Great Barrier Reef: Two-thirds damaged in 'unprecedented' bleaching

Not everything has to be completely ideological. I always hate seeing how protecting our environment has become a left/right thing.

Warning signs are everywhere - and this doesn't even have to relate to AGW...just with basic stewardship of the planet, and with trying to develop and produce in a way that is more symbiotic than parasitic. We're losing huge swaths of habitat every year, and our air & waterways get more polluted and inhabitable. The oceanic food supply is close to a tipping point. Any one with a minimal IQ can understand that our current behavior patterns simply aren't sustainable.

But no one likes to think generationally.
 
Thing1 said:
Not everything has to be completely ideological. I always hate seeing how protecting our environment has become a left/right thing.

Warning signs are everywhere - and this doesn't even have to relate to AGW...just with basic stewardship of the planet, and with trying to develop and produce in a way that is more symbiotic than parasitic. We're losing huge swaths of habitat every year, and our air & waterways get more polluted and inhabitable. The oceanic food supply is close to a tipping point. Any one with a minimal IQ can understand that our current behavior patterns simply aren't sustainable.

But no one likes to think generationally.
Click to expand...

i would be ok with killing the fish thing. I mean its responsible for 50% of the damage.
 
I remember when the destruction of the reef by crown of thorns starfish was headline news back in the 80's ... along with acid rain (fixed by GWB Sr.) and the war against building new nuke plants.

Now it's "Al Gore" all the time, as if there are no other environmental problems other than polar bear extinction. :palm:

Al Gorian's monetization of food crops into fuel has caused mass starvation and triggered the Arab Spring. Such is the nature of leftwing compassion. Keeping the poor ... poor, while the Goracle buys CO2 credits to offset his massively "polluting" lifestyle In liberal lala land, only the rich can afford to pollute. And that's the way they like it.
 
aloysious said:
The Great Barrier Reef sucks for diving and snorkeling. Too damn murky.
Go to the Bahamas or the Florida Keys. 100% better, shorter plane flight and no passport control to hassle with.
Never been to Cozumel so can't comment on that although I hear it's good too.
Click to expand...

And the threat of getting eaten by a Great White Shark is practically unheard of. :)
 
aloysious said:
It's also been an environmental disaster in the U.S. No doubt. Look what they've done to American Natives. Basically eviscerated their souls.
Click to expand...

Yep ... but the Leftwing is working hard to change the name of the Washington Redskins ... so the liberals are DOING their part :palm:

And now that President Trump used Tomahawk missles ... they are butthurt about that name, and will save the NA nations by demanding it be changed :palm:
 
Bigdog said:
Yep ... but the Leftwing is working hard to change the name of the Washington Redskins ... so the liberals are DOING their part :palm:

And now that President Trump used Tomahawk missles ... they are butthurt about that name, and will save the NA nations by demanding it be changed :palm:
Click to expand...

should be the warren redskins?
 
Thing1 said:
Not everything has to be completely ideological. I always hate seeing how protecting our environment has become a left/right thing.

Warning signs are everywhere - and this doesn't even have to relate to AGW...just with basic stewardship of the planet, and with trying to develop and produce in a way that is more symbiotic than parasitic. We're losing huge swaths of habitat every year, and our air & waterways get more polluted and inhabitable. The oceanic food supply is close to a tipping point. Any one with a minimal IQ can understand that our current behavior patterns simply aren't sustainable.

But no one likes to think generationally.
Click to expand...
There are too many people in the world pure and simple. How about we tell Muslims and Catholics to stop having so many children?

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
Milagro said:
There are too many people in the world pure and simple. How about we tell Muslims and Catholics to stop having so many children?

Sent from my iPhone 10S
Click to expand...

World population ... talk about a Hockey Stick Chart!

So, ... one child policy or auction off breeding rights to the highest bidder?
 
A far more balanced analysis of the situation than the hysterical greenwash from the usual suspects.
The Terry Hughes study was done from a helicopter and consequently they were unable to differentiate between the causes of bleaching so just decided to blame it all on global warming regardless. Of course the Guardian, BBC etc. then predictably pounced on it as irrefutable evidence. What is even funnier is the Guardian themselves posted an article saying that the Crown of Thorns starfish is responsible for half of the damage to the Great Barrier Reef.

http://landscapesandcycles.net/falling-sea-level--bleached-great-barrier-reef.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...lling-crown-of-thorns-starfish-to-their-death

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
Last edited:
Bigdog said:
Yep ... but the Leftwing is working hard to change the name of the Washington Redskins ... so the liberals are DOING their part :palm:

And now that President Trump used Tomahawk missles ... they are butthurt about that name, and will save the NA nations by demanding it be changed :palm:
Click to expand...
Maybe they should named after a snake? They keep close to ground, following the contours of the terrain, are fast, silent and deadly. Cobra, rattler, mamba maybe?

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
Milagro said:
Maybe they should named after a snake? They keep close to ground, following the contours of the terrain, are fast, silent and deadly. Cobra, rattler, mamba maybe?

Sent from my iPhone 10S
Click to expand...

Well, if we're going to name them after a snake, we could call them Obama missiles.
 
Re: population

A while ago I was reading about Zimbabwe. IIRC, the average woman had like 7 kids. In the 1st world, the family sizes are much smaller because it costs a lot, and takes a lot more time to train a 1st world kid to be ready to get a job.

Whereas in a 3rd world country, the families send them to work in factories and fields as early as age 7, to provide more money for the family. So, as opposed to the 1st world where children are quite expensive, they like to have more kids to provide additional income.
 
Bigdog said:
Re: population

A while ago I was reading about Zimbabwe. IIRC, the average woman had like 7 kids. In the 1st world, the family sizes are much smaller because it costs a lot, and takes a lot more time to train a 1st world kid to be ready to get a job.

Whereas in a 3rd world country, the families send them to work in factories and fields as early as age 7, to provide more money for the family. So, as opposed to the 1st world where children are quite expensive, they like to have more kids to provide additional income.
Click to expand...

They also have many children because many of them do not live long. Life expectancy is not good for many 3rd world countries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top