[Coral-List] More sunscreen
douglasfennertassi at gmail.com
Thu Feb 7 19:47:36 UTC 2019
I wish to apologize. When I first read Mike's first post on this subject,
he addressed it to me and I reacted too strongly, my reply was more than
necessary. I reread his post the other day and it had no aspects of an
attack in it. I overreacted, and that turned the temperature up. That's
not a good thing to do. I apologize. We want to keep this discussion
rational and based on the facts.
I did not get a blank message posted by you, Mike. I'd like everybody
to know that I highly respect Mike and his expertise, and I appreciate his
posts, they always are good contributions.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 5:51 AM Risk, Michael <riskmj at mcmaster.ca> wrote:
> Good day all.
> I am sure there are spirits that control our lives-I would like to be on
> their side.
> A couple of days ago I posted a response to your sunscreen riposte. The
> wonderful people at the -list flagged it, as they feared (quelle surprise)
> it came close to breaching their code of conduct-something about profanity.
> Nonetheless, after due deliberation, they passed it on-and I am now
> informed a blank message has appeared from me. Please treat that as
> generalised best wishes from me-fill in your own cheerful message.
> Meanwhile, here is the original:
> You are correct, that post is far too long-especially as you could have
> read the freakin paper in the length of time it took you to compose it. I
> had expected better from you.
> You have dug into Downs' website and quote-mined from an article which was
> clearly discussing local stresses. We scientists don't go by blog posts, we
> go by the literature. To save you the trouble, here is a quote: "BP-3
> contamination from beaches can travel over 0.6 km in distance from the
> pollution source. The threat of BP-3 to corals and coral reefs from
> swimmers and point and non-point sources of waste-water could thus be far
> more extensive than just a few meters surrounding the swimming area." Sound
> reasonable? And, if I can read that paper and understand it, so can you.
> This is a large field, with by now a voluminous literature. Those to whom
> I have talked have always said, this is a local problem, one that may be
> larger than we had thought-and it's easy to fix. What is wrong with that??
> What is wrong with those who would challenge that?
> I am also disappointed that you managed to slide in the suggestion that
> Craig's results were coloured by his finances. Doug, there are hundreds of
> people working on this! If you are going to chuck around driveby's you will
> be very busy. Yes, Craig supports his foundation on donations and
> contracts. Please don't go after him for this.
> My original post has only been up for a few hours. Here is one off-line
> response I have received, from a well-known reef scientist with 8,000
> citations: "This article is really upsetting. Glad you responded. I'm a tad
> shocked that Terry wrote this. Seems that ignoring 'precautionary
> principles' is what often gets us in these messes in the first place and
> then its too damn late."
> What's wrong with saying, we can fix this and move on?
Ocean Associates, Inc. Contractor
NOAA Fisheries Service
Pacific Islands Regional Office
PO Box 7390
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA
How to win public support for a global carbon tax
Global warming will happen faster than we think.
Nations falling short of emissions cuts set by Paris climate pact, analysis
More information about the Coral-List