[Coral-List] The Irony of the Pope's science - is it's selectivity.
Durwood M. Dugger
ddugger at biocepts.com
Fri Jun 26 11:38:41 EDT 2015
Doug,
First I suggest you revisit the basic definition of overpopulation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation). Simply by acknowledging that there is anthropogenic climate change, global environmental degradation, and peak critical resources - you have met all the requirements that define global human overpopulation as unsustainable on this planet. Current populations are simply not sustainable on the planetary resources and the related technical processes that currently exist.
I suggest you read your own email. You provide a very convincing argument that consumption, technical development and overpopulation are not only interlinked, but in a developing world - consumption per individuals is increasing over time much faster than population growth - which still continues globally - and as such increases anthropogenic impacts per individual. It would be naive to believe that the developing world - and especially population dense Asian countries are going deny themselves the same consumptive luxuries that previously developed countries have enjoyed - without significant conflicts.
Without a major energy/economics technology paradigm shift that includes producing energy at fractions of the current fossil fuel costs, we can’t even leave the fossil fuel energy/currency we currently exist under globally. Without getting into the details economic and peak critical resource of our current path, be assured our population is not sustainable and in combination with climate change, we will perish from a lack critical resources long before CO2 levels actually become lethal to the planet at large - though its biological degradation and the destruction of sensitive ecosystems like coral reefs will continue to increase.
The real danger in the perspective of being satisfied with any attention to the problem (like the Popes), is that you are satisfied by incremental, and very debatable “progress” in addressing only the symptoms anthropogenic impacts on the planet. By addressing symptoms rather than the source it is impossible to make progress in solving the source problem. By definition you don’t have “progress” until there is a measurable movement toward defined goals. I believe that CO2 is still and will continue to increase for the foreseeable future. We have no economically viable energy replacements for current fossil fuels, we are not addressing the economy-of-scale petroleum industry elimination impacts on other industries such as petro-chemicals (that current food technology/volumes are absolutely economically dependent upon) in leaving petroleum energy production, and we have not found economically viable ways of recycling phosphorus that limits our global food production capacities in the long term (30 to 300 years - depending which “experts” you read.
If we are not making progress in the ways I previously mentioned and our population continues growing - albeit slower, we really aren’t making measurable progress in solving our problems. In any disease treating symptoms makes the patient feel better, but unfortunately doesn’t change the course of the disease.
Best regards,
Durwood M. Dugger, Pres.
ddugger at biocepts.com
BCI, Inc. <http://www.biocepts.com/BCI/Home.html>
On Jun 25, 2015, at 8:03 PM, Douglas Fenner <douglasfennertassi at gmail.com> wrote:
I quite disagree that overpopulation is the primary cause of all anthropogenic climate change. The USA has released more greenhouse gases over the course of history than any other country, 28.8% of the world's total, three times as much as the second ranking country (China) in the most recent statistics available, shown below. While the US is the world's third largest population country by current national boundaries, it was 4th before the breakup of the Soviet Union, and has only about 1/4 the population of China and 1/4 the population of India. The reason that USA and some European countries have released so much greenhouse gas is not because they have huge populations, it is because of industrial development (multiplied by population, indeed, if the US had a tiny population, like Luxumbourg, which has the highest cumulative per capita emissions, then like Luxumbourg it would rank very low in the total national cumulative emissions). Greenhouse gas emissions increased much faster than population in the US and Europe. On the other hand, until recently, China and India had huge populations and small greenhouse gas emissions. Now, as they develop rapidly, their greenhouse gas emissions have grown very rapidly, much more rapidly than their populations. I'm afraid blaming anthropogenic climate change on population is the favorite thing for developed countries do, blame it on somebody else. Well, I say look in the mirror. And I'm from a developing country, the one that made by far the biggest contribution. We can't solve a problem unless we know what the facts are about the problem. And yes, to solve the problem both China and India are critical, China is already the top current emitter and India is growing very fast and large. But it's not about blame, its about solving the problem.
As for the Pope and family planning, yes, the Roman Catholic church has had a long history of resisting family planning (they are not the only ones), and Pope Francis certainly didn't embrace it in this encyclical. However, he is a relatively new Pope, and he has moved forward on a lot of issues (also, in some countries like the US, Catholics have just as high use of birth control as others). Myself, I'm very appreciative of the progress. I am not going to attack anyone for not solving all the world's problems in one document. I will take what I can get, and I think we should keep trying to move forward. As I've said before, population control cannot possibly avoid the coming destruction of the world's reefs without a nuclear holocaust. I also don't think it can solve the climate change and global warming problems either, which are the greatest future threat to coral reefs in many people's views. I think these statements are evidence-based.
I favor continuing to move forward to try to make progress, joining with those who would also like to do so. And I strongly support free voluntary family planning for everyone around the world who wants it but can't afford it. Reducing population growth now will indeed reduce future problems, larger populations multiply other problems caused by things like development and consumption. China has probably done more than any other government to slow world population growth, with it's "one child family" policy. I don't agree with the fact that it is not voluntary, but their government realized population was a major problem for them and did something about it. India has a voluntary program which has made a significant difference too. Population growth rates usually come down with development as women get more education, equality, job opportunities, and ability to control their family size.
Cheers, Doug
From the World Resources Institute, cited in a web page by the Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsible-climate-change <http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsible-climate-change>
"Historical emissions
Since carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere can stay there for centuries, historical emissions are just as important – or even more important – than current emissions. The tricky question of historical responsibility is one of the key tensions in the process of negotiating a global climate deal. The following figures from the World Resources Institute <http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?theme=3&variable_ID=779&action=select_countries> show the top 10 nations as measured by their cumulative emissions between 1850 and 2007. The US tops the list by a wide margin – though Chinese emissions have risen significantly since these data were assembled.
1. US: 339,174 MT or 28.8%
2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%
3. Russia: 94,679 MT or 8.0%
4. Germany: 81,194.5 MT or 6.9%
5. UK: 68,763 MT or 5.8%
6. Japan: 45,629 MT or 3.87%
7. France: 32,667 MT or 2.77%
8. India: 28,824 MT or 2.44%
9. Canada: 25,716 MT or 2.2%
10. Ukraine: 25,431 MT or 2.2%
See all countries <http://cait.wri.org/cait.php?page=cumul&mode=view&sort=val-desc&pHints=shut&url=form&start=1850&limit=0>"
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 3:22 AM, Durwood M. Dugger <ddugger at biocepts.com <mailto:ddugger at biocepts.com>> wrote:
While I would agree that it is ironic that the Pope is seemingly embracing science - I think the irony is his selectivity in the science he embraces. He still leads a major religion that doesn’t support birth control and or a woman’s right to control her reproductive destiny. This is hypocrisy at its worst - lecturing the world on climate change and environmental degradation (Did he forget to mention critical resource depletion conflicts - also known as war?) all the while enabling, encouraging - if not demanding unlimited population growth. Over population is the primary cause of all anthropogenic climate change, environmental degradation and resource conflicts. Perhaps neither climate science nor the world of political (includes religion) manipulation are as simple as many of you seem to think.
Best regards,
Durwood M. Dugger, Pres.
ddugger at biocepts.com <mailto:ddugger at biocepts.com> <mailto:ddugger at biocepts.com <mailto:ddugger at biocepts.com>>
BCI, Inc. <http://www.biocepts.com/BCI/Home.html <http://www.biocepts.com/BCI/Home.html>>
On Jun 24, 2015, at 12:00 PM, coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov <mailto:coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> <mailto:coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov <mailto:coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>> wrote:
Send Coral-List mailing list submissions to
coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov <mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> <mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov <mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list <http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov <mailto:coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
You can reach the person managing the list at
coral-list-owner at coral.aoml.noaa.gov <mailto:coral-list-owner at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Coral-List digest...", e.g., cut and paste the
Subject line from the individual message you are replying to. Also,
please only include quoted text from prior posts that is necessary to
make your point; avoid re-sending the entire Digest back to the list.
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Spratly Island update (Ulf Erlingsson)
2. Ecology of Caribbean Reef Fishes in Puerto Rico, USA
(Mithriel MacKay)
3. Re: Confirmation bias (Douglas Fenner)
4. climate Change "deniers" (David Evans)
5. CNN broadcast coral reef restoration (Sarah Frias-Torres)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 10:39:05 -0400
From: Ulf Erlingsson <ceo at lindorm.com <mailto:ceo at lindorm.com>>
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Spratly Island update
To: coral list <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov <mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>>
Message-ID: <2F67D62E-F214-4C73-B700-8F4D3F88523D at lindorm.com <mailto:2F67D62E-F214-4C73-B700-8F4D3F88523D at lindorm.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I have to make an amendment to my statement. Since the islands in question are actually in Philippine waters, it would be wrong to ask the Chinese for permission to come in and monitor it. The request should be to the Philippine government, and since they don't have the military to back it up with, a separate request should go to the White House to provide military escort for the mission should the Philippine government request it.
On 2015-06 -23, at 8:12 , Ulf Erlingsson wrote:
>
> On 2015-06 -22, at 17:02 , Douglas Fenner wrote:
>
>> Here we are, we're all
>> doing our level best to save reefs against huge odds, and these people are
>> deliberately destroying reefs and saying that the damage is "localised,
>> temporary, controllable and restorable". If so, let international
>> scientists come in and take data and verify what you say. There is no way
>> they would allow that.
>
> I love the idea! It could be made as a public petition that people can sign online.
>
> Ulf Erlingsson, Ph.D.
> President and CEO
> Lindorm, Inc.
> 10699 NW 123 St Rd
> Medley, FL 33178
>
> http://lindorm.com <http://lindorm.com/>
> ceo at lindorm.com <mailto:ceo at lindorm.com>
> +1-305 888 0762 <tel:%2B1-305%20888%200762> office
> +1-305 308 6334 <tel:%2B1-305%20308%206334> mobile
> BB PIN 2BEC98FE
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov <mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list <http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list>
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:14:23 -0500
From: Mithriel MacKay <mithriel.mackay at gmail.com <mailto:mithriel.mackay at gmail.com>>
Subject: [Coral-List] Ecology of Caribbean Reef Fishes in Puerto Rico,
USA
To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov <mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
Message-ID:
<CAMzFUZ_Az9qfNQ24JsWE=Cyoren9f=qZsOoKyY1q0=g4gtP0nw at mail.gmail.com <mailto:g4gtP0nw at mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
The Marine and Coastal Ecology Research Center has summer field intensive
programs posted.
The Ecology of Caribbean Reef Fishes and several other one week programs
are offered at the field station in Puerto Rico USA. Prices are being
subsidized by the coastal center to keep them low for interested university
students and graduates.
No experience required!
For details and a list of other programs being offered this summer in the
Caribbean, please visit the website (www.Marine-Eco.org <http://www.marine-eco.org/>) and Education Hub (
www.Marine-Eco.org/mcerc-moodle <http://www.marine-eco.org/mcerc-moodle>). You can see our photo Gallery at
www.Marine-Eco.Jindo.com <http://www.marine-eco.jindo.com/>
Questions not covered on the links above? Wrire to Dr. MacKay at mcerc.
mail at gmail.com <mailto:mail at gmail.com>.
See you in the Caribbean!
--
*}-wh^ale> **}-wh^ale> **}-wh^ale> **}-wh^ale> **}-wh^ale> *
*}-wh^ale>*
Mithriel M. MacKay Ph.D.
Marine Mammal Behavioral Ecology Group
Department of Marine Biology
Texas A&M University, Galveston
(830) 688-9878 <tel:%28830%29%20688-9878>
Mithriel at Marine-Eco.org <mithriel.mackay at gmail.com <mailto:mithriel.mackay at gmail.com>>
and
Director of Research and Education
Marine and Coastal Ecology Research Center
San German, Puerto Rico, USA
and
Pipe Creek, Texas 78063
Website www.Marine-Eco.org <http://www.marine-eco.org/> <http://www.marine-eco.org/ <http://www.marine-eco.org/>>
E-mail Mithriel at Marine-Eco.org <MCERC.mail at gmail.com <mailto:MCERC.mail at gmail.com>>
Education HUb www.Marine-Eco.org/mcerc-moodle <http://www.marine-eco.org/mcerc-moodle>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:48:24 -1100
From: Douglas Fenner <douglasfennertassi at gmail.com <mailto:douglasfennertassi at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Confirmation bias
To: Steve Mussman <sealab at earthlink.net <mailto:sealab at earthlink.net>>
Cc: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov <mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>" <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov <mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>>
Message-ID:
<CAOEmEkHEY6zmyixYh=KgTJO1E8MOU1w=r5yRynx4+Dn--X4Gpg at mail.gmail.com <mailto:r5yRynx4%2BDn--X4Gpg at mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Well said, Steve, I agree! As the leader of one of the world's
largest religious groups, with 1.3 billion members, it is fantastic to see
the Pope put out such a detailed document, both very supportive of
stewardship of the environment, and science-based. He is surely the first
Pope with a Master's degree in Chemistry. He clearly listened to the
Vatican Academy of Sciences, which I've read is small but prestigious, with
several Nobel prizewinners (yes, the Roman Catholic Church has an Academy
of Sciences!). Note, I would be very supportive of this even if he had
never mentioned climate change or global warming once. (I also don't think
we should hold it to the standards of a peer-reviewed science paper.
That's not what this is intended to be.) I also have the impression that
the Pope is not the only religious leader around the world that supports
stewardship of the environment and listening to science, there are others
as well (the Dali Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, comes to mind). The way to make
progress is to emphasize the positive and work cooperatively to benefit the
environment (which provides us with so many ecosystem services).
Cheers, Doug
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Steve Mussman <sealab at earthlink.net <mailto:sealab at earthlink.net>> wrote:
> The irony here is that Pope Francis is embracing science as the basis of
> his argument just as Galileo did. In today's world science is still being
> challenged by some on the basis of religious dogma. But here we have the
> pope putting this encyclical out there risking a theistic (and agnostic)
> onslaught from all those whose orthodoxy takes issue with his science-based
> perspective.. Got to admire his courage and conviction as he knowingly
> steps into the fray. His views on the human drivers behind climate change
> may be controversial, but it seems to me that his observations on the state
> of the world's oceans and coral reefs is spot on and beyond dispute.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jun 22, 2015, at 10:23 AM, Eugene Shinn <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu <mailto:eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>>
> wrote:
>>
>> Climate change has become a religion and everyone knows arguing religion
>> is a waste of time. Now the Pope has provided confirmation. As someone
>> pointed out recently he represents the institution that forced Galileo
>> to recant. Guess its time for me to recant before I get burned at the
>> stake. So I will stop now. Gene
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
>> ------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
>> E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
>> University of South Florida
>> College of Marine Science Room 221A
>> 140 Seventh Avenue South
>> St. Petersburg, FL 33701
>> <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu <mailto:eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>>
>> Tel 727 553-1158 <tel:727%20553-1158>
>> ---------------------------------- -----------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Coral-List mailing list
>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov <mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list <http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov <mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list <http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list>
>
--
Douglas Fenner
Contractor with Ocean Associates, Inc.
PO Box 7390
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA
phone 1 684 622-7084 <tel:1%20684%20622-7084>
Join the International Society for Reef Studies
www.fit.edu/isrs/ <http://www.fit.edu/isrs/>
"belief in climate change is optional, participation is not."
website: http://independent.academia.edu/DouglasFenner <http://independent.academia.edu/DouglasFenner>
blog: http://ocean.si.edu/blog/reefs-american-samoa-story-hope <http://ocean.si.edu/blog/reefs-american-samoa-story-hope>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 21:05:55 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Evans <davidjevans1818 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidjevans1818 at yahoo.com>>
Subject: [Coral-List] climate Change "deniers"
To: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov <mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>" <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov <mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>>
Message-ID:
<55026069.4282759.1435093555264.JavaMail.yahoo at mail.yahoo.com <mailto:55026069.4282759.1435093555264.JavaMail.yahoo at mail.yahoo.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
All -?I honestly don't understand this. Not the climate science, that I understand, or at least we'll enough. What I don't understand is that this childish discussion is still going on. I think there are plenty of worthy and important discussions about climate change that certainly should and do take place. But this one? Really?
I think mostly of Gene in this and I mean this with respect, but the cute old curmudgeon thing only goes so far. Too many times has some link or posted news just not panned out - was never really well based to begin with. Why do we have to go through that part of it every time??
We get it. This is how science works, but can we take the childish part elsewhere? If you have something to discuss, can it please be based on your own work or on someone other than the staunch "denialists" website? Like maybe an actual peer reviewed science based paper or article?
We all should stop to consider: If we are truly a scientist, what level of error do we give our own position - whichever that may be?
What ever happened to the cautionary principal? Is it worthwhile to extend our own potential error just to make sure we choose right based on risk and consequences?
If you are sticking with taking the chance no matter the expected consequences, ignoring the risk, what sort of evidence would you expect the consensus to accept in your support? (Being crochity and snarky doesn't count)
Yes, a consensus can be wrong. We all accept that. But put up or shut the door on your way out.
I would think coral scientists would be most in tune with what's going on in our changing world. Coral reefs must be one of the closest analogs to climate change.
Any one can find a reef a patch that is "healthy." Does that mean reefs are not in danger? Corals have always changed. Does that mean this change is not caused by human activity? Coral degradation on massive scale is almost always non point source. Does that mean since we didn't catch a culprit with dynamite then there's nothing we're doing to affect reefs?
We get it. You don't believe it but can you keep it on your own time and focus on contributing something you actually know about?
I'm sorry. I just don't understand. I hope I wasn't rude.
Cheers,Peace,
David J. Evans
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 01:15:05 -0400
From: Sarah Frias-Torres <sfrias_torres at hotmail.com <mailto:sfrias_torres at hotmail.com>>
Subject: [Coral-List] CNN broadcast coral reef restoration
To: coral list <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov <mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>>
Message-ID: <SNT148-W52F490CC8C8B85A700DC7E81AF0 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
CNN International will broadcast a special on Seychelles. They will showcase the large scale coral reef restoration project I'm leading and coordinating there. Below are the opening event and repeat broadcasting times in GMT.
CNN InternationalINSIDE AFRICA SEYCHELLES: Coral Reef Restoration, Bird Island and Curieuse Island
FIRST BROADCAST ? FRIDAY 26TH JUNE, 17:30 GMT (Repeated)Saturday 27 June: 04:30 GMT; 11:30 GMT ; 18:30 GMT Sunday 28 June: 01:30 GMTTuesday 30 June: 09:30 GMTWednesday 1 July: 04:30 GMT
If you miss the broadcast, it will be posted online most likely after the 29th of June here: http://www.cnn.com/specials/africa/inside-africa <http://www.cnn.com/specials/africa/inside-africa>
Sarah Frias-Torres, Ph.D. Coordinator Reef Rescuers ProgramIsland Conservation Centre Nature Seychelles,Amitie, Praslin, Seychelleshttp://www.natureseychelles.org/what-we-do/coral-reef-restoration-and-Research <http://www.natureseychelles.org/what-we-do/coral-reef-restoration-and-Research> CollaboratorSmithsonian-National Museum of Natural Historyat Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort Pierce, FL, USATwitter: @GrouperDocBlog: http://grouperluna.wordpress.comhttp://independent.academia.edu/SarahFriasTorres <http://independent.academia.edu/SarahFriasTorres>
********************************************************
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov <mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list <http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list>
End of Coral-List Digest, Vol 82, Issue 25
******************************************
_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov <mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list <http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list>
--
Douglas Fenner
Contractor with Ocean Associates, Inc.
PO Box 7390
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA
phone 1 684 622-7084
Join the International Society for Reef Studies
www.fit.edu/isrs/ <http://www.fit.edu/isrs/>
"belief in climate change is optional, participation is not."
Hope from the Pope
http://www.nature.com/news/hope-from-the-pope-1.17824?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20150625 <http://www.nature.com/news/hope-from-the-pope-1.17824?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20150625>
Will Pope Francis's climate message break through where others have failed?
http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/06/will-pope-francis-s-climate-message-break-through-where-others-have-failed?utm_campaign=email-news-latest&utm_src=email <http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/06/will-pope-francis-s-climate-message-break-through-where-others-have-failed?utm_campaign=email-news-latest&utm_src=email>
website: http://independent.academia.edu/DouglasFenner <http://independent.academia.edu/DouglasFenner>
blog: http://ocean.si.edu/blog/reefs-american-samoa-story-hope <http://ocean.si.edu/blog/reefs-american-samoa-story-hope>
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list