Background Check Form - Rowan University: Fill & Download for Free

Why did physicist Dr. Ridd conclude that corals thrive in warmer water and will flourish as global warming increases?Rather than relying solely on speculation, or media sensationalism and editing, we can listen to his own thoughts on this here:Academic claims scientific peer review system failing the Great Barrier ReefThe core of Dr.Ridd's position appears to be based in what he sees as the short-comings of using peer review to formulate public policy:“…the crucial thing is peer review is only a read of the actual paper," he said."It won't delve into the data and some of the data sets are enormous and it can take you months and months of work to really check if there's not another interpretation and that's the problem."The peer review is a great start in terms of quality assurance and we need it for all science, but for the really important science where you're going to make big policy decisions..."When you're going to spend a billion dollars to save the reef or you're going to close down the fishing or the coal industry, you need to have a better system of quality assurance than this peer review process and that is what we don't do."It does happen in the private industry, but it doesn't happen for the public good science that we're talking about."Deeper into the interview, Dr.Ridd refers to some data sets that he finds questionable — more specifically around his own areas of specialisation with regards to the effects of increased water turbidity, and he suggests that those collecting or reviewing that data were ignorant of natural causes (in one instance a cyclone).More directly to the question, looking into research on the effects of temperature variance on corals, it can be shown that corals can, as Dr.Ridd has suggested, withstand and recover from a greater range of temperatures than is generally stated.This however, is a very limited and selective interpretation of the reseach — very much lacking in the rigor Dr.Ridd appears to demand of policy makers and his fellow scientists.Stony coral (the corals that form the structure of the reef, e.g.: elkhorn corals) sensitivity to temperature is due to it's symbiotic incorporation of a form of algae know as zooxanthellae.“Stony corals owe their success as reef-builders to their symbiosis with dinoflagellate algae of the genus Symbiodinium (zooxanthellae). These algae live in coral tissues in extremely high densities…and provide up to 90% of a coral's nutritional requirements (Muscatine & Porter 1977). The symbiosis is highly efficient with respect to recycling of precious nutrients (Muscatine & Porter 1977) and the use of light (Anthony & Hoegh-Guldberg 2003; Enríquez et al. 2005).”It is the sensitivity of the symbiotic algea to temperature and water quality that determines whether the corals survive those same conditions or if they bleach and die off.Considering that, it may be statements in research like this that encourage Dr.Ridd's skepticism (or hope?):“An emerging ‘nugget of hope’ for the long-term survival of coral reefs is related to the ability of some corals to associate with a range of zooxanthella types (Rowan & Knowlton 1995; LaJeunesse 2001;van Oppen et al. 2001; Baker 2003).”What this paper and some of the research it references shows (in part) is that there are some stony corals from the Gulf of Carpenteria and far north Western Australia (note: not the Great Barrier Reef) that are subjected to large tidal shifts, and therefore a much higher range of temperature and water quality. The zooxanthellae in the coral have adapted to those changes and survive.From that, one might be forgiven for assuming all such corals might possess the same degree of robustness.That of course also requires one to disregard the fact that both that algae and that coral have adapted to and evolved in those conditions over a substantial period of time.Further, there is not just one type of algae that stony corals form this symbiosis with, rather any one (with, in some instances, a “backup” variant) around eight different clades of the zooxanthellae, each mostly specific to a particular popularion of coral and each adapted to the environmental conditions of that coral in that geographic location.“So far, eight phylogenetic clades (or lineages) of zooxanthellae have been distinguished based on nuclear ribosomal DNA and chloroplast DNA (clades A–H) with each clade containing many species (Baker 2003; Pochon et al. 2004;Coffroth & Santos 2005). Although most coral colonies appear to associate with a single zooxanthella type, there are a number of coral species that can also associate with several symbiont types simultaneously (reviewed in Baker (2003)). Recent studies have indicated that the majority of coral colonies on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR, Australia) are dominated by one type with a second type present at low and previously undetectable ‘background’ levels (Ulstrup & van Oppen 2003; Mieog et al. in preparation). Various combinations of host and symbiont (holobiont) may provide ecological advantages in different ecological niches, with evidence emerging that symbiont type can influence the growth rate of corals (Little et al. 2004) and their ability to cope with acute irradiance stress (Baker 2001).”Zooxanthellate Clade D is capable of enduring wide ranges in turbidity and temperature, and is the strain found in the corals in tidal areas. The majority of Great Barrier Reef corals are not subject to such exposure, and (unsurprisingly) predominantly feature Clade C zooxanthellae — a strain with a very narrow range of tolerance to temperature shifts.While it might theoretical be possible to introduce Clade D algae to the Barrier Reef corals, it is a complete unknown as to whether there would be sufficient uptake of the symbiont to protect the reef from rapidly changing temperatures or pollutants ot changes in salinity or pH or turbidity that might/do result from climate change and human industrial activity.Also unknown is whether there would be sufficient time for the Barrier Reef corals and their zooxanthellae to adapt to such rapid, and consistent, changes as unfettered human industrial activies are, and have been, likely to expose them to.As long as those remain doubts and unknowns, to make a definitive claim such as corals thriving with global warming would be to go against what Dr.Ridd himself considers rigorous application of scientific method.In the interview Dr.Ridd also cautiously admits to being skeptical about anthropogenic forcing of current climate change, as well as attempting to deflect discussion away from the reef with the somewhat erroneous suggestion that it distracts from research or policy action in regard to other environmental concerns (such as the problem of feral species and wetlands degredation).That he talks of the need to have more “debate” on this subject, as opposed to more research, data collection, experimention and modelling, is perhaps also reason to question his motivation and methodology.Particularly given that “debate both sides of the issue” is a known political strategy for pushing certain “wedge issues,” that has little bearing on presentation of factual data and much, much more to do with ideological and economic concerns.It is worth noting that Dr.Ridd, whilst an employee of the University has regularly been engaged by the coal and mining industry as an assessor of possible environmental impacts of their activities. Whilst he states that role means he can potentially limit or restrict activities of such interests, it is possible to suggest that, using his own arguments, he is unable to present sufficient data to make judgements of minimal impact from those activities.For example: the fact that corals of the Great Barrier Reef are frequently (if unpredictably) subjected to changes in water quality (turbidity, pH and salinity) from natural causes such as cyclone activity or inland flooding, says little to nothing about what the effects of ongoing, long term, regular and consistent exposure to similar conditions caused by human activities (mining, dredging, increased shipping, increases in topsoil and fertilizer runoff, industrial waste, particulate matter and so forth) might be upon those corals.If that is an unknown (regardless how obvious the impacts of such things may seem and have been shown to be), and if the remit of such industry research is, “Can this be done with minimal environmental impact?” then the answer ought to be, “We don't know,” and the recommendation, “Don't do it.”Further, given that tourism brings in $23 billion to the Queensland economy, Dr.Ridd’s position regarding making sure of the research to protect the fishing and coal industries ought rightly apply to the tourism industry based around the Great Barrier Reef — a very significant source of income in North Queensland and one which is already showing signs of suffering from coral bleaching.So why would Dr.Ridd come to his conclusions?I have a few less than savoury suspicions, but without being able to question him more deeply, I'll leave it at this:By not applying the standards of research that he claims should apply to others.Academic claims scientific peer review system failing the Great Barrier Reefhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1636081/#!po=12.8378The decline of the Great Barrier ReefLimits to the thermal tolerance of corals adapted to a highly fluctuating, naturally extreme temperature environmentTourism market profile*well worth clicking through to the referenced research in the above linked articles

Very thoughtful and cultivate question. I shall be concise and succinct. UK is still close to India, but this relationship is in layers. America was founded on independence from Roman Catholicism, where in the beginning even erecting a catholic church in the US was not allowed. This is similar to England parting from Roman Catholicism and forming Church of England. But now all are same as to before separation time. US presidents even Obama went to Rome for blessing of Pontiff. A beautiful man rowan Williams had to go because he advocated a biblical civil society in England based on 10 commandments on the New testaments. He was of course replaced by an ex CEO of an oil company as Arch- Bishop (second powerful position after the HM the Queen). We saw the same with BOE Governor. A fantastic man Sir Mervin King was replaced by a Canadian who destroyed Canadian housing market. People like Lord Darlington, George Galloway are quoted as Hitler sympathiser without a critical debate, while Alan Sugar become a lord; doesn’t miss a chance to rebuke one loudly in national television channel calling, “shut your mouth” without a sensor.England and US are both predominantly English speaking (I said English speaking and not English Gentleman as my father always put it). Thus, we see the force of taking the UK (in fact England) away from EU and join the US (Brexit).I don’t see UK (England) is run by Englishman anymore. Mostly people at the helm is unelected aristocrat working as executives with very mixed ancestry. And ‘common purpose’ has infiltrated all layer of our living.Even if I may say that W Churchill was bankrolled by Rothschild bank. It impossible to see through as the perpetrating system on its entirety unless you are one of them.Such as how many knows the background of our PM or his main aid Cummings, Alok Sharma (business secretary), Priti Patel (Home secretary) or Rishi Sunak for the matter? Rishi Sunak is a son-in-law of an Indian Billionaire.There are 12 MDs (Medical doctors) around a US president almost all are Indians (please see Obama’s medical court).US is at the lead for Indians and Chines (H1B1 visa – please check the words of Michio Kaku). Sometime ago, I read in Evening Times that earning from Chines students constitutes the largest income in the UK universities and they are now influencings education in the UK. Now imagine after Brexit once EU students will lose their domestic status in the UK and lose the access to UK student loan what will happen.I hear White American are jealous of Indian wealth in Silicon Valley and White American women prefer Indian male over their own kind. This reverberates from the African slave trade era of 14th century, where Whites were more worried of losing their woman to African blacks (I read in a book by British historian).Apparently, Indian mass is in a mess following blindly American dream. The main reason is that Indian millennia old Education system has been trashed by the British. You can read Thomas Babington Macaulay and his employer a parliamentarian. 3 generations of Indians have been wasted pursuing an western dream with substandard western education while a handful continued to tighten their grip tug.Now surprisingly India jumped on the bandwagon to anti-china rhetoric to please the US while their own first Prime minister Nehru favoured China to takeover Tibet. So, it looks like that India is surrounded by no friends, but all enemies and now India-china skirmish made it worse.India appears to be good friend with the US as we see so much hugging between Modi and Trump. So, all Indians have forgotten how US threatened India and make then PM Lal Bahadur Shastri to give away the land the Indian military won back from Pakistan in the name of their firm resolve to restore normal and peaceful relations between their countries and to promote understanding and friendly relations between India and Pakistan (1966)? What have we achieved so far? Pakistani terrorism is funded by the US according to own admission of Hilary Clinton.You see how Indian secularism criticism over one unhappy Muslim is. Yet, China is favoured by Muslim countries whiles 1 million Uyghur Muslims are persecuted everyday while Pakistan, Saudi and Egypt are holding their silence.India is not one nation. Last time it was one nation; over 2,000 years ago under Chandragupta Maurya (Indian subcontinent). After that India was balkanised by various faiths and religious and invasions.Only just before 1947, India had over 500 princely states (small kingdoms). The East India Company or shall I say trade and commerce under the pretext of British have destroyed what was known as last remnant of Indians. The first PM of India and new-born Pakistan and their courtiers were all Oxford and Cambridge trained (I did not use the word educated) of so-called Independent India (handed down by enacting in the British parliament). Its simple to analyse how a position of Prime Ministership can exist without a king or Queen. So, in fact the PM of India serves King and Queen of England under the pretext of democracy. US has senate but India has parliamentary democracy. Why? Indian commoners are living biggest lies in humanity.Only the name India exists today as millions of year’s old culture, creed and Sanatani belief system have been decimated long time ago. A small example is why Mongolia is still prehistoric where they ruled India gallantly for centuries. Similarly, what the Europe and England had but vulgarity before they came to India as guests and trade that of course latter turned into some self-proclaimed English Kingship of India.So, the people running the world is not bound by any border that divides a nation from the other. This current virus situation has proved it. And it proved as well that how easily mass-media can dumb-down masses within minutes using fear and paranoia holding money as a bait that keeps the educated society clamp shut. You can hear what retired chief justice Lord Sumption OBE QC FSA FRHistS had to say over this.So, my conclusion is that the people at the helm are not British or American or German or Indian or Russian. They do not have any particular face or colour. But they have a common agenda and rest are all claptrap that keeps the commoners at bey and far away from revolting. George Orwell is relevant read in this present context.So, in my opinion your question is still a little untimely, within a couple decades a fantastic answer will self-manifest. God blesses.