Chasing Coral GLARING ERRORS

[jrwoltman]

That's seemingly opposite of what op wrote on first post.

Green algae gave me the most headaches. I always saw it as a gardening issue

I already know the stock claim is wiki is wrong but thats pretty clear cut

maybe we're just calling green hair algae, algae- and it should be called green hair plant. still a little confused on the minor matter of no algae can be plants, the movie itself I thought was great

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Algae

 

[jrwoltman]

I would like you to reconsider the tone of your comment. Teaching is a noble profession and dedicated, concerned science teachers are a rare bunch and much to be respected.

Thank you, SciGuy2.

 

[SciGuy2]

Mr. Woltman, (I hope I'm correct in that salutation)

Thank you for patiently teaching our children, and caring about the quality and accuracy of what is taught and what is discussed in public media.

I shall forever be indebted to those who taught me.

-Lee

 

[ReefBeta]

As stated prior, it is useful to say plants and have the audience follow you. In its most colloquial meaning, plant does include all photoautotrophs. Maybe plant-like is better and I can go there, but certainly autotroph is better and preferred over dinoflagellate or zooxanthellae. Or better yet, they should have said, "actually typically thought of as autotroph but often mixotroph and sometimes heterotroph." But everyone wold have stopped listening as soon as the multisyllabic words were dropped. The truth is, that as scientists we have to know when to generalize, when to analogize, and when be specific and nuanced. I just got scolded today for going a little too deep when I could have written more plainly.
If you feel strongly, you should make your case and tell NOAA they're science educating wrong https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/coral02_zooxanthellae.html


This is like asking a phylogeneticist to define how much genetic variability separates species in a clade. Or, as one prior poster, when is Pando one quaking aspen versus thousands. To some degree each stem (and each polyp) is independent, but is also not. In some cases (e.g. Fungia) the decision is made pretty clear cut for us. But what happens when multiple polyps share one gastrovascular system? it's definitely easier to think of them as one individual (even if it is many animals), so I think most of us can be on the same page there. At the same, acknowledging that many papers will consider the individual colony as the unit of observation, ignoring their collection.

I hear alot of stupid stuff, or gross generalizations said by scientists and in casual conversations with lay people. Sometimes I know the literature well, I'm going to the conferences, I'm even doing the field and lab work to push the extent of our knowledge. But unless sometime outright wrong or leading to erroneous conclusions is said, I just shut up, smile and nod.

Yeah. As the purpose of the film is raise awareness of reef and its crisis, using simple easy term is definitively the right call. Last thing you want is to lose your audience on complicated and unfamiliar words. Besides, it's not far off from the truth either. The subtle difference it not the primary concern in this film.

 

[Arringar]

I watched it a few weeks ago, but if I recall correctly, the goal is to educate the public that there IS a crisis. This is a subtle distinction - yet one that is important to your point.
You are correct - the nature of coral are more complex than was presented in the documentary; though it made an effort, at least, to provide an idea of how unique coral are. And - I would argue (minor details aside) - did a passable job at it given the time constraints. Especially given that detailed coral biology was not really the point of the documentary.


Certainly misinformation is unfortunate and should, ideally, be avoided when possible. But there's a point in "dumbing things down", as it were. When your goal is to get a group of people interested in a topic, you have to make sure that you don't overwhelm them with useless information. Doing so will cause them to shun the topic - the exact opposite of the goal. When you're face-to-face with the people, you can feel this out as you go and (if you are astute), keep just enough away from that edge to not go over. But with a medium such as video (where there is no feedback to the presenter possible), you have to assume where that edge is. How much "perfect" information you present is as much about psychology as it is about the need to explain the topic at hand. When that's the case (as it is here), the authors must choose their audience to target. It should be no surprise that we - those of us with aquariums in our homes - are above the level of the audience they aimed at.

I happened to converse with a "landlubber" (a not unintelligent friend who happens to not be an ocean nut) about this film. One of their main points of feedback was that they "got lost in all the biology stuff", but that they were interested in hearing more about the problem (and, really, possible solutions). I think this reaction is what the filmmakers were after; and they were willing to sacrifice some of the correctness of the "biology stuff" to get there. I've since gone back and tried to expand on the biology of coral in greater detail and quickly saw them loose interest in the topic. The problem - and it's solution - is interesting to this friend; not the details of those involved.

Misinformation is a problem; yes. But apathy towards - or worse; rejection of - science is an even greater contributor to America's current science illiteracy. If using a bit of slightly-wrong information to simplify a complex situation results in less apathy and rejection, well - I for one am okay with that. If everyone watched the video and was able to come away saying, "they are wrong about the zooxanthellae part", then we likely wouldn't be in the ecological mess we're in, I don't think...

I have a MS in Molecular Biology. I am no longer in the field, but for a time I was a consultant to a handful of organizations focused on ocean conservation and education, among other things. I would like to emphasize exactly what is being stated by @DLHDesign - "If using a bit of slightly-wrong information to simplify a complex situation results in less apathy and rejection, well - I for one am okay with that." I don't think it could have been better said. Action matters more than deep understanding in this and most cases where conservation is concerned. I have found that people are more willing to volunteer their time, donate their money, and even change things about their daily life to do their part than they are to sit and try to understand or even just listen to a bunch of "biology stuff."

Sadly, apathy is the cause of science illiteracy. People simply don't find it relevant to their daily lives. Show them something beautiful, tell them why it matters in the simplest, most effective way possible and they will participate. Give them facts and science and they will run from you.

 

[Scott.h]

Whatever they really are, individual animals whatever, I used to feel a little bad that we were taking corals from the ocean for our own selfish wants. Now I feel like I'm doing a pubic service for keeping the dang things alive. Somebody pay me

 

[Seanfish600]

I've watched this TV show. I'm still not sold. I have a couple questions number one you got all these scientists saying that our Earth is millions of years old. We only have 2000 years of recorded history. They don't even know if this is happened in the past. Don't mistake me I am concerned as an enthusiast but in the same note they say it's never been hotter and if we go back and look at the Farmers Almanac of the weather it's been hotter than this on any particular day in the last 200 years of real recorded history. So what I want to know is if people were diving into the oceans a thousand years ago to see if this has ever happened before?

 

[1$adream]

Living in Australia and having been to the Barrier Reef recently and Ningaloo in my home state it is slightly exaggerated. Speaking to a few friends who are collectors it would seem the issue lies with contamination and pollution rather than global warming

 

[Seanfish600]

Living in Australia and having been to the Barrier Reef recently and Ningaloo in my home state it is slightly exaggerated. Speaking to a few friends who are collectors it would seem the issue lies with contamination and pollution rather than global warming

The pollution sounds a lot more logical than their global warming. It would have to do with the airplanes. Have you seen those things in flight some of those engines pour out almost raw fuel and they are all flying over the oceans. And then the massive container ships. That all makes a lot more sense to me than just it getting hotter.

 

[Tahoe61]

Unfortunately it appears impossible for some members to leave the political content out regardless of the TOS those members signed upon membership and multiple post by moderators to leave political content out of the discussion.

 

[Tahoe61]

The importance of climate change can not be underestimated, the topic promotes a much needed discussion.

Post that degrade the topic to political bashing and political content will be removed and may result in a member's inability to post to the thread.

Please respect the intent of the thread and those members participating in the thread.

Thanks

 

[jrwoltman]

Some posters seem to be misunderstanding the intent of my thread, some even feeling it necessary to leave me rude and snide remarks. For many people, adults and even more importantly children, who have seen Chasing Corals, this will be the first time they have ever been exposed to a thorough explanation of coral and reefs. Without question, it was a visually stunning and quite engaging show, and I would imagine that it made a lasting impression upon many of the people who watched it. Now, think back to when you were in school, unless of course you still are. When a person learns something for the first time, it really takes root, especially when it is accepted as fact. My "issue" with the dumbing down of science to make it more understandable to the layman is that in this context, it wasn't just explained in a better way, it was plainly incorrect. Now, we have a whole bunch of people with incorrect scientific information about coral, but with a better understanding of the threats to coral reefs. To me, this is obviously a big deal and yes, it really does matter. The fact that I have been having to debate the veracity of my first point, with people who have prior knowledge of coral certainly proves my point. However, on my second point, I am willing to concede it may just be a matter of semantics. ;Bookworm

Happy Friday,

Jim

 

[SpartaReef]

Some posters seem to be misunderstanding the intent of my thread, some even feeling it necessary to leave me rude and snide remarks. For many people, adults and even more importantly children, who have seen Chasing Corals, this will be the first time they have ever been exposed to a thorough explanation of coral and reefs. Without question, it was a visually stunning and quite engaging show, and I would imagine that it made a lasting impression upon many of the people who watched it. Now, think back to when you were in school, unless of course you still are. When a person learns something for the first time, it really takes root, especially when it is accepted as fact. My "issue" with the dumbing down of science to make it more understandable to the layman is that in this context, it wasn't just explained in a better way, it was plainly incorrect. Now, we have a whole bunch of people with incorrect scientific information about coral, but with a better understanding of the threats to coral reefs. To me, this is obviously a big deal and yes, it really does matter. The fact that I have been having to debate the veracity of my first point, with people who have prior knowledge of coral certainly proves my point. However, on my second point, I am willing to concede it may just be a matter of semantics. ;Bookworm

Happy Friday,

Jim

Amen!

 

[Txdragonslayer]

My observation has been that climate change is like politics or religion. Most people choose one side or another and aren't likely to budge.

It's not, either it's faith based, which climate change is not based on faith but rather facts. And politics well....nuff said about that.

 

[DLHDesign]

I have a couple questions number one you got all these scientists saying that our Earth is millions of years old. We only have 2000 years of recorded history.

We have far more than 2000 years of history when it comes to the planet's temperature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record). Temperature is something that can be determined after-the-fact by numerous well-tested and proven methods. Each of these methods can be used to validate the others, giving scientists a high level of assurance that our knowledge is well within an acceptable margin of error for the purposes that we are discussing (eg; has the sort of global temperature change we're seeing now ever happened before).

So what I want to know is if people were diving into the oceans a thousand years ago to see if this has ever happened before?

Certainly a good question to ask. And the answers that have been found seems to be -
Yes; people were diving into the oceans - likely for far longer than could be recorded in any fashion. The oceans have always been part of human life and culture.
No; as best as can be found, nothing of this scale has happened before - either in written records nor in verbal history (in so far as we can determine).

The tradition of passing on knowledge and history is something that pre-dates writing. Whether in song, dance, pictures, or stories - humans have found ways to keep knowledge that is important around and available through the generations. Certainly none of those methods are as convenient and easy to preserve as the written word, but that does not make them useless or inaccurate. Many verbal histories have been found to be reasonably accurate despite their age and source. And while we can never say for certain that this has never happened before, there has been no widespread mention of it in any of the verbal histories throughout the world (specifically from coastal civilizations, of course). There may be local events that have been mentioned (I certainly don't claim to know all of the verbal history out there), but nothing on the global scale that I've been able to find. And as this is a global event that we are referring to, that would be one of the criteria for "has this happened before". And it's highly likely that something of this nature - which would likely take on some level of mysticism in the ancient world - would have survived; much as records of comets have survived.
It's possible that the civilizations that witnessed such events did not themselves survive. But then, that in itself is meaningful...


But really, the question of this having happened before is rather moot, IMO. It's happening now. Corals are bleaching - and dying, for the most part - at rates modern man has never before seen. Are we okay with that? Are we willing to live in a world without coral? Will we even be able to survive in a world without coral (and/or the fish populations that result from healthy reefs)? While - again - we can't know for certain the answer to those questions, we (that is; scientists) can take a guess that it's closer to "no - we can't" than "yes - we can". Many parts of the nautical food chain begins in coral reefs and if they die, a lot of the ocean will also suffer.

Think of this, as well. If we assume the most drastic extreme in each case, we get:
- If we take action and there is no danger (because man can't affect the climate), then our actions would have no effect anyways.
- If we take action and there is danger (because man can - and has - affected the climate), then perhaps our actions can save things.
- If we take no action and there is no danger, then all is well.
- If we take no action and there is danger, then then human race may die off.
If you look at the above "extremes matrix", taking action either results in nothing changing OR perhaps saving everything. Taking no action results in nothing changing OR everyone dying. That basically means our choice is between "taking action and perhaps saving everything" OR "taking no action and perhaps dying as a species". I, for one, know which of those two options sounds more appealing. I chose to take action.