US economy by buying technology"

what if the stuff we bought is bad for the planet, We are now coming to realize CF light bulbs are poisoning our water tables with mercury. so did we help or hurt the planet

 

I did not post this to start a flame war, I love this group (and respect everyones right to have a view) because we can disagree and still be friends,,once again,, i consider myself an ecologist, I love the planet. I dive, live in the mountains and travel the world to enjoy the place.

 

I want truth not more junk science,, Again I want to help but I think we need new information we can trust.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Aquariareview

[OUsnakebyte]

Nathan, I appreciate the viewpoints of a skeptic - in any field. But as Dave said earlier, you have been posting this type of stuff for years. Now you claim to have invested major dollars in a low carbon-footprint lifestyle (my compliments, by the way). Why bother, if you never believed it to begin with? Either you are lying (I doubt it) or you yourself must understand the principle forces at work here - taking fossil fuel laid down during the carboniferous and releasing it to the atmosphere. Whether soaked up by the oceans and rainforests, mingling in the atmosphere, etc. it IS going to have an impact - not IF it is going to have an impact - in temperature, acidity, both, pollution, or some other factor we have yet to experience.

 

 

 

Ever-increasing populations, with their pollutions of every sort are almost certainly causing grave harm to our little planet. I'm even reasonably sure we have a HEAVY hand in killing off the coral reefs. I just don't think we're doing it with our excess carbon dioxide.

 

I may just be harping on minor details now, so forgive me if this is redundant, but I want to be clear - it's not "almost certainly" or "reasonably sure". Humans are directly responsible for the current mass extinction (decline in biodiversity) we have been experiencing for the last 100-200 years. This is not restricted to coral reefs - see rainforest removal, the amphibian crisis, critically endangered tigers, gorillas, orangs, whales, and I could go on and on.

 

 

 

If you actually do the research, the impact that human beings and fossil fuels have on the environment is negligable.

By this I assume you mean humans USING fossil fuels?

 

 

I am all for leaving the smallest carbon footprint possible.

Why, if the impacts are negligible?

 

 

But, when it comes to the argument of corals bleaching.......I'm sure it could be due to increased water temperatures...

 

Again, I'm reasonably certain that I'm just harping on semantics now, so forgive me if this is redundant, but it is not COULD BE. Mass bleaching events are thermally-induced. The number of these events is ever-increasing, and it is one of the primary forces in measurable, declining coral coverage. Individuals will bleach due to sedimentation and/or algal overgrowth, but I am referring to mass-bleaching events. Amongst coral reef scientists, that is established and well documented.

 

 

 

This is now getting outside the original post, but as I have said, ad nauseum, there are multiple stressors at work here. When posting messages on this board, I take it for granted that everyone here knows well and understands the reasons for the decline in coral reef health witnessed and well documented over the past several decades. I assume this b/c of all people in the world, coral hobbyists understand the delicate and fragile nature of these animals.

 

I honestly ask this next question - not to be pompous or pretentious - does everyone here understand that the recent declines in coral coverage are not the "normal order of things"? Coral reefs have declined in health due to the adverse affects of our direct and indirect environmental impacts and clearly coincide with the enormous explosion in human population growth and our corresponding advances in technology.

 

Is that a fair assumption?

 

Cheers

Mike

Edited November 29, 2009 by OUsnakebyte

[L8 2 RISE]

I feel like you aren't getting the point-

 

Nathan, I appreciate the viewpoints of a skeptic - in any field. But as Dave said earlier, you have been posting this type of stuff for years. Now you claim to have invested major dollars in a low carbon-footprint lifestyle (my compliments, by the way). Why bother, if you never believed it to begin with? Either you are lying (I doubt it) or you yourself must understand the principle forces at work here - taking fossil fuel laid down during the carboniferous and releasing it to the atmosphere. Whether soaked up by the oceans and rainforests, mingling in the atmosphere, etc. it IS going to have an impact - not IF it is going to have an impact - in temperature, acidity, both, pollution, or some other factor we have yet to experience.

 

Care to give some solid proof for the underlined? Because as far as I'm concerned, from what we've just found out about these so say climatologists, there isn't much out there, and there's plenty of scientists trying to get us to believe this stuff. Also, even though it's been repeated several times, you don't seem to understand how a skeptic of human caused global warming, or "humans causing the end of the world" can possibly care about the environment. EVERYONE here knows that humans are damaging the environment through pollution- that part's obvious- hence wanting to "go green" and not use the fossil fuels.

 

 

I may just be harping on minor details now, so forgive me if this is redundant, but I want to be clear - it's not "almost certainly" or "reasonably sure". Humans are directly responsible for the current mass extinction (decline in biodiversity) we have been experiencing for the last 100-200 years. This is not restricted to coral reefs - see rainforest removal, the amphibian crisis, critically endangered tigers, gorillas, orangs, whales, and I could go on and on.

 

By this I assume you mean humans USING fossil fuels?

 

As I said above, we all know humans are causing horrible damage to the environment, the thing is, HOW EXACTLY- hence the purpose for starting the thread- how are we supposed to know if we're being lied to?

 

 

Why, if the impacts are negligible?

 

The impacts on "Global Warming" are negligible, not on general pollution.

 

 

 

Again, I'm reasonably certain that I'm just harping on semantics now, so forgive me if this is redundant, but it is not COULD BE. Mass bleaching events are thermally-induced. The number of these events is ever-increasing, and it is one of the primary forces in measurable, declining coral coverage. Individuals will bleach due to sedimentation and/or algal overgrowth, but I am referring to mass-bleaching events. Amongst coral reef scientists, that is established and well documented.

 

 

 

This is now getting outside the original post, but as I have said, ad nauseum, there are multiple stressors at work here. When posting messages on this board, I take it for granted that everyone here knows well and understands the reasons for the decline in coral reef health witnessed and well documented over the past several decades. I assume this b/c of all people in the world, coral hobbyists understand the delicate and fragile nature of these animals.

 

I honestly ask this next question - not to be pompous or pretentious - does everyone here understand that the recent declines in coral coverage are not the "normal order of things"? Coral reefs have declined in health due to the adverse affects of our direct and indirect environmental impacts and clearly coincide with the enormous explosion in human population growth and our corresponding advances in technology.

 

Is that a fair assumption?

 

I'd say it is- but again, how exactly? Have any proof? You sure it's from global warming, because as several stated above with facts, sewage very easily gets to reefs and now we have mercury and other metals to worry about, etc. Again I ask what you're trying to argue about here because I'll say it again, WE ALL KNOW WE'RE DESTROYING THE REEFS AND MANY OTHER THINGS. And that seems to be the only thing you now are trying to point out- that we are destroying the reefs, etc., so how about some evidence for how? Or are you in denial over the fact that we've probably been lied to about all of the warming data we have had?

 

I don't mean to offend anyone, especially here on wamas, I know and respect many of you all, just expressing my opinion. I know I'm calling you out OU, don't mean it personally .

[lanman]

Nathan, I appreciate the viewpoints of a skeptic - in any field. But as Dave said earlier, you have been posting this type of stuff for years. Now you claim to have invested major dollars in a low carbon-footprint lifestyle (my compliments, by the way). Why bother, if you never believed it to begin with? Either you are lying (I doubt it) or you yourself must understand the principle forces at work here - taking fossil fuel laid down during the carboniferous and releasing it to the atmosphere. Whether soaked up by the oceans and rainforests, mingling in the atmosphere, etc. it IS going to have an impact - not IF it is going to have an impact - in temperature, acidity, both, pollution, or some other factor we have yet to experience.

 

I honestly ask this next question - not to be pompous or pretentious - does everyone here understand that the recent declines in coral coverage are not the "normal order of things"? Coral reefs have declined in health due to the adverse affects of our direct and indirect environmental impacts and clearly coincide with the enormous explosion in human population growth and our corresponding advances in technology.

Is that a fair assumption?

 

Cheers

Mike

 

I doubt anyone here disagrees with the idea that SOMETHING we, the human race, are doing, is causing these problems. 6 Billion people create a lot of waste. The premise of this thread is that we may have been wasting our time, spinning our wheels, while even more corals and other species die - because someone has a political or social agenda to promote the idea that Global Warming is our enemy, and that we can actually do something about it.

 

As Steve Outlaw mentioned above - the research I've done (on the internet, I can NOT do the math myself) indicates that in a best-case scenario (all humans dead, or otherwise creating zero carbon emissions), we could affect the quantity of greenhouse gases by about 0.28%. I just don't believe that is enough to change the climate noticeably.

 

Let's take other possible causes - sewage and chemical runoff into the ocean; we can fix a large percentage of that. The rest of the animal population doesn't seem to have produced enough in the past to have caused problems. But then, we are the only animal that builds 70-story apartment buildings so that we can 'stack' ourselves up, and take less earth surface area per given population. And your fossil-fuel emissions - I'm not sure WHAT effect they are having on the oceans; but we pump out millions of tons of the crap - it HAS to be doing something bad, other than creating smog over Los Angeles. I think it's unlikely the other animals on the planet have contributed greatly to that - we should be able to fix that almost 100%. I would much rather dedicate myself to something I can actually do.

 

bob

[Aquariareview]

Mike

Great to hear from you.

 

I bought my house already set up for wind and solar. It was where I wanted to live and the eco stuff makes it a lot cheaper to live there. Also I checked and the eco damage of wind and solar does not seem to be a bad path.

 

I have never said that I thought fossil fuel was not a problem. I have said that it is not the only problem and I have said that the solutions we come up with are often not well thought out. Like the nickel mines of Canada that have destroyed a ecosystem so badly that we use the area to test mars rovers. and the mineral leech into the water table (that makes its way to the ocean) is enormous. The product mined is used (80%) for hybrid Batteries. so we drive a car to save fossil fuel burn and damage the planets water supply to do so. Sounds like Junk Science. Many of the Eco Products we use have the same kind of problems.

 

I have always been a skeptic because I am not blind. I read all of the viewpoints and I saw there was a great argument both ways. So someone had to be wrong. Many of the numbers the AGW groups put forward did not confirm with other science studies. Real science is always able to stand up to another study.

 

Bob I like your viewpoint. we just don't know but we need to find out what is the real problem. and then do something that matters

 

Lets go to the big picture. I don't think any one on this forum (on either side of the AGW debate) wants to hurt the planet. So do we blindly follow the side that has lied about everything that they base their theory on or do we demand that we get real info.

 

I don't believe fossil fuel is the whole problem.

I do believe we should cut our consumption of it in ways that are not more damaging than the fossil fuel burn.

I want to do what is right But I want the real info as to what that is.

also I do not believe that big time wrestling is real. LOL

Edited November 29, 2009 by Aquariareview

[lanman]

also I do not believe that big time wrestling is real. LOL

 

Heretic!!

[OUsnakebyte]

Care to give some solid proof for the underlined? Because as far as I'm concerned, from what we've just found out about these so say climatologists, there isn't much out there, and there's plenty of scientists trying to get us to believe this stuff. Also, even though it's been repeated several times, you don't seem to understand how a skeptic of human caused global warming, or "humans causing the end of the world" can possibly care about the environment. EVERYONE here knows that humans are damaging the environment through pollution- that part's obvious- hence wanting to "go green" and not use the fossil fuels.

No one, as of yet, has been able to explain the increasing thermally-induced bleaching events. Bob was on target with his graph of human population explosion. And I'm sorry I cannot accept the "normal reef progression" arguement - though it seems no one is yet stating that (happily).

 

 

 

The impacts on "Global Warming" are negligible, not on general pollution.

The original post was "I am all for leaving the smallest carbon footprint possible." To me, reducing 'carbon footprint' = lessening the effects of climate change, not general pollution. I assume this is what the general public is trying to combat when they say they want to lessen their carbon footprint. It, therefore, seems counterintuitive to me to want to lessen one's carbon footprint if the impacts are negligible.

 

 

I'd say it is- but again, how exactly? Have any proof? You sure it's from global warming, because as several stated above with facts, sewage very easily gets to reefs and now we have mercury and other metals to worry about, etc. Again I ask what you're trying to argue about here because I'll say it again, WE ALL KNOW WE'RE DESTROYING THE REEFS AND MANY OTHER THINGS.

Once again, my original question was regarding anthropogenic causes of coral reef decline and wanted to be sure everyone understands that (b/c if not, we have some major backing up to do), which I admitted dove tailed from the original post and was getting off track. I HAVE NEVER SAID CORAL REEF DECLINE WAS SOLELY DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE. In fact, look back on page one (b/c I am too bored/tired to go through all the process of flipping back and quoting myself) where I directly stated that if it were climate change alone, I think reefs could handle it - no proof there, just a gut feeling.

 

You honestly think I don't know that sewage gets to reefs? Or that overfishing and destructive fishing practices degrade ecosystems? I have specifically NOT gone deeply into the myriad of other stressors b/c it was out of the scope of the original post.

 

Bob - I have little doubt that you understand the impacts - it was just your post I was quoting...

 

 

And that seems to be the only thing you now are trying to point out- that we are destroying the reefs, etc., so how about some evidence for how?

Really? Do I need to go into how humans are responsible for reef degradation?

 

 

Or are you in denial over the fact that we've probably been lied to about all of the warming data we have had?

I am in denial of nothing. If some researchers/scientists have knowingly and intentionally falsified data to support a hypothesis, be rewarded grants, etc. - regardless of their field of study - then I say let their heads roll.

 

 

I don't mean to offend anyone, especially here on wamas, I know and respect many of you all, just expressing my opinion. I know I'm calling you out OU, don't mean it personally .

Trust me... I remain unphased....

 

 

I don't believe fossil fuel is the whole problem

Nor do I.

 

I do believe we should cut our consumption of it in ways that are not more damaging than the fossil fuel burn

Agreed.

 

I want to do what is right But I want the real info as to what that is.

Also agree.

 

also I do not believe that big time wrestling is real. LOL

I have never more vehemently concurred with anything more than the above statement!

 

As always, cheers everyone,

Mike

Edited November 29, 2009 by OUsnakebyte

[Aquariareview]

This is the best thread ever

do we have a thread of the year award

Edited November 29, 2009 by Aquariareview

[Aquariareview]

DID YOU SEE THIS

 

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

 

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

 

The UEA

[Noobalicious]

*pops popcorn*

 

*opens lawnchair*

 

been an interesting read so far.

[Happyfeet]

DID YOU SEE THIS

 

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

 

 

I'm on a bunch of mailing lists for and against global warming for part of my job. This really isn't an uncommon occurrence. I remember seeing stuff like this pop up from time to time.

I

[Aquariareview]

Go thru the whole climate-gate files,,there is a lot of internal email where they admit to tricking the data so they don't lose the argument,,

 

There has not been an event before where the whole science (agw) was discredited by having it's very concept shown to be a product of a lie. This is real big and now that they claim to have "lost" all of the original data, only the flat earth people will still believe in the original concept (as is).

 

Happyfeet says,,,It

Edited November 30, 2009 by Aquariareview

[Amuze]

Yes - a lot of stuff will be taken completely out of context. Yes - people writing e-mails to one another do NOT anticipate that they will be 'peer-reviewed'. But they are a very good insight into the 'feelings' and perhaps 'goals' of the writers. Here is a quote from one of the purported stolen e-mails:

 

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

 

While no action may have ever been taken - this is good insight into the 'desire' by one of the scientists at CRU to 'remove' a journal from the peer-review process that is publishing papers they don't agree with.

 

The best that can come of all this is a 'closer look' at the data. If that closer look still supports Anthropogenic Global Warming, then I guess U. S. Citizens (as leaders of the world) will have to learn to live with a little less of their hard-earned money. Of course the largest carbon producers will just ignore Copenhagen. How large a refugium do I need to become 'carbon-neutral'??

 

bob

 

While this is highly disturbing, it is not surprising to me in the slightest degree. You would be shocked to see how many fraudulent attempts are made by authors (Dr's, scientists, professors, etc). Thankfully, the peer review process of most journal societies catch these data manipulations. Unfortunately, they don't catch them all the time and some do not have the means to conduct an investigation within their office. Part of my job is to investigate allegedly fraudulent data.

 

The scary part about it for me is that it is for medical science. That's all I'm going to say about it...

 

Great thread!

Edited December 5, 2009 by audible

[lanman]

While this is highly disturbing, it is not surprising to me in the slightest degree. You would be shocked to see how many fraudulent attempts are made by authors (Dr's, scientists, professors, etc). Thankfully, the peer review process of most journal societies catch these data manipulations. Unfortunately, they don't catch them all the time and some do not have the means to conduct an investigation within their office. Part of my job is to investigate allegedly fraudulent data.

 

The scary part about it for me is that it is for medical science. That's all I'm going to say about it...

 

Great thread!

 

In medicine - I always think of Vicki Hufnagel - Female Reconstructive Surgery. She created her own 'societies', advertised, wrote books, published testimonials to the point where she basically peer-reviewed herself. If anyone screamed fraud - she pointed to her own publications and testimonials and websites as proof. And when it turned out her procedures were fraudulent, and she turned in millions of dollars in fraudulent insurance claims for surgery she didn't perform - she finally lost her license and moved to Mexico, where last I heard she was STILL doing 'Female Reconstructive Surgery'.

 

With the amount of money and prestige and jobs and politics involved - suborning the peer-review process is dangerous, and downright crazy. Consider Thalidomide - while I have no information on the trials of that drug, with billions of dollars to be had for a successful new drug - the inventors have a very good reason to suppress 'small anomalies' that pop up during trials. The peer-review process has to find them.

 

Fortunately, in the case of AGW, it's only the fate of the entire world that hangs in the balance.

 

bob

[steveoutlaw]

Ahhhhhh.......this takes me back to 1975 when all of the top scientists and the US government were talking about the coming ice age. Anybody who says that they are certain that man has caused global warming is.........well, incorrect. I'm not saying that man didn't cause it, but I'm saying that we have only been keeping records of weather patterns for a tiny little fraction of the earths life. There is no way that anybody can know for certain.

 

By the way.......shouldn't the Ozone layer be gone now and all of us burnt to a crisp?

 

Watch out.......the sky is falling.

[Eric Borneman]

Avoiding the hundreds of thousands of papers on the subject or asking deniers to read the IPCC report, here are:

 

 

A video for laypersons explaining the complete hoax of "Climategate."

 

 

A site for information on "Climategate"

 

http://enviroknow.com/2009/11/25/climatega...u-need-to-know/

 

A short documentary

 

acidtestmovie.com

 

Charlie Veron's talk on climate change and coral reefs

 

https://www.zsl.org/science/news/join-our-c...al,1209,AR.html

 

short video on glacial retreat

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pem4f...layer_embedded

 

new observations on Antarctic ice (550pp)

 

http://www.scar.org/publications/occasiona...25_Nov_2009.pdf

 

 

 

Re; Fox news:

 

Glenn Beck: high school education

 

Sean Hannity: dropped out of college

 

Re: other well known deniers playing to "teh stupid"

 

Rush Limbaugh: high school education

 

please also visit:

 

http://www.reefstewardshipfoundation.org/f...read.php?t=2347

 

where one denier simply got mad and asked for his name and all his posts to be deleted, and one skeptics issues are addressed.

 

There is no real debate only faux debate on this subject and if your source of climate change science is Fox News or any mainstream media source I suggest you do not have the ability to enter substantially into any debate.

[davelin315]

Interesting read, my own personal opinion, not based on reading articles and studies, but solely based on what I have seen (mostly that which has been reported by others), there are many reasons that combined are causing the decline of our waters and reefs. It's not a single thing, as all of you have said, but the effect of the whole situation, combining warming waters, pollution, human damage to the reefs, etc.

 

On a side note, it's been fairly civil here, but don't forget that when you underline, bold face, type in all caps, or otherwise stress what you're saying, it can easily be interpeted as yelling in an online conversation. I skimmed the thread before starting to read and saw lots of "yelling" going on and calling out others. Let's try and avoid that here, because at some point someone will join the fray and take offense at what's being said, and that would be truly a shame in what, upon careful reading, is really a good thread.

 

Note to self: get off high horse now.

[L8 2 RISE]