Bishop Hill Awarmism
Dec 8, 2010 Climate: other Greens This is a guest post by Roddy Campbell.
There’s been a good thread at CaS on alarmism and doom, what I like to call awarmism, with commenters batting back and forward on whether predicting doom and disaster, as Bill McKibben of 350.org does, helps or hinders the CO2 message.
It got me thinking, and then I read this piece at Climate Progress today by Veron, on coral reefs. It’s very good, very informative on the mass bleaching link with warming, and the upcoming acidification threat. I know nothing about coral reefs; I enjoyed reading it.
But why did it leave me …. well …. unmoved to action? What is it about ‘climate alarmism’ that is sometimes so…well…rebarbative? Is it that we ‘deniers’ just block our ears and chant ‘Heard it all before’ loudly as soon as someone says anything that might hint at taking away our 4x4, or suggest that ‘guvment’ should ‘do something about it’? Is it that simple?
Veron describes the threat as the coming 6th Mass Extinction, but is sensibly conscious that his readers will hear alarmism:
'You may well feel that dire predictions about anything almost always turn out to be exaggerations. You may think there may be something in it to worry about, but it won’t be as bad as doomsayers like me are predicting.'
Yes, that’s more or less what I thought as I started to read, so he is aware of the possible reaction to what he is about to say, and the way he says it. But what does he then do? What is it about the post itself that doesn't 'work', that I find off-putting, almost untrustworthy?
It's the language. Here are some sentences and phrases:
'Unless we change the way we live, the Earth’s coral reefs will be utterly destroyed within our children’s lifetimes.'
'...nothing comes close to the devastation waiting in the wings at the moment.'
'..here I am today, humbled to have spent the most productive scientific years of my life around the rich wonders of the underwater world, and utterly convinced that they will not be there for our children’s children to enjoy unless we drastically change our priorities and the way we live.'
'... my increasing concern for the plight of reefs in the face of global temperature changes...'
' ....my profound interests in geology, palaeontology, and oceanography'
'... the big picture that gradually emerged from my integration of these disparate disciplines left me shocked to the core.'
'In a long period of deep personal anguish....'
'......coral reefs can indeed be utterly trashed in the lifetime of today’s children.'
'.... the only corals not affected by mass bleaching by 2050 will be those hiding in refuges away from em sunlight...'
'What were once thriving coral gardens that supported the greatest biodiversity of the marine realm will become red-black bacterial slime, and they will stay that way.'
'How many of us wish to explain to our children and children’s children that the predictions were there but we wanted confirmation?'
'Coral reefs speak unambiguously about climate change.'
'Reefs are the ocean’s canaries and we must hear their call. This call is not just for themselves, for the other great ecosystems of the ocean stand behind reefs like a row of dominoes. If coral reefs fail, the rest will follow in rapid succession, and the Sixth Mass Extinction will be upon us — and will be of our making.'
Don't get me wrong, it's a good piece, good content, in between these anthropomorphic and emotive sentences is good stuff. But, for me anyway, articles describing coral reefs as the canaries of the ocean and blackmailing me with images of my reproving children's children with rickets start 3 - 0 down with a man sent off. Sorry. Maybe that just makes me a bastard. :-) More seriously, I think there is an issue in trusting someone suffering ‘deep personal anguish’ over an issue – it is likely, surely, that there is a decent risk of advocacy taking priority over truth when and if they clash? I also mistrust anyone with too high an adjective count; when I write something I go through it several times, each time removing any adjectives I find that add nothing to the sense of the writing, and substituting emotive verbs and nouns with less emotive synonyms. I feel that whatever small sense I may be communicating will then come through more clearly. Why does something have to be ‘utterly trashed’? Why children squared, as in children’s children? How many times can we really be ‘shocked to the core’ before we lose all ability to sense? This dislike of mine applies on a 360 basis – whenever Steve McIntyre refers to the ‘hapless’ Muir Russell he loses me just a little bit too.
Reader Comments (73)
In the end their like a one trick pony , their message of doom as failed but their only way to respond to this is to up the doom scale further .
Meanwhile, I see that many delegates at Cancun have demonstrated their love of the Earth and scientific expertise by signing a form to ban that most potent of greenhouse gases, dihydrogen monoxide (it's now in our rivers and lakes you know, and even in our foodstuffs!)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/cop16-attendees-fall-for-the-old-dihydrogen-monoxide-petition-as-well-as-signing-up-to-cripple-the-u-s-economy/
We have been told that CO2 has been higher and Earth has been warmer in the past. How recent is the evolution of corals?
I would expect they have survived some fair old swings in climate and the reason is pretty simple - they move. Not individual corals obviously but the way they replicate enables species to stay within their comfort zone.
If Veron were really interested in communicating about the real problem, he would identify the key papers/individuals expressing a different viewpoint to his, and demonstrate, by well argued factual analysis why each of the counter views are wrong, and why his views should carry the day.
Fat chance.
From Wiki "Most coral reefs were formed after the last glacial period when melting ice caused the sea level to rise and flood the continental shelves. This means that most coral reefs are less than 10,000 years old."
Err..aren't they screwed in the next glacial then?
Should Guvmnt be, like, totally doing something?
How did the corals survive the global warming, sea rise and ocean acidification 12,000 ± 1,000 years ago?
A: They migrated to areas more suitable for their survival.
Yes. Yes. YES, AND YES. Fortunately McIntyre does it very little, otherwise he would have been labeled something and discarded a long time ago.
That said, I find no one wrong in using hyperbole to describe politicians at (hardly) work(ing).
Thanks for linking this Bish, as you say, a reasonable read (except for the emotive parts).
IMO, any article, such as this one, which starts with emotion gives the appearance that the author is trying to distract the reader from analysing the text properly. This in turn gives the appearance that the authors argument is not as robust as it could be. Of course I may be wrong, but it gives the appearance.
There is also the matter of the certainty with which the article was written. There is no discussion of any other anthropogenic or natural factors in the bleaching. A quick Google search provides articles (e.g. here) which acknowledge that CO2 increases alone cannot explain the increase in observed bleaching. However the author implies that the link is certain and absolute.
He may be right, the other article may be wrong, but to not acknowledge the uncertainty is to undermine the argument in the mind of any 'thinker'.
Yes, I hear you and I react in a similar way. I can't exactly spell it out either, but whenever I read these predictions of catastrophe I react negatively.
George Carlin put it all into words for us anyway when he said 'and you're worried about some plastic bags?'
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/videos/130-george-carlin-saving-the-planet
The point about climate alarmism is not that it’s science-based, it isn’t. We’re dealing with a religious belief married to creeping socialism and it was a marriage made in Hell. Fortunately, it’s all unravelling, which is plain to see from the lack of interest in the Cancun. It is a belief system and it’s dying.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/the-death-of-the-agw-belief-system/
Pointman
Veron is a good spokesman for Plan B. If the global warming campaign (Plan A) fails to convince the punters about the horrors of CO2, ocean acidification is a useful second option. I'm sure Veron knows quite a bit about corals. But should I trust his opinion on anything else? As Bish points out, although Veron has interesting comments to make, his apocalyptic tone does not inspire confidence.
Matt Ridley at Rational Optimist has expressed a negative reaction to the acidification alarmism of Veron and others: see www.rationaloptimist.com/.../threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated
@ Roddy Campbell
Good essay. Thank you.
@ Gareth; Jeff Norman:
Corals evolved during the Cambrian: 540 - 490 million years ago.
Not a one of the massive climate changes in the half-a-billion years has seen them off.
Ocean acidification is bunk. See Matt Ridley here:
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/acid-oceans-and-acid-rain
Here's a site that has done a number of acidification study reviews:
http://www.c3headlines.com/are-oceans-becoming-acidic/
Ocean 'acidification': article in Earth Mag by Prof. Justin Ries (actual expert!). Basically doesn't register until atmospheric CO2 >900ppmv.
Good read for the interested:
http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/323-7da-3-a
If you ride on the coat tails of a bogus scare with a history of sensational but baseless claims, as in the case of CAGW, even if you have a sensible case, you can expect to be dismissed when the bogus scare collapses. That's just the way things are.
I don't see the coral bleaching crowd as anything more than another division in the CAGW army, now being brought up as reinforcements to fight a rearguard action in a losing battle.
I'm getting more and more annoyed - to put it politely - by such doom-sayers.
They are replacing scientific debate with highlighting their own feelings, insinuating that anybody who doesn't share those feelings must be a hard-hearted b*stard indeed.
But that is beside the point.
What I find worrying is that even biologists seem to have lost all knowledge of evolution, not that they seem to have learned anything at all about palaeobiology.
Species have become extinct in the course of this planet's life - and others have taken up the niches which became available. That's how it was, and that's how it will be, no matter our puny interference, nor our arrogant attitude that we can 'save' the planet by our fiddling around.
Why not bewail the destruction of Krakatoa, the loss of animal life (human life, according to the New Religion of cAGW is not worthy of being saved, unless it is for the sake of one's own children, apparently), the loss of habitats? Why not bewail the loss of the warm oceans in which the trilobites thrived for millions of years? Why not bewail the loss of the MWP?
How can biologists even start to think that we must stop evolution, so that everything remains just as it is today?
Who are their teachers?
Mike Roddy's comment at number 2 is a classic. It reminds me of St Augustine: 'Lord, make me chaste. But not yet.'
"If anyone reading this has the time and the money, I suggest going to the Tuamotu Islands, in northern Polynesia. The atolls there – especially Manihi – surround incredible reef diving areas ... Yeah, it’s hard on the atmosphere to fly that far, but a few things are worth it ... Climate Progress readers and everybody else need to set aside some time to experience something you can’t even imagine - ... I think you’ve earned it. You’ll return inspired and energised, whether we end up winning this battle or not."
I.e. one rule for the believers, another for the proletariat.
This is interesting stuff. I would like to see a psychological study on the escalation and spread of fear by contagion. Here is a pop-version: a few people playing around with climate models to try out various hyptotheses, found they could get at least moderately to quite alarming 'mean' temperature rises by including a positive feedback along with an appreciable warming contribution due directly to increased insulation by CO2. Some, for example Schneider, shared this more widely through publications which drew attention to policy and 'fate of mankind' issues. These caught the attention of people already driven by alarm about industrialisation, for example the Club of Rome, and they amplified the alarm still further. Others in this group were powerful within the UN, such as Strong, and created an organisation, the IPPC, which amplified the scariness further still, using many PR and manipulative skills. The scene was set for further reinforcement as the alarm spread, and encouraged funding of more and more investigations whose very existence and future prospects were clearly linked to alarm. The popularity of 'environmentalism' as an unequivocal good thing across a couple of generations aided and abetted all of this. And so we reached such legislation as the UK's Climate Change Act, and everyone and their dog talking about CAGW as if it were an established, incontrovertible truth, a kind of 'given', often referred to by the unsatisfactory phrase 'climate change'. I suspect the spiralling amplification of the fear could have been stopped at several points if only more robust and stronger characters had been in relevant positions of influence, and had been willing to call for a calmer, more considered approach. But we are where we are, and we now have to consider not just frightened scientists etc, but also many who have spotted very lucrative opportunities in areas such as carbon trading, harvesting government subsidies for 'alternative' energy, and of course, merely getting more research grants. In the background, we may have a generation of children being produced with a very bleak view of their future.
Jermy, I don't like to hear someone saying that something is "very" unique.
I don't like it when I hear Kilometre rhymed with Gasometer.
I don't like it when Americans pronounce buoy buee.
I don'tlike a lot of things, but I just sigh and mutter a silent curse.
Peter Walsh
I agree. Whenever I read stuff like this the overriding impression I get is that the author is trying to manipulate me. I end up quietly smiling to myself about his (or her) immaturity and lack of communication skills. By that point, of course, I have given up listening to - or placing any value in - whatever else may be woven into his words.
It's interesting that the AGW crowd are so preoccupied with emotive references (threats) to children and grandchildren - as the language used (as illustrated by the quotes in this article) is precisely that of the infant... as any parent or carer will well know from dealing with children of that age in their attempt to get their own way (feeling, as it does at that age, that their very life depended upon it). I think this oft-observed trait dovetails very well with the notion that the people attracted to the Green movement are those who nurse a long-held resentment of any need to communicate and negotiate in the human adult world at all (a refusal which is a very well established plank of classical psychotherapy).
Hearing or reading the words of such people, one is left with the sense that they are missing something - and crucially, that they are themselves unconscious of missing it, having never developed it in the first place. In short, it is misanthropy revealing itself... unintentionally and with the sad consequence of completely disempowering its author.
I don't have the links any more but the coral on the Great Barrier Reef has been 'irreparably damaged' by coral bleaching at least twice in the last decade. Both times it cbounced back completely. This should be no surprise to anybody really, as corals have been around for millions of years and have survived many different coastal environments. Phosphates leaching from farmland into the reef is a far bigger problem but, sadly, on that doesn't fit the global alarmist agenda.
"Is it that we ‘deniers’ just block our ears and chant ‘Heard it all before’ ..."
Yea, I think you hit the nail on the head. Campbell and the others who have commented don't seem to have any factual criticisms. So, we are left with 'denial-ism' as the most parsimonious explanation.
Here is something to think about. We know the psychological phenomenon of denial-ism exists. It does not mean the person in denial is crazy or stupid. So, what would it take to convince you that you were in denial about climate change or some other topic?
I'll give an example with myself. My dentist wanted to pull two of my morals. I was having some bleeding, but if I flossed enough it would clear up. But he said the X-rays showed that there was significant bone loss. I got a second opinion. It was the same. But I waited a few more months. Finally the bleeding became very regular. So I got them pulled.
What is your 'coming out of denial' story? We all have one. What lessons did you learn from yours?
I'm sure researchers never take things like adaptation into account when making their predictions of doom and gloom. I mean it seems self-evident to me that the organisms in and around reefs will adapt to a slightly more acidic ocean in a relatively short space of time, much like they always have in the past.
Mike@9.02 pm
You don't want those dentists to get hold of your morals... :-)
@Mike
"Here is something to think about. We know the psychological phenomenon of denial-ism exists.... I'll give an example with myself. My dentist wanted to pull two of my morals."
Indeed - and the Freudian Slip is a good place to start. Going to the dentist to have two of your morals pulled might be a curious misplacement of your objects. But it's probably best to start reflecting on what is so rotten with your morals that they need to be pulled in the first place? Wonderful stuff :)
So, coral has only been around following the MWP? Or perhaps after the earlier Roman Warm?
And loss largely rests on "acidification" caused by increased CO2 uptake as oceans warm: maybe, but I wonder why that is easily rebutted by any kid with a can of soda pop?
Or perhaps it is because of more sunlight - after all, anyone who has ever cooked knows that warm water does not give off as much in evaporation so there will be fewer clouds, right?
First thoughts on reading the Collide-a-scape comments was that most of these people need to see a doctor.
It reads like an arms-race of conspicuous caring: "I care more than anyone else".
The 'awarmist' worldview is skewered by 'Tayles' commenting on this Delingpole thread.
Tayles continues
Tayles' conclusion:
Worth reading the whole comment. (Boy some people spend even more time blogging than I do )
The Sky is Falling, we must act NOW.
The Sky is Falling, we must act NOW.
The Sky is Falling, we must act NOW.
The Sky is Falling, we must act NOW.
The Sky is Falling, we must act NOW.
The Sky is Falling, we must act NOW.
The Sky is Falling, we must act NOW.
The Sky is Falling, we must act NOW.
The Sky is Falling, we must act NOW.
The Sky is Falling, we must act NOW.
The Sky is Falling, we must act NOW.
The Sky is Falling, we must act NOW.
The Sky is Falling, we must act NOW.
The Sky is Falling, we must act NOW.
The Sky is Falling, we must act NOW.
Well that should work !!
Fred captures it :-)
Hello Mike
You say:
Corals have survived half a billion years of often extreme climate change. But they are still here.
Can't people understand there is a fundamental difference between denial, and profound disagreement based on the available evidence?
I mean people besides Mike above, obviously.
Re Viv Evans
This is one of the ironies behind another CAGW line of attack, biodiversity. Environmental groups seem to think nature needs saving, when most of the time it's happily doing what it's evolved to do. Occupying it's niche and spreading it's seed. So we get green policies for land management that don't allow land management. We don't allow scrub clearing and we do allow fires to be put out, so ultimately fuel loads increase, fires are more severe and fire tolerant species survive leading to a loss of biodiversity. Maintaining biodiversity needs careful, active management or the more agressive species crowd out the weaker ones and we have a UK full of brambles and nettles. Or invasive species that we imported and let loose. The 'ideal' of a wild, untamed wilderness might seem nice but generally results in a reduction in biodiversity.
This is the real problem, ideals are overturning science and history. We're told polar bears face extinction, yet numbers are increasing because there's no predation and less hunting/culling. We're told to ban fox hunting, so fox populations are exploding, but hopefully helping keep down the rat population feeding on our bi-weekly garbage piles. We're told windmills are good for the environment, yet kill raptors and bats that help kill pests. It's all rather bonkers, especially in Australia and the US where environmental dreams meet reality and people die in wildfires because they're either living in the wrong place, or can't protect their property.
BBC - Richard Black: 'Terrific ten' given days to save the world
comment 83:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/12/terrific_ten_given_days_to_sav.html#comments
More Hype?
Last years sea level hype...
Let us not pretend that the sea level scare stories were not ramped up just before Copenhagen.
Guardian: 'Copenhagen Diagnosis' offers a grim update to the IPCC's climate science - 25th November 2009 (- 6 days after climategate)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/25/copenhagen-diagnosis-ipcc-science
"Twenty-six climatologists—including 14 IPCC members—have released a startling update to the [IPCC AR4 ] panel's work, reporting that sea levels could rise and methane-laden arctic permafrost could melt much sooner than the panel had anticipated.
Sea-level predictions revised: By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4; for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as ~ 2 meters sea level rise by 2100. Sea level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperatures have been stabilized, and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries."
At Cancun they were saying 2 metres only 7 days ago (and the Telegraph) - did the Met Office choose a good day to bury bad (Good actually) news?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8170075/Cancun-climate-change-summit-small-island-states-in-danger-of-extinction.html
"The study of climate change impacts in the Caribbean warned that sea levels could rise by up to 6.5ft (2m) by the end of the 21st Century if global warming continues. There is also an increased risk of hurricanes and storm surges. - Louise Gray
All very interesting.
2 Days ago - Met office says 2 metre sea levels was wrong, 59cm is WORST case and upto 2 feet could happen.
Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335964/Alarmist-Doomsday-warning-rising-seas-wrong-says-Met-Office-study.html#ixzz17KZaXtHJ
Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8182278/Climate-change-Met-Office-halves-worst-case-sea-level-prediction.html
My take on recent events:
UK Met Office - 2m - 4m alarmist rises in sea leve are wrong and Gulf stream NOT shutting down, both bits of good news buried away pg 19, half a column Dail Mail...
http://www.realclimategate.org/2010/12/official-alarmist-warnings-of-2m-sea-level-rises-are-wrong-met-office-study/
Guardian spins this away, with another alarmist headline.
http://www.realclimategate.org/2010/12/climate-propaganda-the-guardian-minimise-the-good-news-about-sea-levels-amongst-the-new-bad-news/
I seem to recall that the "crown of thorns starfish" (?) was going to kill/eat the Great Barrier Reef.
Did global warming, combined with ocean acidification kill it off?
Shouldn't the biodiversification loons be launching a campaign to save the starfish? Noting the dihydrogen monoxide spoof at Cancun (see WUWT) I feel sure it would get UN support.
Anyone listening to warmists on this subject would be unlikely to guess that the oceans were currently alkaline. When acid soil is made less so by the application of lime, it is correctly called 'neutralising' but of course that isn't nearly emotive enough for the agents of doom.
I'm with you on the over-use of adjectives, although I rather like 'hapless' for Sir Muir - it seems very apposite.
Once you accept, as any disinterested, rational, sentient being must, that since c. 1988 the peculating Green Gang of Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al. has operated without a grain of integrity or even common sense, at this late date any AGW catastrophist's screed becomes merely another eco-fascist propaganda exercise.
Amazon rain-forests, corals, Himalayan glaciers --you name it-- mean nothing to these Luddite sociopath poseurs. They hate humanity, hate post-Enlightenment industrial/technological civilization, hate autonomous individuals of every stripe: They are wreckers seeking only rule or ruin, and they want you dead.
Mike says
The facts are the facts. I don't dispute the facts. I merely pointed out that those facts do not justify the alarmist tone employed in the scare-story, nor factually underpin the scary story itself. This is not 'denial-ism', it's challenging gnosticism.
Fun read today -- Thanks all for some interesting insights into Liberals, who are clearly not very liberal.
Oh, corals have been around for millions and millions of years. Go look at the White Cliffs of Dover. And they do move when in their polyp stage. And they are much more at risk to hungry fish than climate issues as they simply float away to better conditions.
Although I am sure it was actually noted in the above discussion, Nasa has had a climb down on CO2 and temperature
New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64°C warming
BBD: "Corals have survived half a billion years of often extreme climate change. But they are still here."
Not true. Many of the species that built coral reefs have gone extinct. Coral reefs reemerge, sometime after millions of years, but they are formed by new species. And a non sequitur if it was true.
"They once survived in a world where CO2 from volcanoes and methane was much higher than anything predicted today. But that was over 40 million years ago, and the increase took place over millions of years, not just a few decades, time enough for ocean equilibration to take place and marine life to adapt.
This is not what is happening today. Ponder these facts: The atmospheric levels of CO2 we are already committed to reach, no matter what mitigation is now implemented, have no equal over the entire longevity of the Great Barrier Reef, perhaps 25 million years. And most significantly, the rate of CO2 increase we are now experiencing has no precedent in all known geological history."
See: http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/07/j-e-n-veron-coral-reefs-bleaching/
(This is the essay that Campbell discusses. You didn't do your homework my friend.)
"375 million years ago .... Reef-building organisms were almost completely wiped out, so that coral reefs returned only with the development of modern corals in the Mesozoic."
See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/extinction/
"251 million years ago ... Nothing resembling a coral reef shows up until 10 million years after the Permian extinction, and full recovery of marine life took about 100 million years."
See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/extinction/
"Coral reefs flourished until a devastating demise at the end of the era, when many coral families disappeared [65 million years ago]."
See: http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/info-books/coral/scientific-classification.htm
------------
You are as capable as I am of finding out this information. That you would make such a statement is evidence that you are in denial. I am not saying everyone skeptical that AGW is dangerous is in denial. There such a thing as legitimate differences of opinion. But, you my friend, are in denial.
Mike @12:53am
You begin thus:
...and then proceed to confirm BBD's assertion - an unusual debating tactic I'm not familiar with.
Here's Matt Ridley on the "threat" from ocean "acidification" in which Veron gets name-checked...
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated
Don't know if this has been mentioned in the misattribution stakes yet, but while Roger Pielke Jr is busy sharing papers that seem to show African Flooding is nothing to do with Climate Change
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/12/flood-losses-in-africa.html
James Randerson is busy bigging up the African precipitation-climate change link here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/07/climate-change-rerouting-semliki-river?INTCMP=SRCH
Interestingly not visible in the online edition is the original print headline and blurb (yes, I still buy it)
'Losing my Land is Breaking my Heart'
"Climate Change is shifting hte course of the river between Congo and Uganda - with devastating consequences for farmers. James Randerson reports:"
Why the discrepancy between the print and online versions? Has someone read Pielke's blog in rhe meantime?
Apologies for misspelling "the"...twice!
Veron's language is not just alarmist, it is appallingly narcissistic.
He's not just a scientist worried about coral reefs, he has to feel "deep personal anguish" at the "devastation" when reefs will be "utterly trashed". Like most of the AGW fanatics, he has a strong emotional need to place himself at the center of this great narrative, the lone hero Captain Coral fighting the evil grinning Baron Fatcat who would destroy us all with his fleet of SUVs.
The emotion is real; but unfortunately emotion, especially of this negative and immature kind, make a very bad basis for trillion-dollar decisions.
@ Roddy Campbell
Good essay. Thank you.
@ Gareth; Jeff Norman:
Corals evolved during the Cambrian: 540 - 490 million years ago.
Not a one of the massive climate changes in the half-a-billion years has seen them off.
To which I would add (if not pointed out earlier) they also survived impact events and other mass extinctions (but hey, that pesky CO2 is just a game-changer).
woodentop: Read carefully. If the corals reefs were gone for millions of years then they weren't always there. Coral reefs are a type ecosystem, not a single species. The species that build them can be wiped out and after some millions of years new species recreate something like them. They are like forests. If we wipe out forests, eventually new plants will inhabit that niche and recreate forests - but not the same forests.
PS: Boycot Ugg boots!
A thought on the original post. Campbell quotes Veron's claim: 'Unless we change the way we live, the Earth’s coral reefs will be utterly destroyed within our children’s lifetimes.'
I think many folks here see the phrase "change the way we live" as red flag for pinko propaganda. I don't totally disagree. It is a catch phrase used by some of the left. But here is why it does not bother me. Veron is an expert on coral reefs. I listen carefully to what he says about coral reefs. He is not an economist, or an agricultural specialist or an energy technology specialist. Hence I don't pay much attention what he thinks of my life style. He presents a good case for us to reduce the rate at which we pump CO2 in to the environment. Maybe we can do that without big changes to our life style. Maybe not. Maybe the costs of doing so is higher than the cost or losing the world's coral reefs. For these types of questions I go to other sources. I do not care what Veron has to say. He is human, he has emotions, he has seen something pretty terrifying, and I respect his right to editorialize a bit. But I can separate that from his scientific work.
We don't seem to be starting at the beginning.
Why should coral reefs be preserved? What does it matter if they all disappear tomorrow?
Should they be protected just because some people think they are pretty?
Isn't this whole subject another piece of sentimental tosh about fluffy things?
I am not advocating the destruction of anything but the very concept that we must change our way of life in order to preserve a fluffy underwater bunny for the delectation of rich scuba-divers strikes me as absurd.
Bish - "anthropomorphic "? - surely you mean "anthropophobic"?