Yeah, because corals aren't super important foundation species or anything. Let's let 'em all die! What's the worse that could happen? Ecosystem collapse? We're humans! We don't need no stinkin' ecosystems when we can just get our food from the Wal-Mart!

...sounds pretty complete to me. More than I can say for your no thought contributing rant.

It seems that once again the science is lost in the translation. Global Warming (oops: "climate change") alarmists want people to believe that the oceans are both warming, causing the corals to die, and suffering an increase in acidification, causing the corals to die. Sorry, (imagine a gong sounding) the oceans don't work that way. Warmer oceans hold less CO2, not more. Simple physics. Of course one is supposed to have proof of damage, not merely theoretical threats, and so far the entire concept of man-made climate change is nothing more than a theory, barely held above water by an ever-diminishing thread of veracity of truth from "climate" scientists.

The corals are, indeed, important to the life cycle of the oceans and fish, but we cannot let science-lacking environmental Nazis burn the forest to save the trees.

@akjim: correct, warm water does hold less dissolved CO2. But you're missing the fact that the oceans are not saturated with CO2, and so even at warmer temperatures, the water can still hold more CO2 (the warming causes it to offgas at a higher rate, which is one of the potential positive feedback mechanisms that'll screw us over). You should also note that warmer water also can't dissolve as much oxygen.

I would hope that rather than performing quick Google searches to find evidence that climate change is a myth, you'd read the actual literature and find that it is not.

It doesn't take a google search ( I use Bing, BTW, and have a reasonable education in environmental law) to see that man made "climate change" is a myth. Any reasonable person can see that the science is unproven. Of course that leaves out lock-step liberals, as they are incapable of any independent thought. I have no problems with legitimate considerations of environmental concerns over damage that may be being caused, for whatever reason. But hanging one's argument on "climate change" is a poor way to go. ESA requires documented and well-proven scientific evidence, and these theories just don't cut it.

Logging endangers fishing, mining endangers fishing. Tour ships endanger fishing. Fishing endangers fishing!!!

As usual you are talking politics and not looking at the material, in effect using the "guilty by association" fallacy. Look beyond the politics and look at the scientific material. Surely a scientist from MIT warrants acknowledgement? Your attitude is typical of those on both the right and the left. Both collect materials from those that speak to their beliefs. The trick for an independent mind is to synthesize the information and make a reasoned and educated independent choice of who to believe. There is no consensus, and you're deluding yourself if you believe otherwise. But your brain is already lost, you've already fallen for the propaganda and the liberal talking points. Sucks to be you.

@akjim: I glanced through the papers, and most of the criticism seems to have stemmed from the fact that climate models have not exactly predicted climate trends. This does not make climate change untrue.

There is, indeed, a consensus among the scientific community that temperatures are rising and that humans are to blame for a majority of it.

If you want to talk about deluding yourself, let's discuss the logic of disbelieving thousands of experts in favor of a handful of dissenters.

"blindly following is the basis of liberalism" is an idiotic statement unsupported by factual evidence. this leads me to question any other assertions you make that are supposedly supported by scientific evidence. too bad - maybe you could have persuaded someone with a less vitriolic and pathos-laden post.

p.s. i know, i know - liberals are too stupid to be persuaded by "intelligent" arguments, therefore you were simply posting to practice your argument for the "right" choir.

You know, jim, it's really not the scientists' faults that conservatives have decided to reject science and liberals have decided to accept it. This isn't a partisan issue, this is an issue of scientific reality.

I know, I know, a little hyperbole can go a long way. So many continue to take climate change as gospel, claiming a "consensus," when in reality those consenting scientists are merely buying off on the work of a very few, many of which have been grossly discredited. The "hockey stick" analysis is one such obvious example. The simple fact that "global warming" scientists have had to change themselves to "climate change" scientists should say something.

the SEPP reports are not peer-reviewed science; they are private publications. Also interesting to note that the final report uses the same font and structure as the real IPCC report.

@akjim: it looks like you just pulled random links without reading them...

The first one discusses the impact of the "hockey stick" analysis on climate research and the supposed controversy behind it. The second two discuss regional glacial issues and in no way speak to the veracity of climate change.