GLOBAL COOLING?

[Diggler]

The only way humans will ever escape the blame is if the climate stays the same forever; never getting slightly warmer or cooler, nor experiencing any weather occurrances outside of some 'norm' that scientists calculate. Since that's not the nature of the Earth, we will perpetually be at fault, regardless of what happens climactically.

 

[jkritchey]

And the follow up is always how it's going to get worse next season. When it doesn't these scientific spokespersons are NEVER questioned.

Burk, respectfully, you question it every time. Is there someone more important than you who needs to question it? To your satisfaction? Seriously.

Here's what I believe: I believe that there are reports that suggest that man made pollution may be casuing harm to the planet's atmosphere. I believe the studies and reports exist. I have no cause to believe or disbelieve the findings. Just that a number of scientisits have come to that conclusion. Fine.

It seems to me that taking steps to reduce man made pollution can only be a good thing.


(Side note: I misspelled "believe" 5 out of 6 times in writing this....When's the spell check coming?)

 

[Gard]

Gard, again I don't ague with that. But my question is this, Is EVERY climactic "event" that is newsworthy caused by global warming? And the follow up is always how it's going to get worse next season. When it doesn't these scientific spokespersons are NEVER questioned. The winter of 2004 was one of the snowiest and coldest on record in northern MI. they never dealt with that one. It's always breaking a record SOMEWHERE, but that proves zilch. The long term medians are very convincing and worth action. But this short term stuff is just media fear mongering. EVERY climactic event is followed by some news story saying how it was caused by global warming. To me it hurts the credibility of the argument.

Actually, colder winters in some areas are a DIRECT INDICATOR of overall warming in the system!!! This is precisely what I'm saying by "seemingly contradictory". Do the climatologists know everything? No, they certainly don't, and if you ask any one of them, from the most rabid "the sky is falling" global warming hawk to the most calm and "rational" wait-and-see one, they will all admit that the jury is out, and won't be in for quite some time.

However, there is a "middle course" that makes sense. Take reasonable and appropriate action to limit the release of greenhouse gases (Kyoto is inappropriate - it does NOT hold India and China to the same levels as the US and Europe, and they are already both WORSE offenders now, Kyoto would allow them to GET worse for at least some time, giving them an unfair economic advantage, and NOT HELPING the enviroment in the long run), explore alternative energy sources (it's not "cool" to propose using nuclear, but it is more effective than any other alternative at this time, and much safer now than in the 70's & 80's), look at ways of remediating the damage done (the US Army Corps of Engineers just did something in Florida with the Kissimmee River that will tremendously help the Everglades, more things like this are necessary), and finally work to reduce the overall strain on the system because of the insane rate that we are continuing to expand our population. Malthus is coming, and he's pissed.

Finally, I agree that the media sensationalisim is assinine. It's all about ratings, not about truth, but that is the fact on any story you see there, so take it all with a grain of salt.

 

[Vorago]

New species are being discovered all the time; species become extinct and new ones appear. Rainforests come and go as well; there used to be rainforests in the far north, according to the fossil record. They're not there anymore; the world hasn't ended.

The point is that the world is in a constant state of change. People try to attribute everything to humans... it MUST be our fault, look how important we are!... when, like I said, our actual footprint on this earth is miniscule and fleeting. Natural cycles and random occurrances happen. You can't blame everything on humans.

 

[Diggler]

Although some don't believe this, no one out there is promoting more pollution. Even evil conservatives, like myself, aren't scheming in Enron's basement to destroy the environment, starve your grandmother, and spread AIDS to homosexuals.

It's all a matter of balance. You won't find anyone out there that believes in unnecessary pollution levels. However, I'm not going to walk the 42 miles to work every day, either.

On the other hand, I do think that there are some hidden agendas directly related to the environmental movement (and more specifically, to the Protocol that I dare not speak of, and the Global Warming theory in general) and global politics. But I obviously can't get into that here.

 

[Vorago]

I am willing to accept the fact that people don't agree with global warming, but saying mankind has nothing to do with the loss of wildlife, environment, nature, and so on, in utter BS.

Or did the Bizons in North America collectively killed suicide in the 18th and 19th century?

 

[Kosko]

KYOTO

 

[Diggler]

An extreme case, like the passenger pigeon, dodo, etc. Mass extinction like that hasn't happened recently. We have laws and conservation groups that reasonably handle things like that now.

ETA: Actually, a good number of bison did commit mass suicide. They ran off of cliffs while the Native Americans were chasing them.

 

[Geoff St. Germaine]

An extreme case, like the passenger pigeon, dodo, etc. Mass extinction like that hasn't happened recently. We have laws and conservation groups that reasonably handle things like that now.

ETA: Actually, a good number of bison did commit mass suicide. They ran off of cliffs while the Native Americans were chasing them.

I think you are a little misinformed on species extinction. 32% of amphibian species are currently at high risk of extinction. 12% or bird species are at high risk and the current rate for birds is 10 extinctions per year. I think that mammals are around 25%. On a recent trip to the Winnipeg Zoo I noticed that almost every species of big cat that they had was listed as critically endangered. Maybe this is just more media fear mongering.

 

[Diggler]

Assuming natural selection's methods of species dying out and others emerging as part of nature's natural processes, what is the permissible extinction rate for all existing species, then? Zero is not, and never was, an acceptable number.

Rhetorical question: Is it considered to be working against nature by trying to artificially save species that aren't adapting?

All species of dinosaurs were wiped out globally, and I'm pretty sure that humans didn't have anything to do with that.

 

[txbasschik]

Yeah, that one is a bit old, isn't it:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Cherie, good post about global climate change, some folks just can't see that an overall increase in energy in a closed system, for whatever reason, will cause chaotic and sometimes SEEMINGLY CONTRADICTORY responses.

Thanks!

I feel like there are many inaccurate perceptions as to how global climate change affects the planet. I truly believe that people wouldn't have to change their ways all that much, to have a positive effect.

When newscasts or pundits blame a really hot summer, or a bad hurricane, on global climate change, without giving any *real* information as to why or how, they inflame people, and hurt the case for change. Its not that simple, and people need to understand that.

Cherie

 

[Geoff St. Germaine]

Assuming natural selection's methods of species dying out and others emerging as part of nature's natural processes, what is the permissible extinction rate for all existing species, then? Zero is not, and never was, an acceptable number.

Rhetorical question: Is it considered to be working against nature by trying to artificially save species that aren't adapting?

All species of dinosaurs were wiped out globally, and I'm pretty sure that humans didn't have anything to do with that.

So it's your contention that these species would currently be going extinct whether or not humans were here? Or is it that since humans are natural we can do whatever we want and classify it as the natural way of things?

Guys like Stuart Pimm at Duke usually estimate the current species extinction rate to be 100 times higher than normal.

 

[Diggler]

So it's your contention that these species would currently be going extinct whether or not humans were here? Or is it that since humans are natural we can do whatever we want and classify it as the natural way of things?

I wasn't actually contending anything, merely bringing up points of discussion.

As for your first sentence, I'm sure there are species that would go extinct regardless of human intervention. Some may be helped along, but yes, I think that species go extinct and come into existence all the time, regardless of whether humans were here or not. The actual rate of extinctions versus the expected rate of extinction is the only item of contention with that, which is virtually impossible to calculate.

Your second sentence is a valid argument, because we ARE natural BUT we also can control what we do. So, we can allow the rest of nature to take its course, or try to change it for better or worse. Is any of that natural? Depends. Maybe there 's a colony of snails living under one undercut riverbank on the Mississippi, and it's in danger of collapse due to erosion. Or beavers are building a dam just downstream of the only known colony of terrestrial plants, and the building of the dam will wipe them out. (Interestingly, beavers are the only other animals besides man that can alter their environment to benefit themselves.) Is it natural for humans to intervene and either stop the natural erosion/beaver dam building, or make an artificial copy of the exact environmental conditions somewhere else and transplant them? It isn't. If we weren't here, the snails or plants would become extinct and life would go on. Eventually new species would come about and replace them.

As I said before, I think there's a balance to be struck somewhere. No one wants to go out and destroy nature, but we also don't need to be running around saving every failing species in the same way that a family may attempt to preserve their son's room the exact same way he left it right before he was killed in an accident. Some species can't hack it, and it's been that way since the beginning of life on this planet, even before man.

 

[Geoff St. Germaine]

I wasn't actually contending anything, merely bringing up points of discussion.

As for your first sentence, I'm sure there are species that would go extinct regardless of human intervention. Some may be helped along, but yes, I think that species go extinct and come into existence all the time, regardless of whether humans were here or not. The actual rate of extinctions versus the expected rate of extinction is the only item of contention with that, which is virtually impossible to calculate.

Extinction and speciation are absolutely occuring all the time.

Your second sentence is a valid argument, because we ARE natural BUT we also can control what we do. So, we can allow the rest of nature to take its course, or try to change it for better or worse. Is any of that natural? Depends. Maybe there 's a colony of snails living under one undercut riverbank on the Mississippi, and it's in danger of collapse due to erosion. Or beavers are building a dam just downstream of the only known colony of terrestrial plants, and the building of the dam will wipe them out. (Interestingly, beavers are the only other animals besides man that can alter their environment to benefit themselves.) Is it natural for humans to intervene and either stop the natural erosion/beaver dam building, or make an artificial copy of the exact environmental conditions somewhere else and transplant them? It isn't. If we weren't here, the snails or plants would become extinct and life would go on. Eventually new species would come about and replace them.

As I said before, I think there's a balance to be struck somewhere. No one wants to go out and destroy nature, but we also don't need to be running around saving every failing species in the same way that a family may attempt to preserve their son's room the exact same way he left it right before he was killed in an accident. Some species can't hack it, and it's been that way since the beginning of life on this planet, even before man.

Of course it's been that way forever. I would disagree with your statement that no one wants to go out and destroy nature. Perhaps most don't want to do it purely for the sake of destroying nature, but some do. I'm not saying to save every failing species, but is it a failing species when humans have destroyed so much of their natural habitat that it is no longer possible for them to reproduce? How about when they are hunted to extinction for their horn? I believe one of the rhino species was declared extinct within the last couple of months.

 

[Diggler]

Extinction and speciation are absolutely occuring all the time.



Of course it's been that way forever. I would disagree with your statement that no one wants to go out and destroy nature. Perhaps most don't want to do it purely for the sake of destroying nature, but some do. I'm not saying to save every failing species, but is it a failing species when humans have destroyed so much of their natural habitat that it is no longer possible for them to reproduce? How about when they are hunted to extinction for their horn? I believe one of the rhino species was declared extinct within the last couple of months.

Poaching to extinction is obviously wrong; for the most part that is happening to the big cats, rhinos, etc. in third world countries. That doesn't have much to do with environment change. Well-regulated hunting with massive trophy fees and tourism dollars are creating a way for those people who live there to make money from the same species without poaching, and without endangering the population as a whole. Often the monies brought in are used directly to establish preserves and other conservation methods. So, as they come around to a more logical, far-sighted Western view, there should be less and less of poaching-related extinctions.

When it comes down to destroying habitat, I guess it comes down to scale. If it's a dying species in a very small area, I would think that the equivalent to the human Do Not Resucitate request would be in order; don't use extraordinary means to save nor eliminate them. Let nature take its course.

When it comes to larger areas, that's where sportsmen and other wildlife lovers can come into play. Unfortunately, it comes down to local economics; if it is feasible to a local to keep a forest or savannah around, they will do it. If he can guide hunts or serve as a tour guide and feed his family, he won't be likely to clear cut the land he lives on. However, if he can't do that, don't expect him to allow his family to starve because the Hairy Chested Nutscratcher or the Double Breasted BedThrasher happens to live there. He's going to sell off and/or clearcut the area just as a matter of survival.

 

[Geoff St. Germaine]

Poaching to extinction is obviously wrong; for the most part that is happening to the big cats, rhinos, etc. in third world countries. That doesn't have much to do with environment change. Well-regulated hunting with massive trophy fees and tourism dollars are creating a way for those people who live there to make money from the same species without poaching, and without endangering the population as a whole. Often the monies brought in are used directly to establish preserves and other conservation methods. So, as they come around to a more logical, far-sighted Western view, there should be less and less of poaching-related extinctions.

When it comes down to destroying habitat, I guess it comes down to scale. If it's a dying species in a very small area, I would think that the equivalent to the human Do Not Resucitate request would be in order; don't use extraordinary means to save nor eliminate them. Let nature take its course.

When it comes to larger areas, that's where sportsmen and other wildlife lovers can come into play. Unfortunately, it comes down to local economics; if it is feasible to a local to keep a forest or savannah around, they will do it. If he can guide hunts or serve as a tour guide and feed his family, he won't be likely to clear cut the land he lives on. However, if he can't do that, don't expect him to allow his family to starve because the Hairy Chested Nutscratcher or the Double Breasted BedThrasher happens to live there. He's going to sell off and/or clearcut the area just as a matter of survival.

I agree that hunting often works for conservation. I'm a member of several big name conservation clubs whose members are predominantly hunters (Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, Duck Unlimited). I thought it was obvious that I wasn't talking about hunting in general.

As far as scale goes, it does factor in, but that scale is also relative to the scale of the habitat. Organisms living in niche habitats are much more vulnerable than those living in larger, more common habitats.

Anyway, I digress, this is way off of global warming/cooling.