I do agree global warming must be confronted. Some people will never agree on the cause, to them I say regardless, the impacts are noticeable... I've personally seen bleaching of coral reefs on some of my dives, no bueno.
Need to get some balanced approaches to get all sides moving on it. I like the EVs, but it can't be an all or nothing strategy.
I just spent a month in the Keys. I don't dive but I snorkel. My favorite reef is Carysfort Reef and then maybe Grecian Rocks the front side. As a biologist I am fascinated with coral reefs and at Carysfort they UM/Game and Fish and local places like Robbies have taken tank raised Elkhorn and Staghorn corals and cemented them to various parts of the reef. The Elkhorn is often placed in deeper waters on the front side and Staghorn in shallower waters on the backside. Yes I have seen some bleaching but in the last three years going to this reef I have seen both species spreading on their own. The backside of Carysfort on the west (South end) by my observations and estimates the Staghorn corals have easily increased in area by 40% or more in the last three years. I have been there every year since 2018. The Elkhorn have increased in numbers and size but it's a slower growing species .
The fact is they are increasing and its just not dieing out . What I did notice on the backside is filamentous blue green algae growing on some of the living Staghorn corals. That's a water quality issues not thermal.
I don't deny climate change ,I don't even deny man contributes to it..what I deny is the catastrophic predictions these models tend to generate and the timing of the catastrophes. We discussed in several science classes at UCF climate change back in the 80s and 90s . The predictions of if we don't act now the earth is going to burn up in 20 years have been going on a long time.
Increasing the mean atmospheric temperature by .5 degrees C isn't ,I repeat isn't going to wipe out life as we know it. Life is resilient significantly more resilient than stupid ass lawyers and Hollywood people give it credit.
I live in the Smoky Mountains. If you cane here just 100 years ago much of these forests were completely logged over . I mean stripped clean. The Smokies is home to more plant species and more a salamanders than anywhere else in the western hemisphere. We trashed this place and if you know anything about stream bed ecosystems you would know that silt and temperature drive it . Too much of either and you harm the macro invertebrates which are the basis of the food chain for native trout and things like salamanders.
My point is we trashed this region big time mechanically altering stream temps, water clarity, and dumped tons of silt into the system . Yet 100 years later the salamanders are abundant, stream water quality is pretty good, the forests quickly recovered and the biodiversity is amazing. In many cases logging altered the stream bed over night and water temps increased dramatically by several degrees once the tree cover was removed.
So, yah the mean atmospheric temp is projected to rise .5 C to possible 1C over 100 years and I am to believe the cataclysmic destruction of ecosystems as a result when we actually destroyed ecosystems over night and they recovered remarkably. The predictions don't add up for me.
The other thing is this carbon dioxide is not a poisonous gas. It's essential. It's essential for photosynthesis to make sugar and oxygen . It's essential in our bodies to help regulate our blood chemistry pH. It's essential in our oceans as carbon dioxide creates in equilibrium in sea water carbonic acid . Oh,no ,the seas are be one acidic ! Wait what? You need carbonic acid in the system to free up solid calcium from calcium carbonate. Calcium carbonate in aqueous solution is needed by fish for their bones, mollusks for their shells, corals ro build the reef itself . Otherwise the the calcium and carbonate solids won't dissolve in water without a little help from carbonic acids.
Lastly I am a huge fan of do it all energy especially nuclear energy. We spend hundreds of millions in training men and women to operate nuclear powered warships . They stay in the Navy for 7 years and get out and very few work in the nuclear civilian world . Why? Because for some reason the Navy can build and run nuclear reactors on dynamic warships but it's too damn risky according to environmental groups to build static nuclear power plants on land. In my opinion this is insane . We should embrace nuclear power now. We got this as a nation based on the Navy's excellent track record of safely doing it at sea.
Y'all do know these historical facts of the last 2000 years right? Like how the Tudors grew citrus ? How about the vineyards unearthed in Newfoundland? How about the Roman Army crossing the Alps high passes at the time of Christ? Our own history shows us not so long ago the earth was a bit warmer then than today. Then earth cooked towards a mini ice age where Europe faced crop failures , the plague and other diseases due to a wetter and colder climate . While didn't measure the temperature with any scientific instruments we do have history and archeology to suggest in our recent past 2,000 years of a warning and cooling cycle lasting 100-200 years . Life , especially mammals , tend to fair better when it's warmer not colder . Plants and food drops tend to do well when it's warmer not colder . History shows us that much .
I truly don't expect to change a single mind . However, I hope some will question things . Remember,good science is about asking questions,being a bit skeptical of reports and it's not about dogma . Unfortunately in my opinion climate science has been polluted with dogma and when idiot lawyers claim you can't question science , then I walk away because science is all about questions.
