Sunday, March 24, 2019

Do MPAs improve Climate Change Resilience?

Spoiler: they do not!

Surprised? Me not at all.
Over the years there has been a plethora of irritating scientific studies wanting to link climate change mitigation to a whole host of factors ranging from somewhat plausible like the present MPA theory to outright outlandish like the ridiculous Whale poo theory - and let's not forget the infamous Sharks and Oxy Myth that STILL reverberates in some of the stupidest Shark conservation circles!

So kudos for setting the record straight.
And in analogy to the conclusions of the paper (read them!), let me re-post what I wrote back then, slightly abridged.
Want to combat Global Warming?

Stop faffing around about irrelevant topics and work on reducing the anthropogenic carbon emissions that cause it!
Reduce your own emissions! Vote for politicians, parties and government that advocate global reductions! Educate others! Do something to enhance carbon sequestration, like we do!

In closing.
Like a broken record and Erik the Mad Hatter, let me quote myself.
The facts and numbers?
Science is in continuous flux and the data do indeed change – but until they do, the latest peer reviewed science remains the best approximation of the truth. Thankfully, there are now plenty of resources where anybody can consult the latest insights and data, meaning that those who continue to operate with inflated statistics and outlandish assertions lack any excuses and credibility whatsoever. The facts are plenty horrible as it is – so let’s please stick to those and refrain from the usual stupid inflated hyperbole!

Conservation is never happening in a vacuum - it is being used to advocate legislation that in its marine context will deprive fishermen of income and quite possibly, of their livelihoods. With that in mind, we owe it to them, but also, to ourselves not to cheat and to use misleading perceived "marketing", or whatever, but to be truthful and fact based instead.

The situation is really, really dire and there's absolutely no need whatsoever to inflate numbers and to come up with ludicrous propositions.

And then there's this.
Assume we succeed in having laws enacted based on misleading data - what would prevent the legislators from repealing them once we got caught out?
Think we would ever get a second chance after such a fiasco?
And there you go.
Paper here, synopsis here.


No comments: