Jeff Harvey recommends this Climate Progress Post on the special issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B on the sixth mass extinction. It's been sixty-five million years since the last one, so this is an unprecedented opportunity for ecologists to study such an event.
See also Jeremy Jackson "How we wrecked the ocean":
- Log in to post comments
Many thanks for highlighting this Tim. I know Michael Tobis has a thread on this (and several others related, like this one on invasive species).
Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the natural world around them can't fail to notice the decline in species diversity, be it ever so gradual ("death by a thousand cuts"). Those with more knowledge, experience or interest will understand it's not just about the loss of species, but the knock-on effects on others. To people like Jeff and Bernard J, who've been studying and working on one or other branches of ecology for some time, this article won't come as any surprise at all - ecologists, biologists, zoologists and botanists have been banging on about this for what seems like forever and a day, and all largely, I'm sorry to say, to little avail. Ineffective as it may be, the UNFCCC has at least spawned the IPCC; as MT says, "where's the IPCC for biodiversity?" Perhaps the standard definition of "toothless tiger" should be the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Much as I don't want to sound too doom-laden, I can't say I can see much hope for significant change in this trend in the near future.
SteveC.
You're right, this comes as no surprise at all to myself, nor to you or Jeff I know, nor to many people who have a basic understanding of ecological processes.
I've been thinking for a couple of years now that Deltoid could usefully have a thread such as this, and I have actually been wandering through other blogs reading similar material. Now that Tim's opened up the thread though, I find that I am pretty much speechless. And not because I have nothing to say, but because for the last few years I've been more and more firmly coming to the belief that humanity has missed the boat in terms of ever having the motivation/inclination, or the capacity, to react with any appreciable strength to protect our biodiversity and the functioning of the ecosystems that contain it.
The links and the literature upon which they are based are just a snowflake on the tip of an iceberg of material indicating that we have a Big Problem. The numbers simply don't stack up in favour of a soft landing, notwithstanding the attempts of our resident trolls and their ilk to claim otherwise.
As much as I could wish that there was suffient concern that the UN would commission an Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity Loss, the evidence is clear and copious that humans will not act collectively, to the degree necessary to effect change on the scale required, until after it is too late.
The planet has the foundation for a financial debt that will make the "GFC" seem like the first chapter. More seriously, there is already locked-in a warming debt that will eventually shut up even the most recalcitrant of the Denialati (if they don't simply fall off their twigs first).
What future generations will curse us most strenuously over though, is the extinction debt that we will leave for their biosphere to repay.
The only thing that we can be thankful for is that none alive today will live long enough to see the worst of it.
It will appear instantaneous in the fossil record, or would, if there were anyone around to record it.
As long as Harvey thinks thugs like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro are world heroes, nothing he writes about is worth consideration.
Good one, Darwinsdog
Some decent comments found below this article:
[Eating more fish will save the rainforests, suggests scientist Ray Hilborn](http://www.grist.org/article/food-2010-11-08-eat-fish-to-save-rainfores…)
@ben: perhaps when your knee settles down you can let us know what Jeff Harvey wrote that we can ignore because of reasons having nothing to do with the subject at hand.
I know it's not likely to happen, but if Jeff Harvey were to recommend something you wrote, would you rush to disavow it?
Ben, you demonstrate a classic case of the fallacy of Ad hominem.
In your world, to avoid being a hypocrite, you should now no longer listen to anything you come up with.
Ben writes
Thugs like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro...
It is SOP to compare a ruler to the previous ruler.
By this measure of course, Chavez and Castro are FDR and Bush is Hitler.
Whatever, dudes. If you are down with Chavez and Castro, that's your problem. Harvey, of course, can go ad nauseam about CIA memos and books by leftist authors to prove why the above mentioned thugs are really shining angles.
My point is that if he believes that Castro and Chavez are wonderful examples of democratic leaders, then he's stupid enough, or delusional enough, that I need not consider his point of view on any other matter.
On the other hand, I did read some of the page linked to above for fun, and found this bit interesting
Somebody alert Al Gore! He's responsible, if I'm not mistaken, for significantly more than his fair share of resource extraction, what with his giant mansions and all. He does offset his carbon, for what that's worth, though :P
The following excerpt is also interesting:
How do we know that it was the carbon influx caused the intense warming, and not the other way around, that the intense warming caused the influx of carbon?
Ben, are you saying we should not be concerned about mass extinctions because... er.. Al Gore is fat?
Don't be obtuse.
Another thread polluted by troll Ben's inane bullshit.
Fuck off, Ben.
ben @ 8:
Completely illogical and, given the thread isn't about Jeff Harvey, entirely irrelevant.
Better trolls please...
Is it perverted to wish that one would be around to observe the calamities?
I suspect the unifying characteristic of scientists and science geeks is profound curiosity. As far as I'm concerned, the best reason to keep on living is to see what happens next, and I admit to a wistful desire to be an observer at the end of civilization.
What fossil record? The entirety of the world's continental shelf looks like the en fuego toxic red mud that flowed down the danube obliterating everything in it's path, minus the scratches where the plows went through the ground.
I don't know that I should say this but I actually laughed during Jackson's presentation. Honest injun. Laughed because we're more effed up than the toxic plumes of death that roam the oceans since we decided to treat them like a communal potty. We just went through an election in the US where one of the only Democrats that managed to be elected in purple states had an advertisement where he shot the (utterly insufficient) cap and trade bill with a hunting rifle.
The people in our country and across the globe that have beat the living day lights out of the few of us with any conscience or morals or thoughtfulness so thoroughly that the country's marginal voter now resembles Ben- a useful idiot without two synapses to rub together.
Meanwhile you have complete professors of economics arguing for repeal of the US estate tax on a 'liberal' publication's economics blog- the New York Times- related to this only by its lunacy given that the country is running massive deficits *before* you consider its colossal unfunded mandates, and oh by the way, is in possession of a gini coefficient that makes our country's wealth about as equitably distributed as Nigeria's.
What possible hope could you have in a world like this? Really, that's a challenge. I'd like to hear someone who hasn't completely lost faith explain why they're not just learning to love our descent into oblivion.
>*My point is that if he believes that Castro and Chavez are wonderful examples of democratic leaders, then he's stupid enough, or delusional enough, that I need not consider his point of view on any other matter.*
Yes that is the fallacy that we criticized you for. A grade fallacious Ad Hom, added to with strawman, and changing the topic. All signs of weakness in your argument.
This is even before we consider the merits of your claims againts Harvey, (or against Charvez or Castro).
I second the call for better trolls please.
A species of African ape learns to control fire and thereby precipitates the sixth major mass extinction episode of the Phanerozoic. So what? Biodiversity typically recovers from mass extinction pulses in about ten million years. That's nothing in terms of geologic time and there's no reason to believe that things will be different this time around. Dan L. has the perspective: kick back & enjoy the spectacle. It isn't every generation that gets to witness a major whack to the integrity of the entire biosphere. The wet space rock as a whole isn't going to be significantly impacted. Take "hope" from that fact Majorajam. And lighten up while you're at it.
And oh yeah, I forgot to add, that I'll take socialist leaders like Chavez & Castro over corporatist Fascist tools like Bush & Obama, any day.
I don't disagree that we need to control emissions. it's been proven time and again that too much of any given thing can, and will in most instances, become a bad thing. But, as far as Cap and Trade, I can not agree with due to the strangle hold it will end up putting on food production.
While I agree that we need to control CO2 emissions, in a sensible manner, I tire of the doom and gloom propaganda associated with CO2. The folks that are hollering about CO2 and running all these models have not included information pertaining to the most important mechanism associated with life on this planet. That is photosynthesis. I hear and read about all these CO2 footprint models, but not once do they discuss the CO2 consumption by vegetation. And I can understand why because it's way too complex to model and include such models into the models of global warming.
There are reams of studies pertaining to increased CO2 and the benefits of these increases to plant production. When CO2 is increased, crops/plants require less water and less fertility to meet their demands to reproduce. All the while, these same plants are pumping oxygen back into the atmosphere.
We have historical record that illustrates during times of "warming" civilizations flourished. These periods of "warming" had associated increases in CO2. When we entered periods of "cooling", there was much more strife amongst the peoples associated with these civilizations. The strife was also associated with a reduction of foodstuffs to feed the masses.
Some recent research has indicated that the warming of the atmosphere is not associated with CO2 as much as it's associated with increased water vapor. AND, it's not fully understood which occurs first, CO2 or water vapor, or if there's even a correlation.
We're already seeing increases in crop production that can not be completely aligned with improved genetics. We're seeing these increases while our fertility and water inputs have greatly decreased due to costs and dwindling supplies.
I will close this with a thought and as an Agronomist this is something I think of frequently because I'm in an area where our water resources are dwindling quickly. How are we to feed the masses in the future at our current rate of production? What can we do to improve our production to ensure that the masses are fed? If we don't feed the masses, there will be an increase in strife across this planet as the resources dwindle even more.
It's been suggested that hydroponics is the answer. What most folks don't understand about hydroponics is you will end up with a waste product (recycled water) that becomes toxic to plants. I'm an Environmental Agronomist and deal with various waste products for the purpose of beneficial reuse in Agricultural production.
Great, I post the phrase 'cap and trade' and within hours a manure laden spam bot jackknifes in the middle of the thread. Perfectly illustrative of our species capacity to work diligently and with ruthless efficiency to undermine its own interests. Apropos my original comment.
Anyway, thanks for the perfunctry perspective darwinsdog. It's nothing if not novel to infer hope from the reassurance that we'll all be extinct soon enough. Some of us like our lives, love some of those close to us and even know a few children. That's what makes awareness of the sheer scale of the suffering and utter calamity we are blissfully accruing so difficult to stomach. It's what makes for the expression on Jackson's face at the end of his lecture.
As to your insight, or rather what you appear to believe was your insight, I'll (roughly) paraphrase stephen gould- that biological diversity would return millions of years after we've wiped it from the face of the planet is not terribly relevant to the here and now.
It certainly doesn't relieve us of whatever duties our values and morality would've obliged irrespective- or in this case, forgive us for our abject failures in that regard. All it really goes to show is we can't even f*ck things up properly. If that lightens you up old boy you're quite welcome to it.
This is definitely one of Deltoid's best threads. A classic really.
But the prize is Bernard J's comment # 2. There's Bernard J., all Cassandra-like, with his palms flat on either side of his face doing a not-half-bad imitation of "The Scream" and intoning: "The only thing that we can be thankful for is that none alive to day will live long enough to see the worst of it." And the whole Geek-chorus of Deltoid regulars throwing off fist-bumps and high-fives on behalf of the Prophecy of Doom! Oh my goodness gracious.
Do you people know how silly you look? Do you? Bunch of brain-dead, worry-wort weirdos. Honestly.
P. S. Bernard J., between episodes of hand-wringing, could you put on your Mr. Grammar hat and check over my comment for any "New World" solecisms. I would be much obliged.
Two points:
First, Ben: I love the way that you put words into my mouth. Since when did I ever sugguest that Fidel Castro was a good example of a democratically elected leader? As for Chavez, your entire understanding of Venezuelan politics appears to come straight from FOX news of the Washington Times. This suggests, at least in my view, that you are a complete ignoramus. Your understanding of global politics is less than that from a Disney comic book, and yet you come on here parading your ignorance.
And, as others here stated, this has nothinbg whatsover to do with the content of this important thread. I suspect you've never read a peer-reviewed article on the subject of biodiversity and the current mass extintion, highlighted so elegantly by Jeremy Jackson in disucssing marine systems in his TED lecture. But, if you are clueless enough to suggest that my comments are worthless in my own field of research, then at least listen to the vast majority of other scientists who sare saying the same thing as I am.
Finally, Mike: your comment is as intellectually vacuous as Ben's. You two make a nice couple. Of course, Bernard's comments are very well thought out as always. Our speices has been rocking the boat for some time now, arrogant in the sense that whatever we do to the life support systerms of our planet, that we are intelligent enough to forever 'rise above' the eventual consequences of our malfeascence. Of course this is the sprint of folly. No species utilizes more from nature or is more depending on a range of provisioning and supporting ecosystem that emerge over variable sptial and temporal scales that Homo sapiens. Comments from the likes of Ben and Mike are essentially sad reminders that many individuals remain arrogant, ignorant and and anthropocentric, whilst possessing not even a basic understanding of the predicament we are in. Mike's last comment reminds me of the probable responses of many of the engineers on the Titanic after the collision with the iceberg that led to her consequent demise.
To suggest that those concerned about the current human assault across the biosphere are 'brain-dead', 'worry-wort weirdos' as Mike says above, shows how utterly divorced from reality people like him are.
yes mike, there was much of the same hysteria when they thought all the ice was going to melt and they were all going to drown.
funny thing is mike, not ONE of them has done anything of substance to improve the planet, not one !
notice that the prick with the pony tail blamed el neno for the coral bleaching, not warming by CO2.
Very classy, sunspot. Nice to see you flying your true colours: that of an insultive, ignorant, backwoods hillbilly with non-existent manners and the intellectual breadth of an amoeba. Hope you're having fun playing with all that straw. I see a disemvowelling coming up in 3...2...1...
JasonW,
This is the same sunspot who claimed that we should be more concerned with other anthropogenic threats to the environment than C02 and climate warming, and yet then attacks an esteemed scientist, calling him a 'prick' when he discusses the implications of the current loss of biodiversity. Sunspot does not seem to have a memory of the content of his earlier posts. In spite of his repeated attacks on me, he appears to be the real 'Pinnochio' here, or at the very least a complete and utter hypocrite.
And mike - it's amusing, yet at the same time depressing really to see how your comment, which you must think was especially clever and witty, explodes in your face - unless you are playing a particularly clever ruse on trolls such as sunspot. You DO actually know who Cassandra was and what role she played in the Iliad? Here's a quotation from http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/imageswomen/papers/fittoncassandra/intro… "Cassandra was doomed to tell the truth, but never to be believed." The text goes on to say: 'Today, we call a "cassandra" someone whose true words are ignored, since Cassandra's doom was to predict what others refused to believe."'
> Sunspot does not seem to have a memory.
You could have finished it there.
> Since when did I ever sugguest that Fidel Castro was a good example of a democratically elected leader?
I'll say it. He was.
Absolutely pants for the people who were exploiting the native workforce who then ran off with their money offshore and started agitprop in the SE US.
He was LOADS better than the puppets the US put there, and even those were better than the Shah if Iran who the west put in place. Tony Blair is probably the worst elected prime minister if only because Brown didn't last long enough (who was the worst Chancellor we had) and Tony was only voted in with 22% of the voting publics votes (which he then inflated to "a public mandate" when questioned on his plans).
So, yes, Fidel was a good example of a democratically elected leader who ensured a better standard of living for the people of his country and a better standard of education than the so-called leader of the free world who has spend every year since his election trying to kill the country.
Shrub spent 1.6 trillion the ordinary people put in to social security to spend on his buddies and now it's all spent, it's the fault of the people who feel they're entitled to the money they put in...
Your being sooky pinnochio, again.
I only point out your hypocrisy and pass on info that debases your alarmist little pet theory that CO2 is the main driver of climate.
Then you try to insult me, pathetically I might add, and I do it back.
Whats the big deal ? Does the truth hurt ?
Why isn't the world warming pinnochio ?
hint, the temp data is dodgy !
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/xvy
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/xvz
Spotty,
I think Wow sums you up perfectly. Unless you noticed, 99% of those who post on Deltoid do not take you at all seriously. And that is being kind.
Wow, I agree tith your take on Castro. The real crime committed by Cuba since 1959 was in 'not taking orders' from the imperial master of the hemisphere. And, of course, the threat of a good example. If the economy of Cuba had proven to be a success after throwing out the US puppet Batista, then other countries in the region might have wanted to emulate the country's independence which threatened the status quo (e.g. US hegemony and control of capital flows from Latin America to US investors). This had to be resisted, hence the illegal and appalling blockade on the country imposed by the US ever since, which amounts to something akin to a siege. At the same time, I rarely see those attacking Cuba expouding similar rage at the actions of US client regimes across central America in the 1980s, which became virtual bloodbaths as the US-supported death squads did everything in their power to squash democracy and movements supporting independent nationalism in these countries. Ben is just another example of the naievete of those with selective memories or else who soak up the usual MSM propaganda that emanates straight from the Pentagon.
But I digress.
Jason W,
Cassandra was a girl. Bernard J. is not a girl. So your comment is totally irrelevant. And that is also why I used the "clever and witty" term "Cassandra-like" vice the serious-minded and pedantic term "Cassandra."
wrong again pinnochio,
wow (ian fry) led you up the garden path, I never mentioned castro.
Now I don't want to enlarge your cranium further but I have to admit that I am in agreement with you regarding past and present geopolitics.
Do you know this bloke ?
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/xw0
> I tire of the doom and gloom propaganda associated with CO2.
I tire of the continued inflation of the statements of the IPCC by those who wish to avoid taking responsibilty for their actions.
WHAT "Doom and Gloom" propaganda? Not a sign of it in your tiresome post.
> The folks that are hollering about CO2 and running all these models have not included information pertaining to the most important mechanism associated with life on this planet. That is photosynthesis.
In short: complete bollocks. You've come striding in here with your complete lack of knowledge of what is going on and proclaim so you can avoid action.
> I hear and read about all these CO2 footprint models, but not once do they discuss the CO2 consumption by vegetation.
Because you never bothered looking. Read the flipping IPCC reports! It's one of the sources of anthropogenic CO2, the removal of vegetation!
Pointless blathering by someone who has less than a clue: they've assumed that they know without going to the bother of looking.
> Some recent research has indicated that the warming of the atmosphere is not associated with CO2 as much as it's associated with increased water vapor.
No, there's LOTS. But, as an agronomist, I would have thought you'd know about RAIN.
Two thirds of the greenhouse effect is from water vapour.
But it is an amplifier, not a leader because it rains out far too quickly to affect other climate level forcings.
CO2 lasts for centuries at enhanced levels.
You are no agronomist.
You sound rather like Tim Curtin.
> I never mentioned castro.
I never said you did. Reading comprehension still below zero.
And why would I bother with a goatse link, spots?
> Cassandra was a girl. Bernard J. is not a girl.
Cassandra probably wasn't a seeress cursed by the Gods.
I think that this is a far more pertinent difference than any purely physiological differences if you're going to get petty, Michelle.
And neither have any bearing as to what Cassandra means when you're saying:
> all Cassandra-like
unless you meant "all girl-like".
Was your post there merely verbal vomit?
Ww, cn lwys cnt n y, Ww. Thnks. nd n nswr t yr qstn, ys, m pst ws "mrl vrbl vmt." H Dltds! prvd sm qlt trllng, T TH DLTD CMMNT'S RQST (s cmmnts # nd #, bv), bt thn snspt gts ll th ttntn (N ffns, snspt, bt 'm th lph-trll n ths blg nd dn't pprct y p-stgng m n bt--bck ff!) Ths s tm ffrt, Dltds! Yh gtt mt m hlf-w, f y wnt m t cntn grcng ths blg wth m sprr trllng.
[Bored now]
mike, your comment at #29 makes no sense - you either got the meaning of the term backward or just wanted to say that Bernard J. is a girl (possibly that his mama is fat?), in which case using 'Cassandra-like' is without meaning (as Bernard J. is not only not a girl, but also not a figure out of Greek legend, a seeress, nor was he killed by Agamemnon's jealous wife), while generally being a total non-point. You're either moving the goalposts, dodging my point or just meandering randomly.
Then again, not much else makes sense what you've posted here, so let's move on and back to the matter at hand - biodiversity loss. And I know of no scientist in the field that doubts the severity of the matter. The rate of extintion far exceeds the normal "background" rate found in the fossil record and is equal to the periods of mass extinction that marked great change - change not beneficial to 90% of species.
Jason W,
I had hoped I could avoid an overt explanation. My Cassandra comment was a "clever and witty" joke. I'm a troll. Get it?
As for the rest of your comment. Oh brother. More "settled science" and scare mongering. You guys never give up do you? Let me guess. And so now we need the bio-diversity sensitive elites (formerly of the CAGW clan) to control the lives of us "small people" and pick our pockets. Right? And maybe there's even a cushy camp commandant position in it for you, right Jason W?
By the way, why didn't we hear about this oh-so-urgent bio-diversity crisis du jour when the cap-and-trade hustle was on a roll? Maybe eco-scare scams are best pushed one meme at a time. Is that it?
The glory days are over, Deltoids. A good run and a good riddance.
What 'glory days', exactly, mike? As far as I am aware, there has been precious little been done on government and international level to seriously try and address the climate change issue. Instead, a lot pandering and sucking up to shortsighted corporation interest. In Europe, where I happily live, this matter is taken a lot more seriously, as is climate change - or did you think AGW would stop because there's a Republican house majority in place now? Unfortunately, Europe isn't that big of an emitter as it is, so unless the US, China and India jump on board, precious little will continue to happen.
You didn't hear about this 'biodiversity' thing, mike, because of your and your kind's propensity to only let information through that you like, called confirmation bias. You didn't hear about this because American politics and media are notoriously dumbed down and so controlled by corporate interest it is alien even to Western Europeans (with the possible exception of Italians). Outside your narrow view, mike, in the world, people, organisations as well as businesses have been pushing initiatives in this, the UN International Year of Biodiversity: http://www.cbd.int/2010/welcome/
It is also - pay attention, mike - an _independent_ issue to AGW, although there is some overlap. You haven't heard about it? Instead of boring everyone with your authoritarian fantasies, take a look at what the adults are doing: http://iucn.org/iyb/?6386/SOS--A-new-call-on-businesses-to-respond-to-e…
Yay Jeremy Jackson! I had the honor to hear him speak once, and he is an awesome, awesome dude.
Very much not afraid to be blunt about the fact that we're all screwed, and brings plenty of data to back it up.
Plus oceans! (I am a biology student who is going to go to grad school for neuroscience/genetics, and one of my interests is cephalopod brains, so occasionally I come in contact with marine biology. I volunteer at an aquarium, too.)
One of the things I find is being neglected is biological evidence for global warming and its impacts on the earth, not just physical evidence. Consider the Humboldt squid.
It used to live off Peru for all of its recorded history as a species. This stretches back fairly early, actually.
In the past thirty years it has been creeping up the eastern Pacific. In the 1970s it was in the Sea of Cortez. In the 1990s it was off Monterey. Now it's been seen off Alaska.
Libertarians are amusing, but not in a happy sort of way. It's more like black humor.
It's refreshing to see such uninhibited anti-Americanism, Jason W. Gettin' to be like the good old days with you lefties. You're the sophisticated European thinker, Jason W, so I offer my own "American", "narrow", un-"adult", "dumbed-down", and "controlled" thoughts with some trepidation. But yeah, I agree with you. America, with a little help from the Chinese and Indians, did put a stick in the spokes of your "big" eco-plans for the "little" people. Proud to be an American. Ooh Rah!
I wonder who these luminaries are that mike and sunspot get their information from. Businessmen who have a financial stake in the matter? Statisticians who aren't familiar with the actual science? Political blowhards? Physicists or chemists who don't actually study climate change?
So funny that it's all quite filtered, whereas those of us who know better prefer to get our information from the exact people who are studying it and who have made careers of it.
Oh, and mike, if Bernard was being a Cassandra, it implies he was right but you're just plugging your ears and going 'LA LA LA I DON'T HEAR YOU'.
mike, am I right when I infer that you're one of those weirdo blowhards who thinks 'my country, right or wrong'?
Because America's all fine and dandy if it's sane. If America goes down the hole, it can go screw itself.
Blind loyalty is no virtue. It's like an abused person staying in a relationship with their abuser and claiming they're completely spotless when they've got one big, glaringly dark spot.
This whining about 'elites' is quite funny. People who say this come off strike me as people who've realized that they're stupid and they lash out as a response.
It's not our fault you're a moron.
mike, stop being deliberately obtuse. Where did I ever call on anti-Americanism? There are Americans that I like very much, and there are Americans which I do not like - in about equal measure to Germans, English etc. There is much I like about the US, and there is much I loathe about it - probably in equal measure to all the other countries I've visited.
But if you all you have to offer in a robust discussion is conspiracy nuttery, expect an appropriate response. So you can carry on ranting about 'lefties', 'scams' and whatever else here in public, if it helps save your face, but do yourself a favour and _read the links I've posted_.
Katharine,
"LA LA LA I DON'T HEAR YOU!"
Jason W,
Show a little bio-diversity respect for me, this blog's troll. It's a troll's pivilege to be "deliberately obtuse"
and to offer "robust discussions of conspiracy nuttery." It's our ecological niche in the blogosphere.
I did pull-up those links you urged on me. The very first paragraph, the United Nations looking for dough and seeking to shake down the business "community" in the name of bio-diversity. And we can be sure those bucks will go the way of the oil-for-food monies. So very predictable and so very familiar.
Does this mean no windmills and solar panels in those locales where their presence might adversely impact the ambient bio-diversity? Not as long as there's "big-green" money to be made. We can be sure of that. And oh by the way, the U. S. did not sign up to the Nagoya pig-in-a-poke deal. But as long as you're only wasting your own money, Jason W, then go for it. Proud to be an American. Ooh Rah!
Ah, yes, of course - all it's about is a shakedown. Yes, now that you mention it, I do remember those shocking images of various CEO's forced at gunpoint to sign that insidious deal. It really warmed my eco-commie (or was it -nazi? I forget sometimes) heart.
And those poor Nokia people, no business sense in them - it really is a wonder how they managed to stay no. 1 mobile phone producer all this time, when they fall for any old scam so readily. *waits for the inevitable "green wash! green wash!" honking*
I better get some more work done, so I regret I can't rise to your new windmills bait. Although I am very curious about the "big green" - is that the new name for what is as yet a niche industry? Funky... I am also curious how "big green" is supposed to establish control, as opposed to say, big oil? Big energy in general? Do you feel controlled, mike?
#19:
There you have it, Majorajam. Denialists like mike & sunspot, commenting on this very blog make your point better than you do yourself. I certainly don't disagree with you. But what are you going to do about it besides whine? Change your incandescent bulbs to compact fluorescents? Make some other token gesture to satisfy "whatever duties (your) values and morality.. oblige"? Quote Gould or some other dead white guy? You may as well strive for your own personal immortality as attempt to keep Homo from driving itself extinct. You may like your life and love your children and all that, but the collapse of biodiversity is in the pipeline and there isn't a damn thing you or anyone else can do about it at this point.
> But what are you going to do about it besides whine?
Funny you saying that then going on and saying
> Change your incandescent bulbs to compact fluorescents?
Isn't that something besides whining?
Complete lack of evidence of brain activity there, old boy.
Maybe it's mike again with more verbal vomit.
Token gestures soothe your guilty conscience do they, young fella? May as well just whine.
No, dumbo, you said "But what are you going to do about it besides whine?" then gave an example.
Therefore, your complaint and, ironically, whine was answered by your very own self.
Find a grown up to help you with the thinking.
"As for Chavez, your entire understanding of Venezuelan politics appears to come straight from FOX news of the Washington Times."
Not possible since I do not watch Fox News (nor any other TV news) and I don't read the Washington Times. Nice try though.
Ah, yes. The imminent demise of EvolutionAGW. Still imminent after all these years!
Hold on. This sounds very familiar... Which side of the debate is supposed to be the religious side, again?
> "As for Chavez, your entire understanding of Venezuelan politics appears to come straight from FOX news of the Washington Times."
> Not possible
It's entirely possible for it to appear so.
It *appears* the sun moves around the earth, but, since the sun is massively larger than the earth, this is impossible.
Still appears to.
So since you don't watch TV or News or whatever, your complete lack of understanding on, well, damn near everything, is now explicated.
Course maybe you're getting your info from your boss or your preacher (cf "God will not let the earth flood from AGW") or your drinking buddies who DO watch Faux.
I noticed, I have no problem with that.
Heh! There was never any threat of that, blockade or not.
You'll see it from me. We should not meddle in the affairs of other countries that do likewise.
Oh brother. I like and trust the MSM as much as you do, I just think they are a bunch of left-leaning stooges, while you think they are, uh, I don't know what, who take marching orders from "The Pentagon."
I don't think there are any on this board. I'm not even sure what you're whining about now, Wow. Guess it doesn't matter. Seems to me like you just like to whine, whether you have anything to whine about or not.
So what do you think about the comments so far Tim? Is this what you had in mind when you started blogging? Seems to me that people are scared of the prospect of mass extinction and that they express this fear in various ways. Some, by denial. Others by name calling & trolling. Then there's those who change the subject, to Castro or Cassandra, of all things. I think that Dan L in comment #13 has the best approach: just kick back & observe it all unfold. How fortunate we are to live in a time of biodiversity collapse! After all, it doesn't happen very often.
I guess it's not all bad news. Three classes of organism seem to be thriving:
1. weeds;
2. feral animals; and (judging by this thread)
3. internet trolls.
OK....lets look at a farming problem/solutions.
The most fertile soils for food production have been and are being swallowed up by the urban sprawl, this must stop !
I'm sure that most in here believe that food can't be grown successfully without fertilizer ?
Food grown with fertilizer is hydroponics in disguise.
Fertilizer destroys the biodiversity and structure of the soil, the reduced array of life forms in the soil then can no longer work synergistically to make minerals bio available to supply the plant with the balance of minerals that it requires for proper health and growth.
Biodynamic farms have little problems with pests eating their crops, Organic farms only really have problems if they use too much nitrogen (in the form of chook shit usually), the plants are healthier and seem to be mostly unpalatable to pests, and fresh food also has a longer shelf life.
Do you know that weeds tell you very accurately the condition of the soil beneath them ?
Often what grows on top is what is needed below, in farming mostly what is needed below is already there, a subsoil plow (such as a yeomans) gently shatters the soil and the hard pan, it leaves the top soil on the top and sub soil underneath, this allows water and air to penetrate deeper and encourages the annual grasses, weeds or crops to sink their roots deeper. Now remember that the organic matter that you see on the top also has organic matter (roots) below, the plant dies and leaves this behind and it is converted to soil, with annuals this is a year round process, the air and water that is now there enhances the necessary microbial activity molds fungis ect.
Conventional problem weeds mostly disappear as the soil changes and are replaced by new more beneficial ones, yes weeds can be beneficial.
I have done this, I have increased soil depth from 50mm to a beautiful friable 300mm in 2 years. When there is a heavy frost adjacent soils are totally whited out, these improved soils have little frost on them, you can put your hands in the soil to warm them, proof of abundant microbial activity.
So why are fertilizers necessary ?
Agriculture Education: funded by who ?
Agriculture Education: teaches what farming methods ?
Agriculture Education is one of the biggest causes of the problems you see in that video above !!
Wanna talk about herbicides ?
Jaramillo found that the plants he studied seemed to become more efficient with their water use when it became more scarce. But he also cautioned that future risks for the world's plant species did not end with climate change. Human action would continue to determine the fate of the world's forests, he said.
"What the fossil record is showing is that plants have already the genetic variability to cope with high temperature and high levels of CO2.
"Rather than global warming, the [trouble] for tropical plants is deforestation. The fossil record shows that, when you don't have humans around, the plants can deal with high temperatures and CO2."
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/xwf
Is anyone game enough to discuss population control ?
Make no mistake, there are lots of threats to the ecosystems of the ocean, from over-fishing to nutrient run-off, BPA (endocrine disruptor's), radioactive materials, pharmaceuticals ect.
Acidification from CO2 is way down the list.
The attention CO2 is getting is deflecting funds and action from the much greater threats and it is time scientists had the courage to admit this.
Here is a possible solution to deep sea trawling and whale hunting in the southern ocean.
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/xwk
Your problem darwinsdog is you're too insecure to listen to anyone else. 'Denialists like mike & sunspot' are not in any way "Perfectly illustrative of our species capacity to work diligently and with ruthless efficiency to undermine its own interests" 'apropos of my first comment'. mike and sunspot are rubes. Traffic accidents that may inspire some rubbernecking and a twinge of regret but nothing more.
It's 'The Agronomist' that conjures up evil's ever-reigning-upper-hand, and that was pretty clear too if only you'd have taken a second to understand what I'd wrote. To the extent that what it/he/she pasted/wrote to this thread was at all intelligible, The Agronomist's hit-and-run concern trolling doubt-injection did make clear that cap and trade was a bad thing. Odd that. The only place that catch phrase appeared prior to his comment was as buried pretty deeply in a comment by yours truly. It's probably just me, but that strikes me as odd.
But hey, maybe he's just a converted skeptic with a google that's not one for follow-up discussion. Maybe he poked around Deltoid after his first ever post and realized he didn't like the place. Or maybe he had a massive cerebral hemorrhage just after bequeathing that final work to the world. We don't know but do know it matters not. There isn't need of hunches when the evidence is already overwhelming that a primary tactic of those who would manipulate the mikes and the sunspots of the world to do their bidding is to defecate on the discourse. To rob people of the opportunity to learn about the world as it is, and to interact with others, to explore ideas and science in an unfettered way. Which of course is just another brick for the wall.
And that's the other thing that in your rush to be clever you didn't get. My posts aren't and weren't about catastrophic loss of biodiversity, mass extinction or even the environment. My lament- or whinge as you'd have it- is about my struggle to accept just how corrupt and dysfunctional and ignoble and incapable *we are* as a race.
But the evidence just keeps on mercilessly mounting. It's a terrible thing losing your faith in humanity's capacity to achieve anything good at all, but I believe I'm there now. I held onto the idea that there was some meaning in existence somewhere even if I couldn't really articulate it, but there can't be one without the other. And I'm really not so sure anymore.
If that's ineffectual whining than so be it. Unlike some of us I'm not here seeking approval.
I have repeatedly pointed out how virtually all global warming research funds either (1) build the case for humanity as the primary cause of recent warming, or (2) simply assume humans are the cause.
Virtually NO funding has supported research into the possibility that warming might be mostly part of a natural climate cycle. And if you give scientists enough money to find something, they will do their best to find it.
Politicians have orchestrated and guided this effort from the outset, and scientists like to believe they are helping to Save the Earth when they participate in global warming research.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Hypothesis, Nothing More
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/xwn
then sunspot drops a clanger....
Roy Spencer is a shill for big oil and this quote shows it. you don't research to prove an existing idea; you set up null hypothesis and see how the data fits it. then you modify the hypothesis accordingly. if lots of research is being done that shows human are the cause that is because the that is where the data leads. doh. antone understanding the scientific method gets that which shows us Roy has twisted it to appeal to those who don't and appease those he shills for.
plus, given the millions spent by big oil in propaganda, why nor spend a bit on research to prove their case as Dr Roy suggests? answer; they don't cos they know all the data would do is all weight to AGW.
Sad to see Roy Spencer now reverting to outright lying.
Yes Sunspot. Governments are behind this. It must be why global political action on the issue has been an overwhelming success.
BTW Sunspot, have you managed to break the laws of thermodynamics and build that free energy machine yet? Or is The Man keeping that down?
Ben,
It doesn't matterr where you get your infantile information about the world - it certainly comes from some msm source. Its elementary school level stuff, whatever.
As far as Mike is concerned, he even admits he's a troll. That is a good start. Mike, care to debate the topic of this thread, that of biodiversity loss? What do you understand about this issue and the equally important one of the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning? Of non-linear system dynamics? Of functional redundancy? Of alternate stable states? Of interaction network webs? Of stability, resistance and resilience? Of context and trait dependent processes that regulate system functions? Or is it that you do not even have a clue of the basics in ecology and prefer to wallow in ignorance by accusing those who know a lot more than you of being scare-mongering luddites?
Jeff Harvey,
Such a list of debate topics! And such a bold challenge that I debate you! I mean, like, I'm so intimidated. I mean, like, little ol' me debate a Deltoid-certified smartypants like you, Jeff Harvey? I mean, like, I don't even own a pocket-protector or anything. O. K. I accept the challenge. But since the etiquette in these situations is that the choice of weapons is mine since you issued the challenge, here's my weapon of choice:
-For any bio-diversity topic you wish to debate with me you must first make available on the internet all your data, methods and any in-house discussion of the same, to include any stray, compromising e-mails.
-You may not use any references in our debate unless the reference's data, methods and any in-house discussion of the same, to include any stray compromising e-mails have been made available on the internet.
With the above weapon in hand, I promise you that the blogosphere and I will give you the debate of your life on any topic you choose. And if your interpretations of your data/methods and derived policy recommendations, if any, survive such scrutiny, then you will have made a signal contribution to your fellow man and will have done much to restore the credibility of enviornmental science. Otherwise, we have more than enough agit-prop science on behalf of your fellow lefties' brave-new-worlds and your betters' various make-a-buck hustles, thank you.
I have to say, sunspot offers valid points in posts 58 when looking at agriculture. Yes, I agree that conventional agriculture is highly overestimated in its benefits and damages are largely overlooked - much to many ecosystems' detriment, see the massive dead zone at the Mississipi delta. Organic and biodynamic agriculture offers excellent alternatives to biodiversity threat by agricultural activities. Yet Big Agro and Big Chem (Monsanto, BASF etc.) have absolute vested interest in avoiding a large scale shift to organic agriculture - it will directly affect their profits. And just those two corporations have immense clout with politicians, there is a very active revolving door between Monsanto and the USDA.
Re sunspot's post at 59: Yes, there are studies that establish that some trees and plants will benefit in growth - good news because more carbon can be stored in their biomass. Yet those plants crucial to our food supply may fare not so well, and are anyway limited by other factors usually in shorter supply than CO2 (which is NOT 'plant food' any more than O2 is 'animal food').
System thinking demands, as with almost everything, a holistic approach to solutions. It is pointless to focus solely on redusing emissions, while ignoring the massive threats of overfishing, biodiversity loss and environmental damage - it is equally pointless to introduce widespread measures to alleviate the latter problems, while ever increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere disrupt climate systems with a pace that is too rapid for natural adaption. Both long-term and short-term issues need to be addressed.
Jeff Harvey,
I see that my message #68 was cut-off in part. So to clarify my choice of weapons.
For any topic we debate, you must post to the internet all of your data and methods bearing on that topic to include all records of internal discussions of your data and methods including any compromising e-mails.
You may not cite any reference in the debate unless that reference's data and methods bearing on the debate topic have been posted to the internet together with any records of relevant internal discussion to include any compromising e-mails.
I agree that Homo is "corrupt and dysfunctional and ignoble and incapable" when it comes to taking care of the biosphere that supports its bloated population and in looking out for its own best interests. You seem surprised or disappointed or disgusted by this fact - like you expected otherwise and it's only recently dawned on you what a nasty ape we are. Like you only just now read history or opened your eyes to all the anthropogenic ugliness around you.
See what I mean? You wouldn't be "loosing your faith" if you hadn't had any to begin with. Why is it "a terrible thing" to lose a misplaced faith in something that didn't deserve it in the first place? And why should others be subjected to your public whining about your personal insecurity of angst?
So your superstitious belief in teleology has ran up against the reality that the universe is ateleological and you're upset about that? So upset that you post these existential whines in the comment section of an internet blog. The thing is that Homo did what every other species would do given the opportunity: inflated its census number nearly two orders of magnitude over the carrying capacity (K) of the biosphere. Populations that exceed K crash, and the more they exceed K the harder they crash. In the case of Homo impending population crash is likely to be all the way down to extinction. And along with human extinction, a significant portion of biodiversity will crash to extinction along with it. This is in the works, is inexorable and inevitable. Of course it is: just as all individuals die all species eventually go extinct and species whose population grossly exceed K go extinct sooner rather than later. And so what? Biodiversity recovers following mass extinction episodes. This is all just basic population biology, Majorajam, and you seem disappointed or disillusioned that reality isn't otherwise. Rather than "lamenting" (whining about) the reality of the situation, I say revel in it. There's a universal fascination watching a house (oecos) burn down, or in "rubbernecking" at an accident scene, as you mention. Get over yourself, lighten up and quit whining.
Jeff, since you have experience in biodiversity and loss of species what are your views on the Global Seed Vault in Svalbard?
Here is my take on it.
It is certainly a good idea to protect heritage seeds so that their unique properties are not lost. This is the way it has been portrayed in the popular media. However, when you look at who is funding this project I get a completely different take on the real purpose of the seed vault.
The people behind it are large multi-national chemical and seed companies, very wealthy individuals who seek power over everything, and governments that have been supportive of GMO's.
I think that this project is just away for these people to gain even more control over our food supplies.
Jeff, I'd be very interested on hearing your views on this project.
Let me see if I have this straight darwinsdog, there is no meaning to human existence, but one shouldn't be so impolite as to subject others to unpleasantry. In other news, nihilist would-be kidnappers have an overdeveloped sense of fairness. And what's insecurity of angst anyway? Fascinating.
Careful where you point that steel trap mind master darwin.
Well, have you found any? Seems like you expected to and when you didn't, your feelings were hurt. Sorry, but why should others be subjected to your whining over your unrealistic expectations being disappointed?
Unpleasantry is in the eyes of the beholder but unmanly whining about situations beyond one's control is pretty much annoying to everyone.
That's good to know but what's it got to do with the topic of mass extinction? Or is it supposed to be some lame attempt at sarcasm?
The f & r keys are next to one another and the spellchecker doesn't catch this class of typographical error. Is this how you assert your intellectual superiority over those you engage in debate with, Majorajam, by pointing out their typos?
Sorry if by pointing it at you I exacerbated your hurt feelings over humans being ignoble. Since you seem to enjoy whining you're welcome for my giving you something else to whine about.
Darminsdog, it would be worth putting up with your sneering tone if you had something to say.
But you don't so it isn't.
>*I promise you that the blogosphere and I will give you the debate of your life on any topic you choose.*
Promises, promises.
More blog science, and another [Google Galileo](http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/google-galileo-five-…).
Mike will you ever learn the difference between being pointlessly argumentative and advancing knowledge?
Science has already evolved a standard (the published literature), your standard is not an improvement, it is a regression.
Ian Forrester @ 72
When Iraq was illegally invaded one of the first laws passed by the puppet government was to ban seed saving and farmers were only to then use Monsanto seeds, this was bringing democracy to Iraq.
It's always intrigued me how the nefarious plans of the elite extend well beyond their own existence.
Codex Alimentiarius is a worry.
Majorajam, for your own mental security don't read the following link.
Blackwater, Monsanto, and Bill Gates http://www.tinyurl.com.au/xx0
Majorajam, for your own mental security don't read the following.
Codex Alimentarius, a global system of control over food. It allows the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the WTO to take control of every food on earth and remove access to natural food supplements. Its bizarre history and its expected impact in limiting access to adequate nutrition (while mandating GM food, GM animals, pesticides, hormones, irradiation of food, etc.) threatens all safe and organic food and health itself, since the world knows now it needs vitamins to survive, not just to treat illnesses.
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/xx1
Is CO2 the major problem, or just a diversion ?
[Sunsplotch said "Is CO2 the major problem, or just a diversion"?](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/mass_extinction_6.php#comment-2…)
At a guess, I'd estimate that you cranks are the least likely to adapt well if we make our accustomed climate and its dependent agricultural systems go haywire with continued uncontrolled emissions. Your understanding of and grip on the real world handicaps you significantly, IMHO.
Great comments at Spencer's blog, e.g., from an "M.S., M.D.":
Pure denial.
Well, since I think it's more likely that you are this Jeff Harvey, and not this Jeff Harvey, your understanding of these issues is unlikely to impress me.
And your sources are so superior to mine? My greatest source of news is NPR, would you consider NPR to be a great MSM corporate media source? Your sources appear to be a bunch of batshit insane leftist quacks. You read a great volume of material, and if that makes you feel superior, good for you.
Ben, you under-cut yourself.
Though not unexpectedly.
Darwinsdog.
Yes, the biosphere will, in the fullness of geological time, respond with a re-biodiversification after humans have FUBARed many of the current ecosystems on the planet, and run helter-skelter into extinction themselves.
And yes, in this process humans are demonstrating no justifiable claim to nobility in the context of their care for the species which which they share the planet.
However, you commit a number of logical fallacies that render your argument invalid.
You speak of existential angst, and of the non-teleologicality of the universe, but to the extent that humans have manifested as a species on the planet, they have a 'purpose' here, which is to perpetuate their species as best they can (you actually note this yourself in your observation about increasing the numbers of humans). To this end, it is natural for (at least some) humans to be concerned about the future of their decendants, and of the rest of the biosphere upon which they and their decendants depend. Thus, in this matter, you are committing the fallacy of logical inconsistency.
Your nihilism, previously pointed out by Majorajam, whilst it might have an objective validity separate from the interests of humans, neverthless falls into the fallacy of absurd extrapolation. It is entirely consistent with reason that humans should be concerned about the fate of their own species, and of the species and the ecosystems upon which they rely. Expression of this concern is not rendered invalid by anything that evolution might be capable of on the scale of tens of millions of years into the future. Therefore, in this second matter, your reasoning (such as it is) demonstrates aspects of each of the fallacies ad novitam, secundum quid et simpliciter, and ignoratio elenchi. To that list one can also append the fallacies of alleged certainty and of absurd extrapolation, and quite probably an exception fallacy as well. Oh, and probably the old standard red herring, for good measure.
You note correctly that there is already an unavoidable extinction debt. You go on to claim that it will be interesting to watch the unfolding of the 6th great extinction, that we should revel in it, and therefore that we should allow it to take its course. Without looking too hard I can detect aspects of the fallacies of false dichotomy and of false dilemma, as well as a selection from the logical fallacies mentioned in the previous paragraph.
Then, n your comment about the extremely rapidly increasing human population, you note that other species would do it if they "had the chance".
Firstly, this is not exactly correct, because most species actually maintain a type of population 'stability' based on what is essentially real-time feed-back with their food-sources, their predators, and their diseases, as well as with the abiotic resources that they require. Such feedings-back have formed as a consequence of complex evolutionary adaptation of species with and within their ecosystems.
Humans, through the explosive emergent cultural phenomena that resulted from - and included - recordable language, fire, advanced tool making and clothing, habitat modification, domestication, and many other cognitively deliberate actions, have developed beyond the point that their ecosystem (now the entire planet) and the species within it are able to adapt in "real time". Thus the usual biological sequelæ that result from the growth of a species are greatly affected, to the point that they may be vastly exaggerated or entirely absent. So, whilst the human population will eventually be impacted in a Malthusian manner (contrary to the wishes and beliefs of the infinite growthers such as Tim Curtin and Neil Craig), the growth of our population is not really occurring in the way that other species boom and bust.
For extra credit I will let you name the fallacy or fallacies which you have committed in making this claim.
I could continue, but with sufficient error in your logic already explained, I think that it is fair to say that you need to revisit your stance before a productive discussion might be had.
Mike, you're still dirty because I applied a subtle vocabulary correction to you, when you yourself were (ironically) 'correcting' your own usage. Hmmm, so you're already stepping into fallacy land, and you haven't even said anything coherent yet. And your 'challenge' to Jeff Harvey is so bogus that I gave up trying to count the number of committed and potential fallacies of logic.
Neverthless, if you want to debate biodiversity with Jeff or others here, I invite you to pick a subject from either of the two Tim Curtin threads and follow it up here. Curtin left loads of howlers that you might find ammenable to incorporation into your ideology - let's see where you differ from the professionals in your perceptions of the discipline...
I would only place one stipulation on the manner of debate - that it be supportable with peer-reviewed science.
Bernard J - no offence intended, but you read like you've been reading too many of Monktons polemics recently.
Guthrie,
it's probably the thesaurus that I shredded and sprinkled over my oats for breakfast yesterday.
Or possibily a hangover from a few days of trying to educate some HIV denialists. I became progressively more technical, and I tend to hang on to my verbosity for a few days after such conversations.
Erk, Monckton... you know how to hurt a guy's feelings!
Ben,
You were the same person, if I am correct, who once claimed that Obama was a socialist. Heaven knows where you dredged up this nonsense from, but in my view this disqualified anything else you stated from being taken remotely seriously.
Your 'information' on world affairs certainly is limited. Its kindergarten level nonsense for the most part. Certainly gleaned from some MSM source or other that amplifies whatever comes from the Pentagon. To be honest, I usually pass over your posts in Deltoid because of their mind-numbing simplicity. If you want to live in your cloistered little world of US exceptionalism, then by all means, do it. But leave most of us here out of it.
This thread is about extinction rates and the consequences of losing biodiversity. Trust you to ignore the topic and delve into political arguments that are clearly well beyond your competence. If you want to discuss science, and more relevantly population ecology, then do it. I have worked in this field for almost 20 years and I would be happy to oblige. But you are not going to drag me down into your myopic little political world.
Oh no, Mike, you aren't the same guy who wanted to debate me on the wonderful benefits of C02 are you? Using another name here?
First of all, before I engage in any kind of debate with you, I would like to know exactly what your qualifications are in any field of science. I suspect I know what the answer is, and if this is true, our 'debate' will therefore be starting at the lowest common denominator. Moreover, there really is no 'debate' these days within the scientific community over the effects of human actions on biodiversity; there is a pretty strong consensus that we are extirpating species at rates several hundred to a few thousand times higher than the 'normal' background rate. The debate on the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning is a bit more contentious, although this has more to do with how much functional redundancy there is within certain systems and in determining which species or species groups play a more vital role in maintaining systemic integrity.
I get the feeling, Mike, that you are not up on the literature of Tilman, May, Srivastava, McCann, Naeem, Grime, Huston, Loreau, Schmitz, Klironomos, Lewis, Petchey, Wardle, van der Putten, Pimm, Levin, Pacala and many others who are exploring issues related to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. If this is the case, then you have a lot of reading to do. Also, have you read anything on McCarthur and Wilson's theory of island biogeography, and how their models, along with the models of exponential decay from Terborgh and Soule apply to habitat loss and extinction rates?
The point is, Mike, if you want to debate me on this subject, I fully expcet you to be up on the literature in the relevant fields. If not, then I am wasting my time.
> And yes, in this process humans are demonstrating no justifiable claim to nobility in the context of their care for the species which which they share the planet.
Which is rather odd since many of the most vocal opponents of action are using Christian religion to bolster their argument where we were given dominion over all the plants and animals of the earth.
Remember, they still *belong* to God.
I don't think you'd re-employ a gameskeeper who kills all your plants and animals.
> Yes, there are studies that establish that some trees and plants will benefit in growth - good news because more carbon can be stored in their biomass.
Annual planckton bloom is more than all the land plant bloom combined.
It totals about 6 billion tons.
The inference is that there's less than 12 billion tons of plant growth in a year.
We humans pump out about 13 billion tons of Carbon as CO2 each year.
Therefore if we removed ALL death processes for plants, which requires removal of all plant predators, we still have to cut back about 20% to make it equal.
And, after we've eaten the plant eaters and their predators, what will we eat?
Carbon?
Ian,
Many thanks for your question.
Let me put it this way: sunspot has it partially right (for once) except that he is one of those people who is terrified of government whereas I see as much (or more) control of biodiversity under the guise of 'intellectual property' by multinational corporations. Thus, the problem, as I see it, is not so much in governments controlling the seed bank but a few corporations whose power extends well into the policy arena. The fact is that, in recent years, many government 'regulatory bodies', especially in the US, have become revolving doors for people who are, or have been employed, in senior positions by agri-biotech companies.
Furthermore, the storage of seed stocks has its limitations. Certainly, we are losing vast amounts of genetic material every day through the extinction of genetically distinct plant and animal populations; a study by Hughes et al. (1998) in Science estimated that as many as 30,000 genetically distinct populations of wild species are being lost daily as a result of various anthropogenic processes. Genetic diversity reinforces the strength and resilience of food webs and ecological communities, and therefore as humans continue to simplify the planet ecologically, systems are more likely to break down and be unable to generate services that sustain civilization. And remember that the ecological value of a species disappears long before it becomes extinct, owing to the fact that relic populations, though extant, usually contribute very little to the functioning of the communities in which they are a part.
The gist of what I am saying is that we are going in the wrong direction and at an accelerated rate. Irrespective as to attempts by various agencies - whether public or private - to control the food supply, which should be of profound concern, it is, or should also be of serious concern that humans are pushing systems that permit us to exist and persist towards thresholds beyond which they will be unable to do so, at least in ways that we take for granted.
The video......really is lot of arm waving, lot of fear and lot of grizzle gutsing about the world is doomed.
Whats the point Jeff ?
Is it that your waiting for someone to solve the magic question ? "How to cure the Hominidae Virus ?"
So far in here JasonW & Ian showed some interest.
Do you know that when people see that sort of information most seem to say, "OH LOOK AT WHAT THOSE HORRIBLE PEOPLE ARE DOING TO THE WORLD", then they turn off the bigscreen TV, and maybe drive down to bunnings in the hummer and buy some more cheeep chinese shit that they don't really need, or maybe duck down to the tanning salon, then pop back in here and pump some CO2 outta their poodah telling me I'm a friggen loony coz I don't fully believe the IPCC diarrhea.
Jeff, the future world is rooted !
You can't even get your mates in here to talk or offer possible solutions.
It's sad !
Jeff Harvey,
Yeah, Jeff, I read all those guys you listed and bunch more besides. And when I got through with all that hooey, all I could do was to quote my hero, Buck Turgidson, "I'm beginning to smell a big fat Commie rat!"
Mike,
In other words, you have no qualifications whatsoever in relevant scientific fields.
Thanks for the clarification.
Sunspot,
The video is much more than 'arm-waving'. Many scientists are saying that there will be consequences if we keep on simplifying the planet biologically. In fact, there already are. But the important point is that the situation will get worse as natural habitats continue to be destroyed or altered. If you and Mike want to believe in the tooth fairy, and feel that humans are exempt from nature's laws, then fine, do so. This generation may well be the last to maintain and exacerbate such a large ecological deficit. However, if you have children, then they will not be so forgiving, given that they and their own children will be the one's that have to deal with the consequences of the mess we are creating for them.
Jeff, my arm waving comment is in regards to the lack of impact this type of documentary has, people try to put fears to the back of their minds, they don't see the devastation happening in their own worlds so it isn't on their list of priorities.
These documentaries don't seem to be powerful enough to imbed into the forefront of peoples minds, the problem is that only the masses have the power for change, both you and I know that.
I'm not 'terrified of government', but I do know that they will, and do, favor the big polluter's, only public swing has any hope of changing that.
Generally people can be very self centred, they live in their own worlds and have their own problems to deal with.
You need a bigger audience that will listen and contribute to finding solutions.
Leaving things in the hands of experts doesn't necessarily always achieve the objective you know, the world is the way it is because of experts.
Bernard J., it's not so much that darwinsdog is a nihilist as that he desperately aspires to be. Nihilists generally don't write blog comments, much less ones moaning about bad manners. That qualifies as oxymoronic, hence my allusion to the faux-kidnappers of the Cohen brothers' masterpiece (if you haven't seen the move- gasp -the Big Lebowski's German kidnappers were a brilliant send up of faux-nihilism, Los Angeles amateurism/narcissism and German youth culture).
sunspot, you are confused. There is nothing wrong with documentaries like 'How we wrecked the oceans' nor what people who are moved by them go on to 'do' with their new sentiments. Those people don't dry their tears and then go merrily about their destructive conspicuously overconsuming existence. People believe in justice. It's in our bones.
They make a calculation about how they can help, and they act. For most, that means political actions and small personal contributions- voting for politicians they believe will affect the appropriate policies, recycling, not buying 'Chilean Sea Bass', reducing power consumption, etc. For some, that might even inspire activism- raising money, circulating petitions, not buying grown locally grown produce and otherwise monitoring environmental impact, etc.
Now perhaps you can argue that there are too few people that make it to the latter category and become more determinative of outcomes. And there's probably good reason to believe that. Needless to say however, the people that care enough to act on any level are not the primary, secondary or tertiary cause of our problems.
Look instead to the vast number of ninnies who see the profound evidence of damage that was presented in that video- the photos of toxic blooms covering thousands upon thousands of square miles, of the demise of all but jellyfish fisheries along the atlantic coast, etc.- and shrug their shoulders. 'It's all hand waving'. Ehem. 'It's a liberal hippie who's traded his integrity for research grants'. 'It's biased propaganda'. Etc.
And look to the ones holding the strings: the moneyed interests that bankroll and organize these very effective discourse-destroying disinformation campaigns, (see again this thread's agronomist), and controlling the politicians. These are the most insidious of all because they of course know first hand that the disinformation is just that... and yet they proceed. As Jeremy Grantham has taken to saying, don't these guys have any grandchildren?
I can't say that I understand the bile directed at those sufficiently conscientious to take action, however ineffective, when there is such a bounty of real villains on which to spend it.
Right, at the taxpayers' expense. Nothing makes a person feel superior like spending others' money. If I had a job like that, then I'd have time to read endless diatribes against America and capitalism. As it stands, I have a real job and customers to satisfy, and I don't have the time to waste.
Maybe an academic career would be better. I'd get to spend money extracted from individuals and corporations at the point of a gun, I'd have more "me time" so that I could elevate my kindergarten understanding of the world by reading leftist authors till my eyes bugged out, and I'd have the resources required to spend more time on my posts here at Deltoid. Forgive me.
ben,
the academic career which you evidently did not pursue, which is why we have to put up with your kindergarten understanding of the world - as exemplified by your last post. I suggest you concentrate fully on 'satisfying' your customers.
JasonW,
I suggest you and your ilk keep sucking at the public teat. You certainly wouldn't make much of a living anywhere else.
ben,
Though you might have an argument that whatever education you may have received by sucking at the public teat was a waste of tax dollars, the same cannot necessarily be said of everyone.
I can almost accept Dan L's point: In one sense, being witness to the final collapse of life on the planet would indeed saisfy a sort of curiosity. How it all ends is what every fan of narrative wants to know.
And yet, Dan's exposition contains a paradox. Once all life collapses, once cognition and awareness ends, of what possible value is the knowledge one briefly acquires by being a witness. Quite literally, who cares what you know. It only matters if you can share it and act rationally on that basis.
Having a totally pointless insight seems a paradox to me. Accordingly, being around to see the end of life doesn't appeal to me at all, however morbidly curious one is about such things.
Sure, ben. It's interesting to note that you, without any sort of indication about my daytime activity, automatically assume I'm 'sucking on the public teat' - whatever that means, as every man, woman, child and their family dog is doing exactly that, to some extent or the other. Don't bother with a weak riposte, it's bound to be some pseudo-libertarian talking point or the other.
Ben:
"...I'd get to spend money extracted from individuals and corporations at the point of a gun, "
Can you provide an example of such a thing, or are you indulging in alarmist hyperbole?
Ben's intellect-envy is transparent.
Fran, I'm pretty sure, that all life will not end. I'd even hazard to guess that short of total planetary annihilation life on Earth cannot be destroyed. _Life as we know it_ (and need it, to continue thriving as a species), however...that is a different matter.
[Ian Forrester](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/mass_extinction_6.php#comment-2…).
I missed your question about question about Svalbard earlier, but I will belatedly add my $1 x 10-2 worth.
In the context of the current socio-political milieu such a genetic repository is certainly an insurance against germ-line loss in the environment, and offers a way of retrieving at the eleventh hour unique genetics that might otherwise be lost to humanity (and to the biosphere). However, such utility presupposes several conditions â first, that the social structure and expertise to retrieve the germ-lines will exist in the future, and second, that the seed bank is maintained properly... many seeds, even in cold storage, require periodic germination and re-banking in order to avoid loss of viability.
In today's global environment something like Svalbard allows countries and institutions to recover cultivars and species that might be lost by extinction in the wild, or by minimisation of agricultural diversity as a consequence of commercial pressure. It can provide a vital insurance against the emergence of new or resistant pests and diseases, and a way of developing new agricultural industries that might otherwise never have seen the light of day..
However, such a facility would in practice not be the Noah's ark of botany that many seem to imagine. If a circumstance arose where a very large number of cultivated and wild species were only represented in such a seed bank, it is doubtful that humanity would have the wherewithal in such a scenario to actually re-establish any significant commercial and/or ecological presence of the cultivars/species. And if and when our culture comes to a point where, say, the fate of the populations of entire countries rests on the germ-lines stored in facilities such as Svalbard, it is quite likely that conditions might prevail where there would be next to no way that people would be able to access the seeds, or to disperse them far from the facility.
In my view the practical utility of such seed-banks is to provide a short- to medium-term stop-gap whilst humanity recalibrates its appreciation of agricultural/horticultural diversity and how to protect such, and learns to ameliorate it impact upon the biodiversity of the planet. Beyond these targets other goals, whilst they might be lofty and laudable, are probably just pie-in-the-sky on anything other than a very small scale, and certainly on a much smaller scale than is represented by the theoretical potential of such seed banks themselves.
Sadly, a similar assessment probably applies in the long term to many of the breeding programs for endangered fauna species in captivity, with the added problem that because they are not so easily placed in suspended animation, there is a risk of semi-domestication or at least of mal-adaptation to the 'wild' over time.
When it comes to the problem of preserving the planet's biodiversity for its functional utilities and for its æsthetic qualities, humanity has much less time to put its game in order than many seem to think.
@92:
Really?? Buck Turgidson? Your hero?
Either you haven't seen the film or you put way too much value on stupidity.
zoot,
You seem to share with your fellow Deltoids a dreadful seriousness. Jeez, guys, lighten up! The "little people" call it a sense of humor.
@92:
Oh, now I get it. What a thigh-slapper Mike. Shit, you're funnier than a bagful of hammers. I bet you're a hoot down at your local. Pity Bill Hicks is dead, or he'd be quaking in his boots.
Troll.
zt, s ddn't ndrstmt y, zt. Y'r n Dltd's bst. N dbt bt t. nd mstr f Dltd's nq brnd f hmr. ncdntll, 'm "brd-crtfd" trll. Pls ddrss m prprl n th ftr. s Sntr Bxr mght s " wrkd hrd..."
Mike, why not come clean? You didn't even know who Buck Turgidson was when you wrote 92. And you certainly weren't aware of the plot point where he utters the words you quoted with approval.
My guess is you found the quote on a web page somewhere and, trying to gather some gravitas, you quoted him as a "hero". All you needed to write was, "In the words of Buck Turgidson..."
As it is, you've quoted (as a hero) a delusional paranoiac rejecting the last chance to save the human race. Quite appropriate really, but I don't think it's what you were intending.
No you won't. You're too stupid.
Zt, Tht's twc nw tht 'v pshd tht bg rd bttn f yrs nd twc 'v gttn bld-splttr. Y nd hlp, l' bdd.
Obama Appoints Monsanto Man as FDA Food Safety Czar
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/xzz
So where are all the concern trolls now, to complain about mike wanting to blow people up who don't agree with him?
All I hear are crickets.
Maybe they were false, hmm?
Wow (ian fry) @ 31.
'CO2 lasts for centuries at enhanced levels.'
this might interest you.
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/y04
#, bv, Nc tr, Ww. Nt n f yr bst, thgh.
No, it won't spots. You've never managed to produce anything worthwhile.
CO2 exists at enhanced levels for centuries. Your trope is a well debunked [zombie argument] (http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm). All your link has is a few lone scientists making money and a name for themselves by pandering to the fears and avarice of the oil undustry and their cohorts, as can be evidenced by their claims that the statement that CO2 residence is millenia has a "sinister motive".
Funny how you proclaim "alarmism" when spouting scary titles all the time...
PS unlike your post to blogroll science (science you can wipe your arse with), here's a [paper](http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:xztla0q32-IJ:www.princeton.ed…) too.
And I wasn't talking to a self-confessed troll, michelle, I was talking to the others with even less honesty than yourself: the concern trolls.
They are seemingly absent, though they abounded when the movie from 10:10 came out...
[zombie argument](http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm), though it will return again and again.
As a dog returneth to its vomit, so does a denialist return to its zombie argument...
Longer Sunspot:
>You might be interested in this blog that says the Royal Society is wrong, they use numbers and they use words and they make claims. So the blog must be right and the RS wrong. That the blog making the claims continuously repeats false claims should not concern you.
# Thnk y fr th clrfctn, Ww.
Or, a shorter version (which seems to cover all denialist "proofs"):
> It's all a scam because people have said it's a scam
JasonW
I simply have no basis for calling that one. Plainly I hope not only that life persists but that biodiversity persists, but hope is not a prediction.
My point was the standing of DanL's hypothetical sentiment at being witness to the end of life.
I appreciate that the moderator has been kind to me for the most part.
But I see one of my comments containing the term "blood-splatter" has been "disemvowlled." Unfortunately, Wow mischaracterized that comment as: "...mike wanting to blow up those people who disagree with him." Absent the plain language of my comment, the reader who has not seen my comment will think I said such a thing.
Under the circumstances, it is patently unfair to remove my comment while allowing Wow's to stand. Therefore, I respectfully request that my comment be restored.
Let me add to my comment #122, so that there is no misunderstanding, that the use of the term "blood-splatter" in my missing comment was a "clever and witty" allusion to the film 10:10, a film well-received by the Deltoid regulars, that did indeed show people, including children, being blown up because they did not believe in the Deltoid orthodoxy. My comment in no way advocated such a thing. But unless my comment is restored, the reader only has my word for it. I hope that's enough.
So, when YOU use blood-spattering, it's a joke and isn't a problem.
But when someone you don't want to believe uses it, it's a serious matter and entirely wrong.
Would that be about right?
Of course, this is the case for not only this troll here but all the concern trolls who were so aghast at 10:10's movie.
Not merely two-faced, but a veritable Lernaean Hydra.
Pity michelle here doesn't understand that, despite his trolling, he's killing his side with his postings here.
> Unfortunately, Wow CORRECTLY characterized that comment as: "...mike wanting to blow up those people who disagree with him."
Fixed that for you there, Michelle.
Back-pedaling there won't hide the fact that you've managed to expose the concern trolls. They won't thank you for it, you know.
I wouldn't expect a bonus in your pay packet this month.
Again, I appeal to the moderator. A comment has been attributed to me that I did not make and I am deprived of my best defense--the truth. I respectfully request that my comment be restored so that the reader can judge for his/her self the matter.
Wow, you are just the sort of unethical little weasel to take advantage of this situation to score points. I see you also protected your scurrilous comments from exposure by leaving my exact words unquoted (the moderator would probably let you get away with such a quote). Wise precaution for your low-life purposes.
Let me quote you, Wow: "...mike wanting to blow up those people who don't agree with him" My comment did include the word "mike" in the author line, otherwise:
My comment did not include the word "wanting"
My comment did not include the word "to"
My comment did not include the word "blow"
My comment did not include the word "up"
My comment did not include the word "those"
My comment did not include the word "people"
My comment did not include the word "who"
My comment did not include the word "disagree"
My comment did not include the word "with"
My comment did not include the word "him"
I also note that unlike the hectoring and personally abusive comments directed at me by zoot, my response, that the moderator dis-emvowelled, was both temperate and without abuse. On the other hand, my two-line comment was a devastating bit of wit that punctured zoot's pompous vanity, made him look quite foolish, and sent him packing (zoot disappears from the thread after my last comment to him).
But the reader will never get to judge this matter (or get to see my "clever and witty" comment) unless the moderator relents--an action which I, again, respectfully request.
Luminous, tell that to my student loans. If Jeff ever has to pay back his research grants, then I'll admit you have a point.
Tim, what gives with Mike's comments. Please let us know why they have been disemvowelled.
Don't worry, michelle, your vain attempts to hide the decline in your prose hasn't worked.
You wanted to blow someone up because they didn't agree with you and all the little concern trolls (maybe one of them is your manager, hence the worry) who turned up to complain at "eco nazis" blowing people up (they seem to think it was a documentary, for some reason...) and have been conspicuously absent when you do it have been shown for the two-faced fools they are.
And your post-hoc reassertion that it was "clever and witty" may be true, but then why wasn't it clever and witty of 10:10 to actually DO THE INNOVATION and come up with that "clever and witty" idea first?
And yet all those concern trolls haven't yet apologised and called hyperbolically asserting blowing people up into little chunks what you have tried to call it: clever and witty.
Wow, you say:
"And yet all those concern trolls haven't yet apologised..."
Does it really seem reasonable, even to you Wow, to expect "concern trolls" to apologize for a comment they haven't even seen. Remember, your comments are preserved in this thread, while three of my comments, all temperate and without personal abuse, to include the comment you reference in your last comment, have been "disemvowelled." Why don't you just quote the two lines I offered to zoot so that the "concern trolls" have half-a-chance?
> Does it really seem reasonable, even to you Wow, to expect "concern trolls" to apologize for a comment they haven't even seen.
And how do you know they haven't seen it?
The concern trolls post here regularly.
They've seen it, but the endorse it when done by one of their own.
Such perversity, Wow! You know that "concern trolls" have seen something that's not there to be seen. Your epistemological methodology, please?
Make it easy on everyone. Just quote the two lines I offered zoot in my comment #111. Then rail away at the "concern trolls" to your heart's content. But who knows, the "concern trolls" may denounce me. On the other hand, when they see my actual words, they'll see that you're full of it, Wow. That's the truth of the matter, isn't it? And that's why you're not quotin' nuthin'. You're a true Deltoid, Wow.
Last line of my previous comment (#131): "You're a true Deltoid, Wow."
My apologies to the members of this blog, less Wow. I have seen no instances of unethical conduct by any of you, with the exception of Wow, despite some colorful exchanges and the general unpopularity of my views. So my comment was definitely "out of line" and I, again, offer my apology.
> You know that "concern trolls" have seen something that's not there to be seen.
Uh, you wrote it, michelle.
You wanted to blow zoot to bloody chunks because you don't like what they say.
You said it. You can't UNsay it.
And may I relay you to the words of someone who is VERY dear to your heart?
> Jeez, guys, lighten up! The "little people" call it a sense of humor.
> Posted by: mike | November 16, 2010 2:09 AM
What a moron you are, michelle!
> I have seen no instances of unethical conduct by any of you, with the exception of Wow
you mean with the exception of yourself and spots and keef and, well almost all of the other denialtrolls.
And what "unethical conduct"?
You wanted zoot in bloody chunks, blown up because zoot doesn't agree with you. Is pointing out your monstrosity and the two-facedness of the concern trolls so absent "unethical" on the planet you're from?
Wow,
A direct quote of the full two lines of my comment #111, will completely discredit your comments in the eyes of Deltoid's readers. Quote fully and accurately my two lines in comment #111 and see.
I doubt the upshot of all this carbon emitting will be so dire, James Hansen's darkest forebodings notwithstanding.
However, I have no doubt colossal upheavals are on the way if we reach 650+ PPMV by 2100, as we seem determined to do. I have a yen to watch that disaster movie unfold.
Meh, what the hell: I would probably run out of popcorn, anyway.
ben:
>Tim, what gives with Mike's comments. Please let us know why they have been disemvowelled.
For trolling. This thread is supposed to be about the sixth mass extinction. It's not about Mike's attention seeking. If you really want to read them you still can - it just slows things way down to figure out what he wrote.
Mr. Lambert,
May I say at the outset that I greatly appreciate your considerable efforts to maintain this blog. We are all the beneficiaries of your hard work. Likewise, I fully respect that since you do all the work, this blog and its rules are yours and yours alone. My responsibility to you is to comply with your blog rules or take my "attention seeking" elsewhere, I readily acknowledge.
If I may, I would respectfully offer three points for your consideration:
1. Two of my four dis-emvowelled comments, and the only ones of "substance", were responses to zoot's comments #'s 108 and 110, directed at me. While there is no question my comments #'s 109 and 111 were off-topic, may I respectfully suggest, zoot's comments were no less off-topic. Similarly, I found zoot's comments to be hectoring and personally abusive and even a bit unhinged. Further, my estimate of zoot's intent in his comments was simply to demean me and provoke me--"get my goat." I deflected zoot's efforts, as I perceived them, with dismissive but temperate comments that also used wit, within my meager capacity for wit, to express my contempt for zoot's ill-mannered and insulting and, well, preposterous comments.
2. As others have noted, I am a self-professed troll. I've adopted the title "troll" because in my earliest efforts to participate on this blog, my perfectly reasonable, temperate, good-faith, and serious comments were invariably roundly dismissed as trolling or I was dismissed as a troll. Therefore I adopted the term "troll", protectively, as a badge of honor. And with my troll's jester hat firmly in place, I have attempted, through my lame wit, to deliver some uncomfortable verities to a hard-core bunch of Deltoid bully-boys and their group-think.
3. My contributions do have an "attention seeking" quality, that I acknowledge. However, may I respectfully offer for your consideration, a suggestion that my comments are not mere "attention seeking." Rather, my comments for the most part seek to clear the air of the pomposity, sanctimony, self-righteousness, rudeness, bad-faith, smugness, and arrogance (and I'm only providing a partial list) that infects the commentary of the Deltoid regulars, especially when dealing with "unorthodox" opinions. In that regard, I respectfully offer for your consideration, Mr. Lambert, my suggestion that the "superior" manner of many of your commentators deprives Deltoid of both a larger audience and an influence in the public debate than it should otherwise naturally hold and warrant. In that regard, my contributions might be seen as a corrective, of sorts.
In closing, Mr. Lambert, I would like to, again, affirm that I completely defer to your status as the sole arbiter of this blog. My above comments are offered for your consideration, for whatever they are worth. Otherwise, you have my continuing thanks for maintaining this blog and for allowing me to comment so freely--my respects, sir.
Mike
I'm generally opposed to trol-feeding, but can I draw your attention to the apparent conflict between your "apology" the Deltoid community minus "Wow" offered @132 on the basis that none had acted unethically and passim your claims @138, specifically #2 and #3. These claims, if fair, would certainly entail or amount to unethical conduct.
It seems that your jocular adoption of the title "troll" was well-founded because there is an apparent contradiction in two ostensibly good faith claims made by you. As a concern troll, you are playing to script.
On the positive side, this post was all about you which is what you wanted.
mike, that's 20 comments now without once writing anything about the topic of the post. I'm going to delete any more off-topic comments you make, as well as responses to those comments.
@136 DanL said
So do I. On the other hand, I doubt that it won't be so dire as well. I harbour great uncertainty, but strongly suspect some of our successors (I'm 52) will see a roiling series of disasters which may cause a catastrophic reversal in human well-being. Yet perhaps it won't be quite that bad. I do know that the last time pCO2 was this high, about 15m BP, temperatures came to be 2.75-5.25degC higher than at present. Perhaps humanity will prevent that occurring. Perhaps the Arctic permafrostwill not release its payload to the atmosphere. Perhaps we won't lose the Amazon and parts of Africa won't see rises of 6degC. Perhaps urgent action will radically trim the impacts on biodiversity already being seen. Who can say?
It won't require 650ppmv. In practice if we can't stop 550, and perhaps if we can't stop 450 and then rapidly return to about 300ppmv, a little sooner or a little later those who follow us will get the colossal upheavals. Perhaps objections to geoengineering will collapse at that point as the pure desire survival kicks in, but even in that scenario it will be very clear that we will have authored a radically impoverished planet.
I have no theoretical desire to see that or even contemplate it.
> I doubt the upshot of all this carbon emitting will be so dire, James Hansen's darkest forebodings notwithstanding.
I doubt my house will burn down.
I still buy insurance because it's POSSIBLE.
Is it impossible for the results to be as dire (or worse) than James Hansen has postulated?
NOTE: he hasn't said it WILL do that, just that it COULD.
Please argue the point he makes, not the one you'd like to argue against. Politicians do that. Not humans.
It became obvious to me that mike loved dealing it out and his "jocular" comment was to allow him to continue dealing it.
But when HE was trolled, oh boy, did HE not have a sense of humour...
To *nearly* get back OT: I think mike is now extinct...
Apologies, Tim, but when mike lost it, I had to make it obvious even to him he had.
WAKE UP !!
CO2 will not cause mass extinction.
The European Institute For Climate and Energy (EIKE) released a paper today written by German physicist Dr. Horst Bochert. The paper reveals a clear relation between solar activity and ocean cycles, and thus act as the main climate drivers. Measured data shows no CO2 impact on climate.
abstract
It was found that the South Pacific Oscillation (SO) is influenced by solar activity, similar to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Especially during the warming period from 1980 to 2009 the oscillation of solar wind â Index âaaâ â was in good resonance with the delayed South Pacific Oscillation. The same observation was found between the oscillation of cosmic radiation, which is controlled by Forbushâ reduction by the magnetic fields of the sun protons of the solar wind and the delayed SO (K=0.8). The consequence of these observations is the postulation that the increase of global temperature in the Southern Hemisphere was caused by solar activity with strong emissions of proton-rays in the Earth âs direction during the 22nd and 23rd sunspot-periods, reducing cosmic rays. This led to a reduction of cloudiness, increased solar rays and warming up the lower atmosphere (Svensmark âEffect). As a consequence, dissolved CO2 was continuously emitted by the slowly warming ocean, providing fertilizer for the flora of the world. A relevance of CO2 concerning climate change could not be found. With the end of solar activity in 2006, a cold weather period has also started in the Southern Hemisphere.
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/SO_Borchert.pdf
> CO2 will not cause mass extinction.
It will if it gets to 98% CO2 like Venus.
But that's not the position of the IPCC. It's that climate change will cause mass extinction and CO2 can and is causing climate change.
> The paper reveals a clear relation between solar activity and ocean cycles
And this doesn't say that the IPCC is wrong because they're saying that the temperature changes is ~80% due to CO2 changes and the feedback effects thereof.
The ocean cycles don't add heat to the system. The sun does that.
PS where's the effect of the previous solar minimum? Oh, hang on, it was COLDER when the previous record minimum was seen.
Two other problems.
1) CO2 is still much higher
2) and almost all that difference tallies up with the amount of CO2 we humans produce less what's been left in the atmosphere
neither of which seem to be accounted for in your friends hypothesis.
I guess your Horst has more work to do if someone with no PhD can manage to spot the problem in his work so quickly.
Spotty I can't read German, but I can still play crackpot bingo with the "Literatur" list provided in your link.
Please more like this! On second thoughts take this junk to an open thread it is way OT.
The Deltoid Institute of Climate and Everything is releasing this comment on the Borchert paper: if he thinks that the oceans are releasing CO2 rather than absorbing it, where does he think the CO2 from fossil fuels went?
Kneejerk much?
To be clear, Hansen's darkest foreboding (from his recent book, which you evidently have not gotten around to reading yet) is a Venus syndrome runaway. How could it get worse than that?
Furthermore, I said I doubt it will happen, not that it couldn't. As best I can determine, most working climate scientists would take the same position.
Sunspot, thanks for that paper - hilarious. For example, the attempt by the author to fit complex functions to the data is pure comedy gold. If the author can't even do this to high school level...
> Kneejerk much?
Don't see where you get that.
> To be clear, Hansen's darkest foreboding (from his recent book, which you evidently have not gotten around to reading yet) is a Venus syndrome runaway. How could it get worse than that?
Does he say that it WILL be that bad?
No.
Then I ask you: do YOU kneejerk much?
And yes, it can get worse than that. Define worse.
For a start, the earth has life on it and Venus never got complex life, so by what has been lost, replicating Venus on Earth is worse.
It could be that plate tectonics will remove most or all the CO2 in the atmosphere (unlike with Venus which cooled too early to do so) and then, rather than being a hot planet becomes a cold one.
Sunspot's astonishingly gobsmacking [example of physics cluelessness](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/mass_extinction_6.php#comment-2…) seems to be one of many in the last week or so attempting to claim that the planet's biosphere is hunky-dory, and that it is not threatened by CO2 emissions.
Over at WTFUWT one Malcolm Roberts, current [Executive Director of the National Energy Generators Forum](http://web.archive.org/web/20080718183705/www.ngf.com.au/html/) (which has had inexplicable technical problems of late...), and parader of a penchant for many fellowships suffixes, is [putting the boot into Ove Hoegh-Gulberg](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/15/formal-complaints-against-profess…) in a classic example of a hysterical diatribe that is completely non-informed about ecology and about physics.
I simply do not have the time to list the many errors in this wagon-load of corporate spin. However it, and the four or five posts that succeeed it, have forced me to wonder who funds Watts, and how it is that he can be so prolific with his propaganda if he is a lonesome 'amateur' so fortunately assisted by a few stout-hearted volunteer mods...? Seriously, what's his average weekly thread count?
Guys like Roberts must really like guys like Watts...
Oh, and it could become venus in 10,000 years or 1,000.
Which is "worse"?
The aim of this thread was to dicsuss the effects of human activities on the loss of biodiversity and how this may or may not rebound on human civilization. Soon after it started, ben waded in with his simple political histrionics, claiming that people like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro were my 'heroes' and that the large amount of literature I read on the political economy as this relates to the environment was all 'left wing drivel', thus, for some innane reason, discounting any knowledge I amy have in the fields of population and conservation biology.
These are the typical arguments of someone who has nothing to say. No evidence needs to be procured, except that my sources are 'drivel' and his own sources (clearly very limited ones like NPR) must, by default, be 'sound' and 'reasonable'. I have come up against this kind of childish behavior time and time again in debates and discussions over issues dealing with politics and the environment.
First of all, with respect to Chavez: my claim is and always was that his administration has been far superior to pervious administrations (e.g. Carlos Andres Perez) for most of the people of his country simply because, for the first time really, he has redirected a considerable amount of the country's resource capital towards internal development. I am not saying that there is no corruption or cronyism in his regime: there most certainly is. But if one reads through the entire constitution (I have) and looks at the economic indicators of the country (I have), and assesses the impact of the Chavez government on the lives of the poor (as I have also done), then one sees that rates or poverty and illiteracy have come down significantly since 1998. The Venezuelan elites loathe Chavez not because he has plundered their wealth, but because he has greatly weakened their power base. At the same time, the US political and economic establishment loathes Chavez because he has had the audacity of not using his power not to serve the interests of US investors and elites in the south, but of serving those who traditionally had no say in Venezuelan politics. The fact is that the largest polling organization in South America, Latinbarometro, based in Chile, consistently finds that Venezuela is at the top or near the top of the list of countries south of the Rio Grande in which the citizens of the country feel empowered by their democracy and positive about the state of their democracy. Note how these polls are routinely ignored by the western media, because the message does not support the well-cultivated myth that Chavez is a leftist dictator who poses a threat to the United States. FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) did a survey of mainstream media articles in US newspapers in which coverage of cahvez was compared with that of Uribe, the former leader of Colombia, a nation with a far worse human rights record than Venezuela but a US client state (as an aside, more trade unionists are murdered in Colombia every year by right wing paramilitaries closely linked to the government than in the rest of the world combined). The FAIR study found not a single example where Chavez or his government policiers were covered favorably (about 10% were neutral) whereas more than half of the articles discussing Uribe's regime were favorable and only about 20% critical in any way. There are many more examples where the US media folows the Pentagon line to a tee.
As for NPR, pretty well everything it says about Chavez is negative, begging the question, how fair is NPR? FAIR addressed this recently, and NPR came out looking like just another 'elite' source promoting the usual pro-Pentagon propaganda:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1180
In another survey, FAIR found that NPR relies on the same dominant sources as the major media that include government officials, professional experts, and corporate representatives nearly two-thirds of the time.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stephen_Lendman/PaidLying_MainstreamM…
The bottom line is that, if one wants to debate such issues, I would prefer to see facts as opposed to people like Ben wading in denouncing others views on the basis of his own limited intellectual resource base. I would not say many of the authors I read - Andrew Bacevich and James Carroll amongst many others - are left wing idealogues. But I lost my faith in MSM outlets a long time ago and decided to seek out other, more diverse sources.
Now back to the topic of this thread. Given Mike and Ben have failed to discuss even the basics thus far of it, the ball is firmly in their court.
That doesn't even make sense.
You win--or something.
I'm late to the party, but as someone who has lived in South America for the past 13 years, I cannot agree with you, Jeff. Chavez has been a complete disaster for Venezuela. He is a megalomaniac dictator.
Wrong Party Tenny, that was a distracting tactic to get the discussion off a topic where Ben had no argument. Take your assertion to an open thread.
jakerman, it seems to me that comment #153 is primarily about Chavez.
And, that's "Tenney," not "Tenny."
My "assertion," as you call it, is based on intentionally paying attention to his behavior over the years in the international press (not the U.S. MSM), including in Portuguese in various media here in Brazil, not to mention his TV appearances, which no doubt I see more frequently than those of you who live up north.
Do any of you also believe that Lula will try to preserve the Amazon rainforest? If you do, I have a bridge...
Assertions is an accurate description, and if the topic were relevent I'd have more to say. But its not.
Appologies about misspelling your name, by chance do you have a comment on the topic?
Abstract
Temperatures in tropical regions are estimated to have increased by 3° to 5°C, compared with Late Paleocene values, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, 56.3 million years ago) event. We investigated the tropical forest response to this rapid warming by evaluating the palynological record of three stratigraphic sections in eastern Colombia and western Venezuela. We observed a rapid and distinct increase in plant diversity and origination rates, with a set of new taxa, mostly angiosperms, added to the existing stock of low-diversity Paleocene flora. There is no evidence for enhanced aridity in the northern Neotropics. The tropical rainforest was able to persist under elevated temperatures and high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast to speculations that tropical ecosystems were severely compromised by heat stress.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6006/957.abstract
...... you all fret about CO2, and have the delusion that a CO2 tax will save the world.
bit of a worry this....
The revelations come from Ed Hammond of the Sunshine Project, a biosafety pressure group based in Austin, Texas, US, who after persistent requests got the minutes of university biosafety committees using the US Freedom of Information Act. The minutes are accessible to the public by law.
There are now 20,000 people at 400 sites around the US working with putative bioweapons germs, says Hammond, 10 times more than before the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Some scientists have warned for years that more people handling dangerous germs are a recipe for accidents.
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/y8g
President Barack Obama is sticking to the U.S. refusal to negotiate monitoring of biological weapons, the top U.S. arms official said Wednesday
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/y8h
Does anyone here know how many around the world are fooling around with bioweapons ?
*He is a megalomaniac dictator*
Complete nonsense. I take the words of commentators like Greg Wilpert, who has lived in the country for years, over you, Tenney. Besides, its too bad that 65% of Venezuelans do not at all agree with you. Furthermore, how many elections does the guy have to win to be classified as a democrat?
sunspot, you are falling for the Lomborg line - there is no false "either - or" dichotomy. As this very post by Tim Lambert should sufficiently demonstrate. Calling for action against rising CO2 emission does not exclude calling for action on biodiversity loss, environmental degradation through mining and/or agricultural activities or any number of worrying topics.
You write: "you all fret about CO2, and have the delusion that a CO2 tax will save the world."
I am not aware of ANYONE of the commenters on these matters actually believing that, so that is a strawman.
JasonW
Some in here also think that nuclear power will save the world !
What do you think about the idea's kicking around to store radioactive waste in the ocean ?
sunspot,
it is totally offtopic, as this is firmly in the policy/technology department whereas this blog is mainly about science in media, but I'll answer nonetheless:
I think nuclear has some advantages speaking for it: no emission during energy _production_ for instance, and the technology is fairly established. I also think that the disadvantages significantly outweigh these advantages: there are the safety concerns (I rencently read an interview by a politician, who was praising a nuclear plant as the "safest" he had "ever visited". Would you hear that from someone visiting a coal plant or a widn turbine? No you wouldn't, it's a total non-issue), there are the amazingly high costs for building, producing and maintaining a nuclear power plant and, of course, there is the unsolved problem of waste that will remain hazardous for thousands (!) or years. That's not even counting the issues surrounding uranium mining.
And yet, that is a separate matter to CO2 - it is policy and technology! There is no serious scientific argument against AGW theory. For every contrarian study, celebrated with fanfare and fireworks amongst the "sceptics", there are dozens of studies that provide further evidence for it.
JasonW:
We don't need to worry about nuclear power being expanded because it is so expensive.
totally on topic JasonW, watch the video again and read the title again.
What effects do you think this (below) has on the ocean ecosystem ? Do you know what the half life of this shit is compared with CO2 ? What would you prefer to ingest ? Radioactive waste or CO2 ?
"It is cheaper for them to continue to use the sea as a radioactive garbage bin than to store this radioactive waste on land; for the nuclear industry, money comes first and the environment second", said Mike Townsley (2).
Each year, Europe's giant nuclear reprocessing facilities at Sellafield in the UK and La Hague in France, discharge hundreds of millions of litters of radioactive waste into the sea. The amount of radioactivity discharged from La Hague and Sellafield in only 9 months exceeds that dumped in the Hurd Deep. http://www.tinyurl.com.au/y8l
There is much much more.
So you think our "oh so honest" governments are trying to protect the world from CO2, get real !
> So you think our "oh so honest" governments are trying to protect the world from CO2, get real !
So you think that governments are truing to protect the world from AGW?
Get real!
You're helping, too, by spouting absolute nonsense in order to manufacture doubt spots. So that vested interests can make the political procrastination either acceptable or immobile.
Your concern troll posting now is abnegated by your continued pursuit of the current status quo of polluting the planet. Your current work is merely to distract with a "ooh look! monkies!".
You want us to believe that you care about the planet? Get real!
> That doesn't even make sense.
I suppose it won't if you don't like the results.
Which is worse: a planet with life on it burning up by a sun going red giant or a planet with no life doing the exact same thing?
But I guess you're still stunned by your knee whacking you in the face, Dan.
Which is why you've still been unable to accept that Hansen did not say it WILL be as bad, but that it could.
I.e. just because your children WON'T be abducted and abused and killed by a stranger, you still decide to warn them about strangers.
Don't you?
Or do you only warn your children about problems that are likely to happen, like "rain" and "sunshine" and "car exhaust fumes"?
wow (Ian Fry) I don't suffer from CO2 monomania, it's an epidemic in here.
"manufacture doubt spots",
I don't need to wow, I'm only pointing out the obvious, or do you need some pathetic government science body to tell you that there are far greater threats to the biosphere than CO2 ?
Your that dopey are you ?
This paper might interest those who question if the solutions to heading of Mass Extinction are heading in the right direction.
PDF http://www.tinyurl.com.au/y8m
Sunspot,
Could it be that the sun is the main driver of Earth's climate?
Are there still AGW believers out there? Don't be rude to them. The world would be less interesting without these barmy neoapocalypticists to laugh at!
> I don't suffer from CO2 monomania
No, you suffer from idiocy.
> I'm only pointing out the obvious
And I'm pointing out the obvious. You're a charlatan trying to cast doubt when there is none and here you're trying to fake concern to avoid the facts of CO2 and AGW.
Nobody's buying it.
> that there are far greater threats to the biosphere than CO2 ?
There are far greater threats to our children than paedophiles, but we don't stop teaching "Stranger Danger".
I guess while there are murders around, you would advocate that the police don't bother with theft, hmmm?
You're faking concern spots. And solely so that you can avoid AGW.
And stop with the goatse links, spots. Nobody's buying them either. You know your sources and links are worthless so you hide them under tinyurls to avoid it.
sunspot,
I think I made it abundantly clear what my opinion on nuclear is. I am also in no way disputing the fact that for the energy industry profit comes first, shareholder value second, PR management third, employees fourth etc., and environmental concerns - dead last. I am also, however, of the opinion that there is no false dichotomy which you seem to constantly proclaim, no either this or that (as in either "reduce emissions and go nuclear" or "not reduce emissions and er, not go nuclear" or something). There are a myriad of choices and possibilities, as anyone familiar with Pacala's Wedges should be aware. For those who aren't, here's an overview: http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/
I am hereby also pointing out the obvious, as I've already done above: There are a multiple number of threats to our biosphere, but these _include_ AGW-induced climate change.
And to pre-empt the knee-jerk honking by any right-wing ideologues lurking here: this is not anti-corporation or anti-business (although I am firmly opposed to a corporatocratic system) - I am of the firm opinion that only cooperation between government, business, science insitutions, NGO's and the general populace can threats be addressed and solutions provided.
Re: #160
Chavez was given quite a setback to his plans to become president for life during the last election there.
Previously, opposition parties had boycotted elections.
Wish you knew what you were talking about.
To clarify further on the wedges noted above: I am not endorsing all methods Pacala and his team suggest - I think nuclear is not fesible, CSS massively overrated, liquid coal - form what I've heard - an exercise in smoe and mirrors. They themselves have left their concept deliberately open to other suggestions and it is up to governemnt, business and society to come with good odeas and ways for implementation. The fact that the project is sponsored by BP and Ford is dubious, yet I think that the concept holds up to closer scrutiny.
Tenney Naumer,
You mentioned the magic word: ELECTIONS! Again, how many does the guy have to win to be called a democrat? You said he was a "megalomaniac dictator". You cannot have it both ways.
Certainly the right wing opposition in Venezuela, which has massive media support in the country and well as external funding from various US agencies, is gaining strength. But this does not mean that they are a remedy to the country's ills, but would only just return it to the horrors of the past, with wealth and power once again concentrated more than ever at the top. That would be good for US business investors though - as commentators like Edward Herman have shown.
If you want to discuss substance, by all means do so. Please give me proof of your banal views. Saying that someone is 'this' or 'that' based on their own persoanl prejudiuce is pointless. Furthermore, the reason Chavez has been gradually losing popularity amongst the poor who have traditionally supported him is that many think he has not gone far enough in his social and political reforms and are becoming disallusioned with the political process. Although Operations like Mission Ribas and Robinson have been a success, the wealth of the country is still firmly concentrated amongst the top 20%.
Have you read the constitutuion, by the way? Looked at the economic and social situation in the country since 1998? Rates of absolute poverty? Illiteracy? People with access to health care? Where does this fit in to your narrative? And, while we are at it, why does the media forever focus on hammering Chavez while giving western puppets and client regimes with horrific humans rights records (e.g. Kagame in Rwanda, Museveni in Uganda, Mubarak in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, for example) a free pass? I will tell you why. Because Chavez is not fulfilling his service function to the rich in Venezuela or to investors in the north who for some reason believe that the wealth of the country belongs to them (see Grandin, 2007, "Empire's Workshop"). George Kennan, an influential US planner in the 1940s and later a respected pundit, said in the 1990s that a priority of US foreign policy in ther coming years should be to 'protect' their [meaning the US] raw materials in South America - 'theirs', even though they happened to be found somewhere else. The entire Monroe Doctrine has been based on the same premise.
Two final points: first, if you want to wade in here with your political views, at least say something with substance, and not some mindless drivel based on your own personal views. Second, the thread is about biodiversity loss, and not about Hugo Chavez. It was set up for that reason, but Ben hijacked it and sent it spiralling in the wrong direction. The scientific community, with few exceptions, is very concerned about the rate of biodiversity loss and its implications for the functioning of complex adaptive systems and for sustaining a flow of vital ecological services to human civilization. Let's stick to the topic at hand.
It would also be good for the US since Venezeula are moving to Euros for international trade.
Though this is ENTIRELY OT, unless you draw the conclusion that the move to the Euro as the international currency would mean the Mass Extinction of the US as a global superpower...
Wow, some good points as always.
It seems Tenney is on the 'scientifically correct side' with respect to her views on climate change. Therefore I find it hard to fathom why she expresses such outright hostility towards the Chavez government. Sure, there is corruption and cronyism in Venezuela, but the country is far better off than it was before 1998, when it was a de facto US client state. Given the US history of supporting abhorrent regimes in South America, I would like to ask Tenney what kind of political system she would support in Venezuela or in any 'healthy' democracy. A leader like Rios Montt? Augusto Pinochet? Who? Also what she thinks of the views of Thomas Carrothers, a senior official in the Reagan administration (his portfolio was 'democracy promotion'). Carrothers famously said that the US only supports democracy when it is the interests of the US to do so. When it isn't, it is 'downplayed or ignored'. He went on to say that there has been a consistent theme in US foreign policy of supporting limited, top-down forms of government that did not risk upsetting 'traditional structures of power with which the US has long been allied'.
My last question concerns that 2002 coup in Venezuela, which had the fingerprints of US agencies all over it. How was Chavez returned to power, I may ask? I think the answer to that should be patently clear: by popular, public support. Otherwise he would have remained in exile forevermore.
And finally, does Tenney think that 'new' governments in Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua etc, harking back to the 1950s-1970s as US puppets, would be real democracies that aimed to help the lives of the poor? And how would she reconcile right wing governments with environmental issues like climate change and biodiversity loss? Which US politicians are mostly in the pocket of big business and oppose any measures to deal with climate change? Right wingers or those on the left?
Jeff, to answer your very last question, I'd say "both". Obama Adminstration policies, so far, have mostly paid homage to corporate America. Public health insurance, arguably the big exception which took a titan effort, merely brought the US up to speed with the rest of the developed world. Apart from that? The right is banging the denial drum and the left is whingeing and backing away from any meaningful progress instead of taking a stand, whilst former Monsanto employees run the USDA. A meaningful climate bill is dead in the water, after "left" (I use the term in the vaguest possible sense as there is no true left in the US).
Which leaves exactly what chance for action on biodiversity loss? With whole states devoted to monocultural crops? With GM soybeans and the ecocidal RoundUp in widespread use? Nah, not one bit.
The Obama administration seems, to me as an outsider, to be basically him thinking he's going to do all this stuff and his coterie of advisers telling him to just go for what he thinks he can get from the opposition.
Which they oppose anyway and get FURTHER reductions in change.
Then, of course, the opposition merely make what they'll go for even further away from what's right for the people of the USA and so what Obama's advisors tell him he can get away with gets further away.
Obama STARTS on a compromise position. But if you're going to do that from the off, DO NOT COMPROMISE FURTHER.
But if we continue this, lets move to the Open Thread, hmmm? There's going to be a lot of work for Tim in moving all this current guff over as it is...
JasonW,
I agree with you, at least to a point. The problem is, as far as I can see, is that the Democrats are hardly a left wing party. I would more concur with the musings of Gore Vidal, who said that there is one party in the US, the 'Property Party', with two right wings: Republicans and Democrats. Obama stacked his adminstration with Bush cronies, andf if one looks at the last 60 years of US foreign policy, it is easy to discern a long line of continuity in what the MSM prefer to call 'defense' but what is, in reality, aimed at corporate expansionism. In his latest book, 'Washingon Rules', former West Point graduate and Viet Nam vetern Andrew Bacevich argues that US foreign policy has, since Truman, and without exception, been based on 4 premises. These are (in abridged fashion):
1. That the world is in a chaotic state and must be organized or shaped in such a way as to prevent this chaos leading to political and economic disaster;
2. The only country capable of shaping the world to prevent this happening is the United States;
3. Given that it is the only country capable of leading the world in this way, the values that should shape the political, social and economic landscape are American values and perspectives;
4. Aside from a few recalcitrant or rogue states, the vast majority of nation states in the world support American leadership in shaping of the world.
This position has dominated every post-war administration, and has been the result of often abhorrent foreign policy agendas (either directly militaristic or the delegating of that to proxy armies) by successive US administrations. This also explains why the US maintains a global network of military bases, not so much to protect the host nations but as a way of projecting US power around the world in ways that best support US political and economic agendas: control of natural gas and oil, undermining internal nationalist movements in countries that threaten to undermine this, subjegation of other countries assets, and projecting policies like the Washington Consensus on much of the world.
I think there is ample evidence to support this, as Bacevich argues in his book (and in previous ones he has written). One of the major problems in US politics is that big money co-opts the political process, ensuring that, whoever is in power, they know what their priorities are. As Paul Street has argued in his most recent book, Obama was 'vetted' by corporate lobbyists several years before his ascendancy in Washington. They wanted to ensure that he would be no threat to their interests. Street argues that, after the disastrous Bush years, the business community in the US felt that the 'emporer needed new clothes', and that Obama was the perfect one to wear them. I am not saying that the Democrats are not a scintilla to the left of the Republicans (IMHO its more appropriate to say that they are not quite so far to the right), but that the foreign policy agendas of both parties are one and the same.
'It is only a matter of time before the public comes to realize that they have been seriously misled on climate change. Environmentalists, media, governments, and businesses that grossly overhyped the theoretically possible, but highly improbable, human-caused climate change crisis will then be disgraced and societyâs interest in addressing real environmental problems may very well be set back decades. The coming loss of credibility of their movement should most frighten thinking scientists and environmentalists now.'
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/y9r
Dr David Evans, a scientist formerly with the Australian Greenhouse Office 1999-2005, has completed a paper that exposes the corruption behind claims of man-made "global warming'. It's simple and pictorial, with a minimum of words, perfect the dingbats in here. It answers the usual objections of warmists, and focuses on the corrupt behavior of the climate change establishment.
Download pdf http://www.tinyurl.com.au/y9s
Mann-made global warming will destroy the environment.
Sunspot @ # 180:
The article was written by lobbyist Tom Harris, hardly an unbiased source.
You are disqualified.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Harris_(Canadian_enginee…)
Climate skeptic in line to take over House Science Committee
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/y9t
Climate Royal Commission ? (Aust)
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/y9u
re sunspot at 180: What an absolutely terrible article! It goes through one denier canard after the other, even Bob Carter gets his say (Bob Carter!). And what a surprise, it is written by a representative of the discredited ICSC, which goes on rubbish all of climate science in one fell swoop. This bit alone should set off alarm bells left, right and center: âScientific truth isn't determined by consensus but by hypotheses accounting for all observed events and being able to accurately predict other situations. If consensus did determine scientific reality then hand-washing prior to assisting with childbirth and other medical procedures would still be considered a waste of time since such basic hygiene was, according to the consensus of most doctors in the early 19th century, unnecessary.â
FFS.
JAsonW, it's just as well that the science of AGW isn't due to consensus but exactly those things mentioned in that quote.
That there is a hypothesis accounting for observed events and predicts other situations (cf Pinatubo eruption) and it is AGW has driven the consensus.
Denialists (as usual) are getting the cart well before the horse.
> Dr David Evans, a scientist formerly with the Australian Greenhouse Office
This is the Dr Evans who has stated personally himself as fact that he's fabricated results to get the answer expected, yes?
Ah Spotty, another fabulous article - where on earth do you find them? I think we should have a competition to find the most hilarious section of this one - there is plenty to choose from.
My opener for 10 - Nine pages on temperature instrument location problems, but no mention of the analysis of the instruments that were judged to be optimally sited, which confirmed the rise in temperature.
As an aside, what did happen to the ever-imminent paper on this dataset by Wott's that got to do with anything relevant and friends?
> Ah Spotty, another fabulous article - where on earth do you find them?
I wonder why he tries to hide them behind tinyurls. It's not like he's fooling anyone.
Indonesia plans to class large areas of its remaining natural forests as "degraded" land in order to cut them down and receive nearly $1bn of climate aid for replanting them with palm trees and biofuel crops, according to Greenpeace International.
According to internal government documents from the forestry, agriculture and energy departments in Jakarta, the areas of land earmarked for industrial plantation expansion in the next 20 years include 37m ha of existing natural forest â 50% of the country's orangutan habitat and 80% of its carbon-rich peatland. More than 60m ha â an area nearly five times the size of England â could be converted to palm oil and biofuel production in the next 20 years, say the papers.
"The land is roughly equivalent to all the currently undeveloped land in Indonesia," says the report. "The government plans for a trebling of pulp and paper production by 2015 and a doubling of palm oil production by 2020."
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/yjc
I noted in passing that the Climate Realists website (where the resident blemish seems to have got most of his most recent info from -- well, they have the same dubious source at least) has a graph headed "Global sea surface temperatures: 2000-10", with "temps as measured by Argo" (but in all caps, for emphasis I presume). Shame the graph is a plot of Argo SST Nino-3.4 anomaly, from 2004 to 2008, as you can see from the axes labels! Those pesky little children, eh!?
You can find a plot of Monthly global SST anomalies, 1880-2009, here
Now who complained about tinyurl use? It was much better when just about everything was wrapped in one, as it was then easy not to see what the dark stain on humanity was on about.
> Now who complained about tinyurl use?
That would be me.
spots uses it to hide the vacuous sources he relies upon.
That boy will swallow ANYTHING.
[P. Lewis](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/mass_extinction_6.php#comment-2…)
Isn't it curious how the sea surface temperature, over the last century and then some, mirrors the land temperature?
Makes a bit of a mockery of Watts' search, with his Surface Stations 'project', for urban heat island corruption of the global record.
@191 Wow:
But it's more than just mere dishonesty - it results in yet more hits at whatever website tinyurl links to, and is thus a form of propaganda.
Kneejerk much?
To be clear, Hansen's darkest foreboding (from his recent book, which you evidently have not gotten around to reading yet) is a Venus syndrome runaway. How could it get worse than that?
Furthermore, I said I doubt it will happen, not that it couldn't. As best I can determine, most working climate scientists would take the same position.
Kneejerk much?
To be clear, Hansen's darkest foreboding (from his recent book, which you evidently have not gotten around to reading yet) is a Venus syndrome runaway. How could it get worse than that?
Furthermore, I said I doubt it will happen, not that it couldn't. As best I can determine, most working climate scientists would take the same position.
Kneejerk much?
To be clear, Hansen's darkest foreboding (from his recent book, which you evidently have not gotten around to reading yet) is a Venus syndrome runaway. How could it get worse than that?
Furthermore, I said I doubt it will happen, not that it couldn't. As best I can determine, most working climate scientists would take the same position.
Kneejerk much?
To be clear, Hansen's darkest foreboding (from his recent book, which you evidently have not gotten around to reading yet) is a Venus syndrome runaway. How could it get worse than that?
Furthermore, I said I doubt it will happen, not that it couldn't. As best I can determine, most working climate scientists would take the same position.
Kneejerk much?
To be clear, Hansen's darkest foreboding (from his recent book, which you evidently have not gotten around to reading yet) is a Venus syndrome runaway. How could it get worse than that?
Furthermore, I said I doubt it will happen, not that it couldn't. As best I can determine, most working climate scientists would take the same position.
Kneejerk much?
To be clear, Hansen's darkest foreboding (from his recent book, which you evidently have not gotten around to reading yet) is a Venus syndrome runaway. How could it get worse than that?
Furthermore, I said I doubt it will happen, not that it couldn't. As best I can determine, most working climate scientists would take the same position.
Kneejerk much?
To be clear, Hansen's darkest foreboding (from his recent book, which you evidently have not gotten around to reading yet) is a Venus syndrome runaway. How could it get worse than that?
Furthermore, I said I doubt it will happen, not that it couldn't. As best I can determine, most working climate scientists would take the same position.
Kneejerk much?
To be clear, Hansen's darkest foreboding (from his recent book, which you evidently have not gotten around to reading yet) is a Venus syndrome runaway. How could it get worse than that?
Furthermore, I said I doubt it will happen, not that it couldn't. As best I can determine, most working climate scientists would take the same position.