The Reef Ain't Dead

[Nicholson58]

Much of the Caribbean now prohibits single use plastic packaging and T-shirt bags. We selectively shop for the minimum packaging and buy from street and market vendors. We carry reusable bags, egg cartons, zip lock bags, and Tupperware. Street food goes into our own containers. This all works well in the Caribbean but is impossible in the US.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

So ...

Let's not jump up in anger and claim scientists are objective and trustworthy, and people who state otherwise are Alt-R blind ignorants. Some may be ignorants. Others may be well read.

We are better off listening to all arguments and learning from what has happened in our past. The future is not going to be much different (scientifically proven).

What your analysis misses is that "science" is the knowledge gained through a continuing process of investigation, analysis, theorizing, testing, peer review. Lather, rinse, repeat. Moreover, this process is the best framework we've come up with to minimize the human distortions of prejudice, errors, outside influence, etc.

So I don't buy the idea that opinions generated (or fabricated) without the rigour of scientific investigation and review are equally valid to those arrived at by the scientific process.

If someone's argument relies on convincing you that scientists are mostly a bunch of spineless, tenure-seeking grant-wh0r3s, you can bet that they are just parroting the carefully crafted propaganda of some powerful interests whose aim is to get you to discount or ignore the best scientific advice.

All of us in the cheap seats are free to root for one team or another, and debate til we pass out, but planning and policy should be based on something more solid.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

... So with a highly flawed "science", where do you look for truth? (question, not a statement as you took the prior post.)

So, if not to scientists, where do you look for scientific information?

The blogosphere?

[RaymondR]

And for those who might be tempted to the opinion that physicists are not qualified to expert commentary on climate change, be mindful that the subject is fundamentally the science of heat flow ie. thermodynamics, a subject well and truly rooted in the physics kingdom.

[Tillikum]

Originally Posted by lestersails

So, you are going to rely on what - palm readers, political bloviators, a Ouijia board, Tarot cards, Priests? Science is not perfect, is not absolute truth, is not infallible, but it is the best way to move from ignorance and superstition toward what is true.

Especially amazing to hear a sailor say such nonsense. Everything on your boat was developed by the scientific method. Empirical trial and error and refinements of technology and methods. I am pretty confident you believe in your boat. But when faced with an inconvenient truth, you pretend to not believe in science.

"Science" is a name given to a sphere of human activity. Like every other human activity it is guided and shaped by all that messy, emotional and ego-driven stuff that determines human conduct; what the Ancients used to call our "passions" as opposed to our "reason".

Sadly there is no congruence between high intelligence and high character, I suspect in fact that the reverse is true; if only because those of high intelligence have a greater capacity for more sophisticated and often less obvious mischief than those of lesser intelligence.

Anyone who has spent any time in academia should have had the wits to notice that all the impulses of the schoolyard are as present there as anywhere, only wrapped up in more sophisticated and to some more deceiving, glitter. The juvenalia on display in the Climategate emails demonstrated that clearly enough.

The icing on the cake of illusions is the extreme vanity and self-conceit that often quietly afflicts those of high intelligence, the pinnacle of which is their self-conception as being above all these ugly little impulses of "the common herd".

"Scientism" is a new kind of religion and its devotees often seem to worship themselves as much as anything else.

In simple terms, tell me who paid for your "scientific study" and we can pretty much guarantee what the results will be, because someone paid.

Oh yes, you might make the mistake of thinking you could just follow the data, but generally mistakes like that are only made once or twice before the lesson is quietly learned, the rudder is set to the stars that shine the brightest, and the good ship careerism glides into calmer waters, while all the fellow travellers cheer lustily from their rails.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

What your analysis misses is that "science" is the knowledge gained through a continuing process of investigation, analysis, theorizing, testing, peer review. Lather, rinse, repeat. Moreover, this process is the best framework we've come up with to minimize the human distortions of prejudice, errors, outside influence, etc.


(...)

My analysis, eh, well, it was not a scientific analysis. It was not based in science. It was based in reading, thinking and quoting. It was, in a way, a half-science only. It is Friday night here, 02:30 LT; let's not set the targets to high. They could become unreachable.



Furthermore. It is funny to notice not all scientists overwhelmingly agree on what science is.


Some will say knowledge is not science. Knowledge is data. Science is a process. Just like in object programming: data + methods. Knowledge + science.


Science is a funny subject that only some scientists take seriously.


And: we should be very careful in assuming that only scientists are able to form observations and conclusions. Our non-scientific conclusions pulled all the way from Cro-Magnon to Newton. Hence watching and thinking have longer historical record than science.


Are all scientist corrupt to the bone and vested? Nay! I know one very poor scientist. I know he is not.


;-)


Cheers,
barnakiel

[ozsailer]

Originally Posted by Cliffhanger

Evidence? Yeah heaps. This is a good, balanced resource: GBRMPA - Coral bleaching 101

There is also a truckload of other research papers published in the most reputable journals such as Nature. Prof Terry Hughes is a good one to look up.

As for the ridiculous notion that researchers routinely distort findings to get grants is laughable. Only someone who has no idea about research would suggest this.

If you are going to identify a paper to support your assertions I suggest you read it carefully before stating this as fact. This is what is actually stated in document you supplied.

"60 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef bleached this year
Partially true. Of the 1036 reefs surveyed by scientists in a plane, 60% had either moderate or severe bleaching. However, this doesn’t mean all the corals on those reefs were bleached, nor does it equate to 60% of the entire Reef. The aerial surveys accurately record bleaching to only a five metre depth, and bleaching severity generally declines with increasing depth."

Read it carefully. No where does it stated that the 60% of the reef is bleached only a varying percentage of the 60 % reefs which were checked. That is a huge difference.


Greg H
Lagoon 440
Oz

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

............
And: we should be very careful in assuming that only scientists are able to form observations and conclusions. Our non-scientific conclusions pulled all the way from Cro-Magnon to Newton. Hence watching and thinking have longer historical record than science...............


;-)


Cheers,
barnakiel

The following is nothing more than opinion but one I hold dearly...

There were just as many highly intelligent people (percentage wise) throughout the ages as there are now. And I suppose, just as many idiots.

The smart ones observed and analysed what they saw. Were they scientists - I dunno!

[blazing928]

Originally Posted by rmlarson1098

So. As the coral reefs of the world may or may not be breathing their last, it's perfectly fine to keep pumping our atmosphere full of toxins? To use the air we breath as a 'sewage dump', just like allowing pesticides, herbicides and the like into the water (fresh or salt) is just a damn shame. Whether climate change/global warming is caused by humans or is a natural phenomenon doesn't really matter. It wouldn't take that big an effort to do the right thing and at least slow the dumping of pollutants into the sea, and the air we breath. And it would be nice to try and rein in some of the millions of tons of garbage that goes into the oceans every year, too. Especially the plastic. It's sickening. Make it stop!
All that said, I have to think of your post as positive news, and look forward to visiting your Great Barrier Reefs. Thanks for the update.

Your imho, exactly right.

We may never really know for sure, warm or cold, Ive been told that in 40 years we will be in a mini ice age...nature is far more complex than our minds can grasp.

Regardless I totally agree that we need to do what we can, when we can. Our impact in Oz is always going to be small on the global scale, but I have a duty to my best.

Please join in anytime too!

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Wotname

The following is nothing more than opinion but one I hold dearly...

There were just as many highly intelligent people (percentage wise) throughout the ages as there are now. And I suppose, just as many idiots.

The smart ones observed and analysed what they saw. Were they scientists - I dunno!

I think perhaps in the old times the ratio was better (more intelligent / fewer idiots). Today life is super easy (in the "West"). It promotes and sustains idiots.


Many scientists say on average (across societies) our intelligence is slowly falling over time.


Which probably changes nothing, as the intelligent and the scientists they have no say in societies. Nobody is listening. History is formed by religions, businessmen, warriors and consumers. Scientists and intelligent people are an irritating, irrelevant minority.


But they write interesting (to me) books. So I am happy they are still around.



b.

[blazing928]

Originally Posted by Velella 2

I am presently sitting off new south wales waiting for the chance to see for myself if the reef aint dead. I am however pessimistic. In 2017 i spent four months looking for live healthy reef in the pacific. No luck. Tonga is a desert. If you look on line you will see old footage of what was once there but after searching for a month we found only one patch of good reef between 40 and 100 ft down. Fiji similar. The rainbow reef of tavanui is still in some form of good shape. But its very limited with large areas of devastation around it. In fijis bay of islands you will find sterilised rock walls where once there were coral gardens the locals consider a handfull of fish 6 inches long a good catch. Fijis coral coast is a concrete slab now. I swam with a tourists group off the coral coast looking to see what people were being shown as reef diving. It deeply saddened me to realise that not only were there no reef or fish but that none of the tourists knew what they were missing. I have been diving since 1973. I did my first reef diving in 1980. In 1987 i spent many months diving in Vanuatu. At that time you coulden’t get a dingy off a beach anywhere on the island of efati without breaking coral. There were canyons of vibrant coral teaming with fish everywhere you went. It is all gone. The world has changed. When i read cruser forums that say its business as usual i know they are deluding themselves. Maybe some of you should put down the gts and put on a pair of goggles.

Really? There are plenty of sailing channels in those areas diving on beautiful reefs in Fiji, Tonga, Solomon Islands...not saying it’s all perfect, but your statement isn’t being balanced....

I got my PADI in Vanuatu in the mid 80s. Was shown dead areas destroyed by hurricanes, big seas smash hard coral in certain places.

[skipmac]

Could not make myself read through the entire thread so apologies if this has been said.

First dove the FL Keys in 1974 and cruised the full length of the Bahamas a couple of years later. Repeated both a couple of times in the following 15 years and have made a few random trips since.

Without a doubt the vast majority of the hard corals in the Keys and Bahamas are sick, dead or dying compared to what they were in the seventies. Almost no branching coral to be found with very minor exceptions. Cruised the Exumas chain again a couple of years ago and spent two weeks scouting dive locations. Found a few that were nice but not many.

[Gerrit Coetzee]

Originally Posted by GoneDiving

Sort of....

Keep in mind that access to the majority of the reef is very highly controlled so the areas that are open to visitors are very small and see normally see thousands of swimmers/divers per day. These are the areas that are devastated and give the general population a skewed view of the condition of the reef

The 0.001% of visitors with access to their own boat can easily see truly beautiful areas.

Thank you.
Many truths in what you say.

Personally I have through fortune been able to dive diverse seas. Areas open to huge public access do suffer damage, which is an unintended consequence. I would love to see we do not damage things, but reality has it different. Just running a road or asphalt it (to anywhere or to a dive site) means that you almost permanently decimates the fauna and flora directly underneath the road. It is an inevitable consequence.

Beginner divers, and the mere numbers of people are going to destroy these sections. Circumstances so dictate. I would not want the destruction, but we do leave footprints.
Protecting everything to the point that we cannot acces it, would leave us void of life, experience, livelihood, apocalyptic humans with a thriving environment - it is just not practical or how life pans out.

Seychelles are not destroyed by visitors, but destroyed by locals who would use dynamite to fish. I saw locals in other regions coming out with seahorses, blowfish, etc which I considered a waste for me.

Diving Maldives I saw none of the destruction herein mentioned. In Nose Be Madagascar I dived what I considered the best of the best.

In Mexico there I saw the most awful underwater scenery, like sticks protruding and covered under strings of white slime. No sign of diver damage though.

Point being, there are places suffering under human pressure, and there are places just awful, like underwater deserts and nothing to see.
I cannot see how we will have roads without destroying the environment beneath it. Without the environmental sacrifices, we would be of poor human experience.

Whilst there are areas suffering under human presence, I have seen 95% of places not even within the reach of human exploitation. Flying over the Caribbean, Seychelles, Maldives, GBR, atolls and many other parts of the world I saw, not 10, not 100, but closing into hundred thousands of such islands and places where the average human cannot even come.

I don't mind reasonable measures to limit our impact, but where people cry foal of every little thing, without acknowledging our inevitable inroads, I question the objectivity. Because the same people says not a word that everything their comfortable houses are constructed off, comes from nature.

We are not the destructive gods, liberals make people out to be. We are but specks in our own cosmos, trying to survive what nature throws at us. Whilst others would make us believe that the frail environment is at our mercy, I believe the grand odds and magnitude of nature are stacked against us.

Anyone ever be at sea in a storm, with nobody around you for any beneficial distance, will be able to tell you how insignificant you realize you are. Nature will eat you up and swallow you in, without a trace. One large ship sinks every week of the year, unnoticed, not to a single tear of nature.

[blazing928]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It shouldn't be that surprising, given the demographics of the average yacht-owner. Age, nationality, social class, wealth, political lean ... people who made their pile and have, or had, a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of growth, growth, growth.

(not all cruisers, of course)

I always get in trouble for bringing that up, but it does explain a lot.

Yet the conundrum is that we are able to afford to make choices for the better, where the poorer countries population are just trying to feed and cloth themselves with little regard to rubbish disposal, cleaner energy etc.

Instead of berating , suggest how to make sustainable changes. Tbh , no one is going to drop their standard of living are they?

[aqfishing]

Originally Posted by joelhemington

Too many scientists scrambling for grants out there looking for problems that don't exist.

This is so true!!!