Is the world being destroyed?

My narrative is pretty clear (and I don't hide it). Both of the extremes; on the political left and the political right are twisting the facts. I am advocating that..

1) We take a balanced look at the facts. This means that we accept valid facts from either side of the political spectrum. A fact is a fact no matter who thinks it benefits them.

2) We take a balanced look at science. This means that we accept what the scientific institutions are saying (without looking for individual rogue scientists who say somethine we like). We accept what the science is saying without going any further.

I agree with Hightor where he has acutal facts on his side. I agree that human created global climate change is a serious problem and that we should be taking strong measures to prepare for it and lessen its impact. I disagree that global climate change is an immient risk for the collapse of human civilization.

Accept the facts. Reject the Extremism (of both sides). That is my narrative.

I'm not sure why you quote here an old report, one not issued by the US-army

Do you see how the Vice article is a complete fabrication?

The DoD does not currently possess an environmentally conscious mindset. Political and social pressure will eventually force the military to mitigate its environmental impact in both training and wartime. Implementation of these changes will be costly in effort, time and money. This is likely to occur just as the DoD is adjusting to changes in the security environment previously high-lighted. (...) Based on this argument, this report accepts as a core assumption the reality of climate change and climate-change related global warming, and therefore focuses on what the Army should do to prepare itself.

Predicting the potential effects of coral loss on fish communities globally is a fundamental task, especially considering that reef fishes provide protein to millions of people. A new study led by the University of Helsinki predicts how fish diversity will respond to declines in coral diversity and shows that future coral loss might cause a more than 40% reduction in reef fish diversity globally.

Corals increasingly bleach and often die when the water warms. What happens to fish if there are no alternative reefs to swim to? The few fish species that feed on corals will inevitably starve, but the rest might find alternative rocky habitat to persist. As yet, it has been hard to do the larger-scale studies that can project what fish will remain in a world without corals. A new study led by Giovanni Strona at the University of Helsinki finds that global projections of fish diversity without corals are as low as small-scale experiments suggest.

An international team of marine biologist started by mapping tropical fish and coral diversity across the world's oceans for every square degree latitude and longitude. These unprecedented maps showed what marine biologists have long known, fish and coral diversity vary widely, with many more species in the Indo-Pacific "coral triangle" than in the western Atlantic and eastern Pacific. Marine diversity hotspots have been long explained by the way that latitude, habitat, temperature, and geography affect speciation and extinction rates among corals and fishes alike. After controlling for factors that drive diversity in general, the authors found that areas with diverse corals still tended to have more diverse fishes, suggesting that coral diversity begets fish diversity.

"This is not particularly surprising given that corals provide a unique food source for some species, as well a three-dimensional habitat that many species use for shelter. And the fish that depend on corals may be prey for fish that don't depend directly on corals," says the lead author Giovanni Strona from the University of Helsinki.

After fitting the line between coral diversity and fish diversity, the authors did a simple thought experiment. They anticipated global coral extirpation by extrapolating the fish vs corals association down to the point where no coral species were left. That extrapolation suggested that around 40% of the world's tropical reef fishes are likely to disappear should corals disappear. As shown in smaller scale experiments, this is a much bigger loss than those species known to depend directly or even indirectly on coral, suggesting that coral reef food webs will begin to unravel if corals do go extinct. This unravelling is expected to be more intense some places than others. The Central Pacific is expected to lose more than 60% of its reef fish, compared with only 10% in the Western Atlantic.

"We first devised a statistical model to disentangle the effect of environment, biogeography and history on fish and coral diversity that accurately predicting local-scale fish diversity as a response to several environmental variables such as water temperature, pH and salinity and coral diversity," Strona explains.

"Besides offering a way to predict fish diversity under novel environmental conditions, the approach offered a tool to explore how fish diversity will vary in response to changes in coral diversity", continues Valeriano Parravicini, a co-leader of the study at the University of Perpignan.

"For anyone who has enjoyed snorkeling on a coral reef, or for the millions of people that depend on reef fishes for food, this thought experiment should be concerning. But it also inspires greater efforts to conserve and restore coral reefs. The benefits of doing so would extend far beyond corals, to fish and other organisms that depend directly or indirectly on corals," says Kevin Lafferty, Senior Scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey, at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Any risk from polystyrene, polycarbonate, polyethylene, or polyester filter material would be minimal compared to the real possibility of contracting an airborne corona virus so I don't see why a paranoid response would ensue.

Hundreds of dead sea animals have washed up in Sri Lanka, weeks after a cargo ship carrying dangerous chemicals caught fire and sank.

The X-Press Pearl sank in early June off the coast of Colombo after it had been on fire for days.

The remains of 176 turtles, 20 dolphins and four whales have washed ashore since, a court has heard.

Experts fears the ship, which carried tonnes of oil in its tanks, will remain an environmental hazard for decades.

The X-Press Pearl had had been carrying 278 tonnes of bunker fuel oil and 50 tonnes of gas oil when it caught fire on 20 May. It was also carrying 25 tonnes nitric acid, along with other chemicals and cosmetics.

One environmental group had earlier said the ship's toxic cargo threatened to create "a chemical soup" in the area.

A government minister said it was uncommon for animal deaths to be high at this time of year.

"During the south-western monsoon season, sea creatures never die in this way," Environment Minister Mahinda Amaraweera told reporters, according to a Reuters report.

"Most of these carcasses are found on the west coast directly affected by the shipwreck."



The 186m-long (610ft) X-Press Pearl left the Indian port of Hazira heading for Colombo on 15 May. The fire broke out when it was anchored off the Colombo port.

The coastal stretch near the site of the wreck - home to some of the country's most pristine beaches - soon afterwards saw oil, debris and plastic pellet pollution and dead marine life began washing up.

Fishing in area was initially banned though some of those restrictions have since been lifted.

The Sri Lankan government has also made an initial insurance claim of $40m for the costs fighting the fire and compensating the loss of income for about 50,000 people, most of them fishermen.



Sri Lankan officials believe the fire was caused by a nitric acid leak which the crew had been aware of since 11 May. The highly corrosive acid is widely used in the manufacture of fertilisers and explosives.

The ship's owners confirmed the crew had been aware of the leak, but said they were denied permission by both Qatar and India to dock the ship there.

There is now growing anger in Sri Lanka that the ship was allowed to enter the country's waters.

The Russian captain of the vessel - who has been bared from leaving the country - appeared in court on Thursday although he yet has to be charged.

Another 14 people have been named as co-accused over the case. Court proceedings will resume on 15 July.

Hundreds of sea animals?

Why aren't you posting the collapse of the building in Florida where hundreds of people died?

To be honest, hundreds of sea animals aren't that important when we are talking about the imminent destruction of the world.

Part of the absurdity of ecological extremism is that it posits the animals are more important than humans

I remember the weird outcry over the gorilla Harmabe.

I remember the weird outcry over the gorilla Harmabe. Harambe had to be shot because a 3 year old child was at risk of serious harm or death. At the end, after the handwringing even Jane Goodall herself had to admit that shooting the Gorilla was the right thing to do.

The kid should never have been able to enter the enclosure.