More bad news for Australia (for everyone)

[Stolireef]

Let's try this again. I'm not a denier and firmly believe that we currently negatively impact the environment including the temperature. I just think the article was very poorly written and does more damage than good. I also question the assumption that temperature is the primary cause of the bleaching.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[WatDatThing]

Everybody better care about this now. If not, when it gets really bad and people have to go WAY too far to reverse the damage, then everything from the ocean will be on a CITES list as a possible cause since there will be no room for error - there will be nothing in the hobby since the geniuses won't even allow the sale of CB fish or tank raised corals since they could not risk that they were taken from a reef. This will be stupid since I doubt that humans are 100% to blame for the damage, but will be 100% to blame for not doing anything sooner.

I love the false equivalencies. Cholesterol is the same as water temp... Corals in a box in the living room are the same as in the ocean... Everybody is a scientist, I guess.

You have a reading comprehension issue. No where in my post did I equate cholesterol to water temp. No one here equate corals in a box the same as in the ocean. You don't need to be a scientist to understand scientific journals. But hey, ignorance is bliss. All the power to you.

 

[jda]

It is by definition a false equivalency. Sorry. You will get further with them since some see them as a red herring and others as a strawman (which happened)... in either case, the false equivalency gets the focus instead of the real issue. Your point of doing something about it now is good, so just go with that. False Equivalency is deception 101, so if you meant to do that, then well done, but if you did not, then just leave them out.

...so we have somebody who is not a denier, but... the whole article is bad and the premise is not correct? That sounds an awful lot like a denier.

 

[Stolireef]

It is by definition a false equivalency. Sorry. You will get further with them since some see them as a red herring and others as a strawman (which happened)... in either case, the false equivalency gets the focus instead of the real issue. Your point of doing something about it now is good, so just go with that. False Equivalency is deception 101, so if you meant to do that, then well done, but if you did not, then just leave them out.

...so we have somebody who is not a denier, but... the whole article is bad and the premise is not correct? That sounds an awful lot like a denier.

First of all, I was the one that raised the cholesterol comparison and perhaps it wasn't the best analogy. Second, it was not raised to be a 'false equivalency'. Third, without knowing me or my background, you engage in a sarcastic ad hominem attack on my claim that I do not deny climate change. I am actually a strong supporter of reducing carbon emissions and do my best to practice good environmental husbandry from installing xeroscape landscaping to using high-efficiency appliances throughout my home. I'm by no means perfect but I do try.

I do heartily disagree that our experiences in the hobby cannot inform us as to the interaction between the environment and man influence thereupon. While not controlled experiments, our aquariums are somewhat controlled environments where we can observe the impacts of a variety of variables such as light, nutrients, salinity and temperature. Granted, our systems are exponentially less complex than the ocean but noone could design an experiment on a scale that could truly mirror earth's entire environment. All we can do is extrapolate from our small scale efforts. To dismiss what we've learned is to ignore a substantial body of knowledge.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program of enjoying our glass boxes full of water.