[Coral-List] The Irony of the Pope's science - is it's selectivity.

Durwood M. Dugger ddugger at biocepts.com
Sat Jun 27 13:22:41 EDT 2015


Steve,

I agree with you, we are in a global environmental/ecosystem triage situation - reducing anthropogenic CO2 emission (though they are less than 4% of the annual planetary CO2 emissions  are cummulative), saving reef systems, other sensitive ecosystems, etc.  I agree doing something feels better than doing nothing - which is why I write this. And, yes not knowing the future, even delaying the inevitable may have value. 

There is a cure. It is currently far too difficult for most people in the west to even think about, much less their political representatives. Consequently, they don’t realize the outcome of doing nothing is essentially the same as only addressing anthropogenic toxic symptoms - if the source of the problem isn’t addressed. However, other less sensitive international leaderships are undoubtedly considering overpopulation solutions more drastic that will favor their existence even at the expense of other nations.

My views generally try to encompass the larger more global picture. Yet, as I write this while I look out onto a pristine coral reef system less than a football field length from me, my view is far from global. I see an island reef system that my wife (also a marine biologist) and I have dived each summer for several weeks over the past decade photographing ecosystems that are becoming more and more rare. The photos are used in my wife’s marine science courses and we’ve won a few photo contests with them that paid for a few trips with them. We, like others are addressing only the symptoms.

Each year there are more divers and more occupants on this small island. The more popular of the 90 or so dive sites (based on local tourism stats) will be visited on average 3-60 divers per day depending on tourism seasons. Each year we see the dive site areas we photograph become a little more haggard and grey as the ratio between reef debris increases and live corals decrease (at least on the popular dive sites) along with increasing diver-broken coral damage - minor but significant, fewer species in general, but the reefs beauty persists at least for a while longer. 

I see the island as not too different from our planet - which is only a spherical island in space - amongst many. Consequently, I can see this oceanic island ecosystem as a microcosm of overpopulation/economic dynamics to observe, examine and learn from. Yesterday - we found out that there will be a Marriott Resort coming to the island about a mile from where I sit - the first hotel of a major hotel chain here. Four Seasons can’t be far behind. “Growth” is apparently in the air. The airport is undergoing a massive expansion and the number of cruise ship visits increases year over year. The island - it stays the same size. Only its ecosystem’s fragilities increase. 

Yet this is the most environmentally progressive island that I know. They have successfully resisted unfettered growth for decades that similar regional islands have experienced. Yet now they too cannot resist the economic and social pressures of more and more development. Growth! Like the planet, they are unaware that they are in an economic/mathematical trap where growth is the only thing that keeps their economic system from stagnating and collapsing - at least until critical resources are limited absolutely. Then like all species that bloom when their critical resources are plentiful, they/we too will collapse - at least in the absence of non-apparent technical solutions that to date seem to only seem to defy physical/economic limits regarding near “free” energy generation and at scale space colonization/migration. 

Clearly there are obviously finite physical limits to growth on this small island - and equally clearly on a finite resourced planet. Again, there is no better place to observe the physical limits to growth economies than on a small island, or to finally be forced to realize the inevitable outcomes when there is no more resource potential for growth - spatial or otherwise. Ironically, all the very things that bring people to this island, awe inspire them, fill them joy de vida are being destroyed by economic demand for growth (which under current expectations - there are no substitutions for), and which ultimately will cause the islands economic demise as well.

On a darker note: Unfortunately, our western view of overpopulation and that of the east are very different due to the relative lower human densities/unit of arable land in the west and especially the US. The east - because of their much higher populations/per unit of arable land, have been historically and demonstrably more comfortable with more drastic strategies in their attempts to manage their populations. In spite the single child policies and population exportation, China’s population is still growing:
 - 	2013 estimate	1,357,380,000[9] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China#cite_note-15> (1st <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population>)
 - 	2010 census	1,339,724,852[10] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China#cite_note-groups-16>
 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China)

Both China, India and other Asian nations have been exporting significant portions of their populations to Africa now for more than a decade and to the Americas for more than a century. While international development agencies euphamistically classify this process as “guest labor programs” a more careful examination reveals much of the “labor" that China is exporting is supporting China’s critical resource acquisition and importation interests - as well as venting excess population. Some global resource consumption observers are now describing Africa as China’s new “farm." The question now becomes how long can Africa act as a safety valve for both population overflow and critical resource acquisition before those potentials are exhausted? 

Assuming that natural biological processes in the form of pandemics don’t reduce human populations (as in the past) to more sustainable levels, what will the strategy be of too densely populated nations like China to purposefully reduce populations to sustainable levels? Especially in an age where genetic science is growing by leaps and bounds and most especially in China which is now a leader in genetic modification research. 

China has always been the epicenter for avian born flu virus mutations. Each flu season I get a little nervous that the declining number of rural small farmers of China, their pigs and ducks - might have had a little help with the regular flu mutations that this integrated ecosystem generates and that are annually carried by migrating ducks to North America. As if global air travel wasn’t doing enough to spread flu and other diseases.

I’m glad and appreciative (in spite of how my rhetoric may be interpreted) that someone is performing environmental triage even if it only slows the inevitable. I’ll keep trying to make people aware of the need to address the anthropogenic source of the problem(s) - anthropogenic us. In the meantime, I’m going out on the reef to see and photograph what my great grand children might not be able to see - beyond photos.

Best regards,

Durwood M. Dugger, Pres.
ddugger at biocepts.com
BCI, Inc. <http://www.biocepts.com/BCI/Home.html>
On Jun 26, 2015, at 8:54 PM, Steve Mussman <sealab at earthlink.net> wrote:


So you either delay the inevitable or give up. If you resist, incremental progress eases the pain. Besides, treating symptoms is the only thing you can do when you know of no cure. I even got a good jolt from the Supreme Court this week. Incremental progress, but satisfying nonetheless. 

Steve 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 26, 2015, at 11:38 AM, Durwood M. Dugger <ddugger at biocepts.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 tDoug,
> 
> 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>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list




More information about the Coral-List mailing list