I rarely comment on the quality of articles in any magazine, but have to do so in the case of “Saving The Mothership” by Dr. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg that appeared in
Volume 7, Number 1. Such outright one-sided and far
left dribble is not in the best interest of our country, the
hobbyist, or of CORAL!
Printing such biased (expletive deleted) does nothing to enhance our hobby, correct and/or at least help recognize certain aspects in the wild
that need our attention. It only
fans the fire narrow-minded environmentalists want to create to
keep themselves and their lawyers with incoming paychecks.
In fact, it’s the reason I quit the
I personally don’t want to
see CORAL become a platform
for those who are quite inept at
providing a balanced and “
honest” view of certain issues, such
as the so-called global warming
issue, where only 30 years ago we
were on the side of a pending ice
this article. I only have one way to vote however, and so
I do not plan to renew my subscription.
Bob Goemans, Ph.D
I came home today, and my new issue of CORAL was
in my mailbox...always a high point of the day. One of
the first items I came across was a letter to the editor
by Morgan Lidster. I said to myself, “just another global
warming denier,” and instead of reading the magazine
from front cover to the back cover, I flipped to the article
on global warming.
And much to my chagrin, Mr. Lidster was absolutely correct. This was an article that has no place in
your magazine. Not that I have any arguments with the
science surrounding global warming—I do not; global
warming is a fact. But rather, I object to the injection of
political ideology into a magazine on aquariums.
My primary voting issue is the environment. But if I
wanted political ideology I would read the Village Voice or
watch Fox News. I will not accept it in a hobby publication. It was completely irresponsible of you to publish
SCIENCE AND EMOTION
With the issue of climate change, science has entered the
gladiatorial arena with religion and politics. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg is one of the most respected and accomplished coral
reef scientists active today, and
I greatly respect his work, his
analysis of the current situation,
and his prognosis for our coral
He may not be right on all
the details—actually I hope not—
but he is working with facts that
are in evidence now, and if one
wishes to “debunk” his analysis,
then a contradictory analysis
with a factual basis is called for,
not emotional diatribes.
We aquarists have the experience, the animals, and the
facilities to actually manipulate
marine environments as to temperature and pH and observe the
effects first hand, and doing such
work may lead to interesting results and pathways to new ideas.
As in all pursuits of the truth of a matter, it is only
through experimentation, careful analysis, replication of
the work of others, and continuing refinement of accepted theory and hypothesis that science finds the “truth”
—with the understanding, of course, that the “truth”
may change as more facts are discovered and proven.
Conviction based on emotion, unreason, and superstition on any side leads to, at best, a closed mind, and at
worst, war. Aquarists should be scientists and as such
should always work with facts, even apparently contradictory facts, and base opinions on these facts and not
Martin A. Moe, Jr.