Polar Bears, Dead Coral and Other Climate Fictions
 

Recent WSJ editorial : wsj.com

I always find it interesting when past “truths” are given a fresh look. Whenever I hear claims of settled science, I am always leery.

Being a scuba diver, I can tell you first hand that the dying of coral reefs is very real, and extremely saddening : (

True. And very sad indeed.

Thanks for putting some light on facts.

I used to hear that what was killing the coral in the Keys was runoff from septic tanks? That's not true anymore?

"While you’ll find no shortage of headlines declaring that polar bears face extinction, the numbers tell a different story.

The State of the Polar Report 2018 put the new global mid-point estimate [of the polar bear population] at more than 30,000.

Data from conservation groups and the government show that the polar bear population is roughly five times what it was in the 1950s and three or four times what it was in the 1970s when polar bears became protected under international treaty.

In fact, though polar bears were placed under the protection of the Endangered Species Act in 2008 over concerns that its Arctic hunting grounds were being reduced by a warming climate, the polar bear population has been stable for the last three decades.

In 1984, the polar bear population was estimated at 25,000. In 2008, when polar bears were designated a protected species, The New York Times noted that number remained unchanged: “There are more than 25,000 bears in the Arctic, 15,500 of which roam within Canada’s territory.”

New estimates from the International Union for Conservation of Nature show a mid-point estimate of 26,500 (range: 22,000 to 31,000) in 2015. In The State of the Polar Report 2018, zoologist Susan J. Crockford says updates to IUCN data put the new global mid-point estimate at more than 30,000." (fee dot org website)

Shouldn't all the polar bears be dead by now?

No! Thanks to being protected.

Reefs close to the shoreline are definitely negatively affected by shoreline development and the associated stuff that winds up in the ocean. However, that doesn’t explain the bleaching of the reefs much further off the shoreline or in areas with little to no development. Close to the shoreline, boats dropping anchor on the reefs is also a major source of damage.

Oceans are water. Wind, currents, earth rotation, waves movement of sea creatures and Shipping, and other forces mix/stir/blend thing into the water like a spoon stirring cream and sugar into your coffee or tea. The Oceans are affected from top to bottom, world wide. Just like your whole cup of coffee or tea is creamy and sweet..

Still true. But there is lots more involved than just sceptic tanks.

I believe little that is put out by a Rupert Murdoch publication.

Isn't that disappointing though? It used to be newspapers/reporters put out facts for us to form our own opinion. Now...they are forums for "political commentators"--not "newsmen" (from the likes of Cronkite, Russel, Huntley, Reasoner, Mudd, Jennings, Murrow, Mike Wallace, etc.)

I read the entire WSJ article. Mr. Lomborg certainly has strong opinions on the subject. He has a Phd in Political Science--not environmental science. He is selling/shilling a book.

Here is some information about the Dr. Lomborg from the London School of Economics.

A closer examination of the fantastical numbers in Bjorn Lomborg’s new book - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment

The WSJ offered this up as an editorial...commentary....opinion. But that is not how the story is being quoted. People are quoting Mr/Dr Lomborg's opinion as facts. Not unlike when FOX was sued by Dominion Voting and FOX lawyers presented the legal defense that their people are NOT news reporters--they are political commentators just repeating what others have said do they are not required to "report" stories accurately. FOX News settled for over $750 million dollars--so much for defending the truth of their statements. I do not ever remember Walter Cronkite being sued.

This story was an "editorial" by Lomborg.

Are there any reliable/faithful news outlets anymore? Maybe the BBC?

I’m sure I recently watched a video on how awesome the Great Barrier Reef was doing despite the dire predictions of the past.

Tourism video? Or anti environmental propaganda by big oil/industry and others who profit from deregulation of protection for the planet we call home?

Please share-- We have a scuba diver online (I am one also since 1978) who would enjoy seeing that the GBR is thriving again...

The Smithsonian Ocean, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Great Barrier Reef Foundation, the Australian Institute of Reef Science, Al Jazeera, UNIESCO, the Queensland Government World Wildlife Foundation, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and the BBC say otherwise.

But if you have contrary video--please post so we can root out these naysayers and plan some trips!

Costa Rice is fantastic for diving--second only to the GBR....but only a 2-hour flight from Orlando.