NationStates Jolt Archive

From CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/21/climate.species.ap/index.html):
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Animal and plant species have begun dying off or changing sooner than predicted because of global warming, a review of hundreds of research studies contends.

These fast-moving adaptations come as a surprise even to biologists and ecologists because they are occurring so rapidly.

At least 70 species of frogs, mostly mountain-dwellers that had nowhere to go to escape the creeping heat, have gone extinct because of climate change, the analysis says. It also reports that between 100 and 200 other cold-dependent animal species, such as penguins and polar bears are in deep trouble.

"We are finally seeing species going extinct," said University of Texas biologist Camille Parmesan, author of the study. "Now we've got the evidence. It's here. It's real. This is not just biologists' intuition. It's what's happening."

Her review of 866 scientific studies is summed up in the journal Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics.

Parmesan reports seeing trends of animal populations moving northward if they can, of species adapting slightly because of climate change, of plants blooming earlier, and of an increase in pests and parasites.

Parmesan and others have been predicting such changes for years, but even she was surprised to find evidence that it's already happening; she figured it would be another decade away.

Just five years ago biologists, though not complacent, figured the harmful biological effects of global warming were much farther down the road, said Douglas Futuyma, professor of ecology and evolution at the State University of New York in Stony Brook.

"I feel as though we are staring crisis in the face," Futuyma said. "It's not just down the road somewhere. It is just hurtling toward us. Anyone who is 10 years old right now is going to be facing a very different and frightening world by the time that they are 50 or 60."

While over the past several years studies have shown problems with certain species, animal populations or geographic areas, Parmesan's is the first comprehensive analysis showing the big picture of global-warming induced changes, said Chris Thomas, a professor of conservation biology at the University of York in England.

While it's impossible to prove conclusively the changes are the result of global warming, the evidence is so strong and other supportable explanations are lacking, Thomas said, so it is "statistically virtually impossible that these are just chance observations."

The most noticeable changes in plants and animals have to do with earlier springs, Parmesan said. The best example can be seen in earlier cherry blossoms and grape harvests and in 65 British bird species that in general are laying their first eggs nearly nine days earlier than 35 years ago.

Parmesan said she worries most about the cold-adapted species, such as emperor penguins that have dropped from 300 breeding pairs to just nine in the western Antarctic Peninsula, or polar bears, which are dropping in numbers and weight in the Arctic.

The cold-dependent species on mountaintops have nowhere to go, which is why two-thirds of a certain grouping of frog species have already gone extinct, Parmesan said.

Populations of animals that adapt better to warmth or can move and live farther north are adapting better than other populations in the same species, Parmesan said.

"We are seeing a lot of evolution now," Parmesan said. However, no new gene mutations have shown themselves, not surprising because that could take millions of years, she said.

It appears as though things are moving faster than we thought. Hopefully our leaders will take this as a wake-up call...

It appears as though things are moving faster than we thought. Hopefully our leaders will take this as a wake-up call...

Hopefully.......doubt they will react quickly enough but you never know, if the world can convert China, India and America to the eco-friendly bandwagon in time we may be able to prevent an environmental catastrophe.

Take your tranq guns and go hunting people. If this keeps up the zoo will be the only place you're gonna find a whole lot of species.

This study was published in this month's issue of the environmental journal "Duh!" :)

Again, the planet's not in trouble. People are. The planet will survive. If so much as microbes survive, millions of years of future evolution will produce a diverse, balanced biosphere. Whether people are around to see it... who knows. By that point, who among us is going to care?

Take your tranq guns and go hunting people. If this keeps up the zoo will be the only place you're gonna find a whole lot of species.
Or you could create your own private zoo and charge people extortionate rates to see the last few examples of hundreds of species.

Oh, and that article has started making me crave cheese.

Or you could create your own private zoo and charge people extortionate rates to see the last few examples of hundreds of species.
Excellent plan. *patents*

Oh, and that article has started making me crave cheese.

O......k

Excellent plan. *patents*
Is my McDonald's thread going to start a General-wide spate of patenting anything and everything? If it is - I patent NS.

O......k
"University of Texas biologist Camille Parmesan"

Is my McDonald's thread going to start a General-wide spate of patenting anything and everything? If it is - I patent NS.
Yeah, it seems to have. I'm gonna patant internet discussion fora/forums


"University of Texas biologist Camille Parmesan"

Ah, now it all makes sense :)

Yeah, it seems to have. I'm gonna patant internet discussion fora/forums




Ah, now it all makes sense :)

Im going to patent your soul :)

Again, the planet's not in trouble. People are. The planet will survive. If so much as microbes survive, millions of years of future evolution will produce a diverse, balanced biosphere.

the planet is in fact in trouble. that in a about ten million years it will probably recover back to a new healthy and complex and diverse level does not mean that it isn't. in the mean time it will limp along in a greatly reduced state, with immensely less intrinsic value. a world of weeds and super generalists is not a good world.

Global warming is killing off humans? Darn... :p

Take your tranq guns and go hunting people. If this keeps up the zoo will be the only place you're gonna find a whole lot of species.

assuming that they actually can create viable populations that are able to maintain significant portions of the wild populations' genetic diversity and don't fall prey to either inbreeding depression or become evolutionarily adapted to life in a cage.

Too bad "politician" isn't one of the species. :(

Well if it kills of mosquitos and spiders(:eek:), then i'm content.

the planet is in fact in trouble. that in a about ten million years it will probably recover back to a new healthy and complex and diverse level does not mean that it isn't. in the mean time it will limp along in a greatly reduced state, with immensely less intrinsic value. a world of weeds and super generalists is not a good world.

Oh, I'm not saying we should do nothing. I got a kid and potential grandkids to think about. In the grand scheme of things, however, the world will eventually return to its own equilibrium, with or without humans. Millions of years of "limping along" are of little consequence in the cosmic scheme.

But I place no moral emphasis on the success or failure of saving the current state of the environment. Specifically, I think enacting legislation to force the environment to remain in a static, pre-industrial idyll because of some sense of moral guilt over our damage is just as bad as the fundies who enact legislation based on *their* own morality.

Millions of years of "limping along" are of little consequence in the cosmic scheme.

on that level, it wouldn't much matter if a few billion galaxies went poof tomorrow. not the most useful scale to look at, really.

But I place no moral emphasis on the success or failure of saving the current state of the environment. Specifically, I think enacting legislation to force the environment to remain in a static, pre-industrial idyll because of some sense of moral guilt over our damage is just as bad as the fundies who enact legislation based on *their* own morality.

nobody who has thought about it wants a museum world.


if the fundies morality was right, then it would be right to force everybody to go along with it.

The extinction I get, but why the concern about the adaptation? Isn't adaptibility a good thing?

Well if it kills of mosquitos and spiders(:eek:), then i'm content.

considering the huge range occupied by the 41 genera of mosquitoes, i think it's a fairly good bet that they aren't going anywhere. the world is gonna be all rats, pigeons, mosquitoes, cockroaches, squirrels, people, and kudzu.

Meh, if an animal can't keep up with the pace then perhaps it deserves to be extinct. If any animals want to be saved they better start ingratiating themselves to us, (perhaps star in a Disney movie?), and we'll let them into our zoos.

The extinction I get, but why the concern about the adaptation? Isn't adaptibility a good thing?

not adaptation driven by anthropogenic destruction and disturbance

on that level, it wouldn't much matter if a few billion galaxies went poof tomorrow. not the most useful scale to look at, really.
Fair, but I was just using that to illustrate that I have no vested interest in perpetuation of the species aside from my progeny. (At least for the next generation or two. After that I won't be around to care.)

nobody who has thought about it wants a museum world.
That's not the impression I get. The overall idea that I get from the environmental movement is that any human impact on the planet away from nature's balance is inherently evil and needs to be stopped. Any species to die off, down to the smallest fly (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/i/I0V.html), is a travesty of environmental justice.

As I said, don't get me wrong. I don't want to live in the smoggy, stunted world of apocalyptic-future films, but I bristle at the notion that the we need to return the world to some multi-biodiverse whatever that never really existed. It would be nice, but unrealistic. [The Sahara Forest, anyone?]

if the fundies morality was right, then it would be right to force everybody to go along with it.
I don't think it's right to force *any* morality on people -- religious fundamentalist, environmental restorationist, or otherwise. But I've already gone on record with that. :)

considering the huge range occupied by the 41 genera of mosquitoes, i think it's a fairly good bet that they aren't going anywhere. the world is gonna be all rats, pigeons, mosquitoes, cockroaches, squirrels, people, and kudzu.

Can't we ever get rid of cockroaches? :(

And btw, what the heck is a kudzu? :confused:

That's not the impression I get. The overall idea that I get from the environmental movement is that any human impact on the planet away from nature's balance is inherently evil and needs to be stopped. Any species to die off, down to the smallest fly (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/i/I0V.html), is a travesty of environmental justice.

that's only because right now we are the cause of a mass extinction event. all of the extinctions we are seeing now are our fault. but the ultimate goal is to be able to leave things alone to live out their own evolutionary stories embedded within functioning complex and diverse biological systems.

I don't think it's right to force *any* morality on people -- religious fundamentalist, environmental restorationist, or otherwise. But I've already gone on record with that. :)

that itself is a moral position. one that you would have to force on those who hold contrary moral positions.

not adaptation driven by anthropogenic destruction and disturbance
Why? I don't see why it matters.

that itself is a moral position. one that you would have to force on those who hold contrary moral positions.

Meh, I'd stay at home with my opinion and bitch. Hard work pays off over time, but laziness always pays off now.

And btw, what the heck is a kudzu? :confused:

the plant that ate the USian south. it's a ridiculously fast growing invasive exotic (from japan originally, i think). if you leave a car parked somewhere too long, it'll cover it

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/nature/invasive-species/kudzu/Kudzu-5.jpg

the plant that ate the USian south. it's a ridiculously fast growing invasive exotic (from japan originally, i think). if you leave a car parked somewhere too long, it'll cover it

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/nature/invasive-species/kudzu/Kudzu-5.jpg

In Free Soviets' Russia, kudzu covers you. :D (Sorry, had to.)

Why? I don't see why it matters.

because the value to be found in evolutionary processes is one that exists independently of human action. and human action that operates to destroy that value is not good. therefore the changes directly caused by that action are of lesser value at best, if not outright negative in themselves. and they typically continue to destroy other value by creating a whole chain of fundamentally anthropogenic destructiveness among preexisting populations and systems that were valuable themselves.

The overall idea that I get from the environmental movement is that any human impact on the planet away from nature's balance is inherently evil and needs to be stopped. Any species to die off, down to the smallest fly (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/i/I0V.html), is a travesty of environmental justice.
Just because something seems small or insignificant doesn't mean it is. Every life-form on this planet plays some role, fills some vital environmental niche.

As I said, don't get me wrong. I don't want to live in the smoggy, stunted world of apocalyptic-future films, but I bristle at the notion that the we need to return the world to some multi-biodiverse whatever that never really existed. It would be nice, but unrealistic.
The deep complexity of Earth's biosphere is the most fantastic treasure in this universe -- and you don't care that we're demolishing it through greed and laziness?

USian
You people are still going on about that? :rolleyes:

Almost as bad as "the 'Democrat' Party"...

You people are still going on about that? :rolleyes:

Almost as bad as "the 'Democrat' Party"...

would you prefer merkan?

the plant that ate the USian south. it's a ridiculously fast growing invasive exotic (from japan originally, i think). if you leave a car parked somewhere too long, it'll cover it

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/nature/invasive-species/kudzu/Kudzu-5.jpg

Danke.

Just because something seems small or insignificant doesn't mean it is. Every life-form on this planet plays some role, fills some vital environmental niche.
Uh, true.

The deep complexity of Earth's biosphere is the most fantastic treasure in this universe -- and you don't care that we're demolishing it through greed and laziness?
Not particularly. It takes a lot more than that to get me worked up over something. And in all honesty, does it really matter *why* it's being demolished? Would you be happier if it were to be demolished through altruism and good intentions?

Not particularly. It takes a lot more than that to get me worked up over something. And in all honesty, does it really matter *why* it's being demolished? Would you be happier if it were to be demolished through altruism and good intentions?
What, you're saying that the only known life in the universe is not worth protecting? Even if we could travel to other systems, the odds are that none harbor the vast richness and diversity of life that Earth does. It is the only habitable, self-sustaining environment known. We can't just throw that away like a wasted shell.

What, you're saying that the only known life in the universe is not worth protecting? Even if we could travel to other systems, the odds are that none harbor the vast richness and diversity of life that Earth does. It is the only habitable, self-sustaining environment known. We can't just throw that away like a wasted shell.

No-one's saying we should throw it away, and I doubt the human race could do that even if it wanted to. But we can afford to lose the odd species here and there.

What, you're saying that the only known life in the universe is not worth protecting? Even if we could travel to other systems, the odds are that none harbor the vast richness and diversity of life that Earth does. It is the only habitable, self-sustaining environment known. We can't just throw that away like a wasted shell.

That's not what I said at all. Please read my previous posts. This mass extinction event != planet sterilization. Since the planet will recover eventually from a mass extinction event (with or without humans), I'm not *too* worried about it.

But your moral opinion is your own. I'm not going to try to change your mind because I don't believe in foisting my opinion on other people. However, if you can manage to get your opinion into effect on a worldwide scale, more power to you. :D

No-one's saying we should throw it away, and I doubt the human race could do that even if it wanted to. But we can afford to lose the odd species here and there.
You're right. However, we're losing much, much more than "the odd species here and there". Most estimates peg the average rate as thousands of species lost per year, with the total number lost in the last century somewhere between 20,000 and two million.

70% of biologists agree that we are currently causing a mass extinction event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_event), on par with the extinction of the dinosaurs or the Permian-Triassic extinction event.

a thought experiment:

imagine you are the last surviving human (there has been some sort of catastrophe - what it is doesn't matter) and that you will die soon. suppose also that it came into your head to do as much damage to the world as possible on the way out. so you go about cutting down the last redwood, nuking the rainforests, poisoning the rivers, etc. have you done anything wrong?

a thought experiment:

imagine you are the last surviving human (there has been some sort of catastrophe - what it is doesn't matter) and that you will die soon. suppose also that it came into your head to do as much damage to the world as possible on the way out. so you go about cutting down the last redwood, nuking the rainforests, poisoning the rivers, etc. have you done anything wrong?

You've done something fun. Fun is usually wrong somehow.

You've done something fun. Fun is usually wrong somehow.

depends on how you find your fun, no?

bump

because the value to be found in evolutionary processes is one that exists independently of human action. and human action that operates to destroy that value is not good. therefore the changes directly caused by that action are of lesser value at best, if not outright negative in themselves. and they typically continue to destroy other value by creating a whole chain of fundamentally anthropogenic destructiveness among preexisting populations and systems that were valuable themselves.
That sounds like a compelling argument, but you haven't actually explained why the anthropogenic changes are bad while the changes that happen independently of us are better.

Things are only good or not good because they exhibit relevant characteristics that make it so. Nothing is simply good or not good on its own.

Imagine if I had two paintings that were identical in every respect, except only one of them was good.
a thought experiment:

imagine you are the last surviving human (there has been some sort of catastrophe - what it is doesn't matter) and that you will die soon. suppose also that it came into your head to do as much damage to the world as possible on the way out. so you go about cutting down the last redwood, nuking the rainforests, poisoning the rivers, etc. have you done anything wrong?
How could I tell?

a thought experiment:

imagine you are the last surviving human (there has been some sort of catastrophe - what it is doesn't matter) and that you will die soon. suppose also that it came into your head to do as much damage to the world as possible on the way out. so you go about cutting down the last redwood, nuking the rainforests, poisoning the rivers, etc. have you done anything wrong?
Of course you've done something wrong. You forgot to club the baby seals!

Seriously...

You've only done something wrong if you feel guilt. Wrongness is primarily a moral issue - if it does not go against your morals, it is not 'wrong', especially if there's no one else around to judge. Assuming that you will feel guilty if you do something that goes against your own morals, then you have only done something wrong if you feel guilty after doing it.

the plant that ate the USian south. it's a ridiculously fast growing invasive exotic (from japan originally, i think). if you leave a car parked somewhere too long, it'll cover it

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/nature/invasive-species/kudzu/Kudzu-5.jpg
I used to live in South Carolina. You'd be driving along looking at these lush green hills only to discover as you got closer that these green "hills" were in fact masses of trees with kudzu covering them. Completely.

fucking

goodness
sucks being 16 right now

you haven't actually explained why the anthropogenic changes are bad while the changes that happen independently of us are better.
Because these desperate adaptive shifts are indicative of an underlying shift in the environment that will do more harm to life on Earth than good. At this point, most species are either dying out, or attempting to adapt by moving to new locations (such as the frogs that were moving higher up into the mountains. But as the climate changes further, even these stopgap measures will fail to sustain them. The only truly effective adaptive measures take millions of years to unfold, and we are altering our world much faster than that.

Most people care very little if species go extinct or rather why it may be going extinct. They can just chalk that up to "The Way The World Just Is Sometimes." Unless of course, an animal like the cow were being threatened by extinction. That would hit them right in the Big Mac.

Because these desperate adaptive shifts are indicative of an underlying shift in the environment that will do more harm to life on Earth than good. At this point, most species are either dying out, or attempting to adapt by moving to new locations (such as the frogs that were moving higher up into the mountains. But as the climate changes further, even these stopgap measures will fail to sustain them. The only truly effective adaptive measures take millions of years to unfold, and we are altering our world much faster than that.
Not true. Microbes adapt very quickly. Or are you arguing that the larger creatures are somehow more valuable than teh smaller ones?

Most people care very little if species go extinct or rather why it may be going extinct. They can just chalk that up to "The Way The World Just Is Sometimes." Unless of course, an animal like the cow were being threatened by extinction. That would hit them right in the Big Mac.
We've genetically engineered the cow before; we can do it again.

We've genetically engineered the cow before; we can do it again.

Lovely.

You've only done something wrong if you feel guilt. Wrongness is primarily a moral issue - if it does not go against your morals, it is not 'wrong', especially if there's no one else around to judge. Assuming that you will feel guilty if you do something that goes against your own morals, then you have only done something wrong if you feel guilty after doing it.

so people who don't feel guilt are incapable of doing wrong?

and what would you say of someone else who went on that one last orgy of destruction?

Excellent. More room for us humans.

Food For Thought:

It's all about the Thermohaline Circulation. The Thermohaline Circulation is the current of water around the world's oceans. In the Atlantic Ocean, warm water from the south goes up to about Greenland, warming the Atlantic. With melting iceburgs, the Thermohaline Circulation is being flooded with cold freshwater. This will lead to Global Cooling by 2050 or so. Which coincedatily is the date that oil is predicted to run out. Without the power to use oil to warm the environment, the world will fall into a Little Ice Age. The Polar Ice Caps will expand, the world's maximum occupancy will drop to 2,000,000 people. Many of the worlds breadbaskets will be empty. Wars will sweep the globe, and as in Ancient Times survival will be questionable. Nations will rise and fall, and Humanity might be wiped out entirely.

the planet is in fact in trouble. that in a about ten million years it will probably recover back to a new healthy and complex and diverse level does not mean that it isn't. in the mean time it will limp along in a greatly reduced state, with immensely less intrinsic value. a world of weeds and super generalists is not a good world.

And if there was never any way to stop in it in the first place? Just because we declared ourselves the dominant species on the planet doesnt mean we now have control of the laws of nature. The first Ice age killed just about every dominant species on the planet. Even if we didnt cause global warming (Im not convinced we did) another disaster will eventually come along and take every creature that cant cut it. Our first perogative is our own survival, we cant save every species that evolution is sniping. We cant control nature in the end.

so people who don't feel guilt are incapable of doing wrong?
No - they would be incapable of doing anything wrong by their own moral code. Others may judge that their actions are wrong, but if they're truly amoral they won't accept they have.

Although if you mean people who just don't feel any emotion, that's different. I'm not sure I'm able to answer that. I'll get back to you.

and what would you say of someone else who went on that one last orgy of destruction?
I wouldn't - I'd be dead. ;)

I imagine my personal reaction would be one of revulsion. I cannot stand needless willful damage (or needless accidental damage, come to that).

That sounds like a compelling argument, but you haven't actually explained why the anthropogenic changes are bad while the changes that happen independently of us are better.

i wouldn't say that all anthropogenic changes are bad. they are just not the only goods in the world. and actions that destroy other goods start off in a value deficit that will take a solid argument to demonstrate that the benefits outweigh the loss.

most of the destructive anthropogenic actions completely failed to properly account for other morally relevant entities at all, and are utterly lacking in even attempted justifications. as far as i can see, most of them wouldn't be able to provide a halfway plausible justification even if it was tried.

Things are only good or not good because they exhibit relevant characteristics that make it so. Nothing is simply good or not good on its own.

something must be good in itself - eventually goodness must be grounded somewhere.

How could I tell?

well, what do your moral intuitions tell you?

...and Humanity might be wiped out entirely.
Good. Can't come soon enough.

Seen this coming with the problems of water at the coral reefs being too acidic. We are going to lose many species if we lose the reefs.

Food For Thought:

It's all about the Thermohaline Circulation. The Thermohaline Circulation is the current of water around the world's oceans. In the Atlantic Ocean, warm water from the south goes up to about Greenland, warming the Atlantic. With melting iceburgs, the Thermohaline Circulation is being flooded with cold freshwater. This will lead to Global Cooling by 2050 or so. Which coincedatily is the date that oil is predicted to run out. Without the power to use oil to warm the environment, the world will fall into a Little Ice Age. The Polar Ice Caps will expand, the world's maximum occupancy will drop to 2,000,000 people. Many of the worlds breadbaskets will be empty. Wars will sweep the globe, and as in Ancient Times survival will be questionable. Nations will rise and fall, and Humanity might be wiped out entirely.

Interesting theory! I think the biggest crisis (the point of no return) is if the frozen methane in Siberia and Alaska ever thaws out. That would double the the amount of Co2 in the Earth's atmosphere over a very short period of time. Then we undergo an environmental holocaust which would include heat waves that would way surpass previous records, little tropical storms being turned into lv 5 hurricanes, more forrest fires than firefighters could handle, and deadly droughts.

Might not be enough people left over for wars to sweep the globe.

Most people care very little if species go extinct or rather why it may be going extinct. They can just chalk that up to "The Way The World Just Is Sometimes." Unless of course, an animal like the cow were being threatened by extinction. That would hit them right in the Big Mac.

I'm not sure it's possible for an animal that only exists in captivity and reproduces via artificial insemination to go extinct unless some serious fertility issues occurred.

I'm not sure it's possible for an animal that only exists in captivity and reproduces via artificial insemination to go extinct unless some serious fertility issues occurred.

Yes we can probably save critters like polar bears, seals and such, in the world's zoos. But its really certain micro-species, and world food chain species that could bring about disaster (starvation and disease) if the wrong ones become extinct.

And if there was never any way to stop in it in the first place?

then we would be living on a very different world than this one

Are humans causing the climate to change?

-98% of total global greenhouse gas emissions are natural (mostly water vapor); only 2% are from man-made sources.

-By most accounts, man-made emissions have had no more than a minuscule impact on the climate. Although the climate has warmed slightly in the last 100 years, 70% percent of that warming occurred prior to 1940, before the upsurge in greenhouse gas emissions from industrial processes. (Dr. Robert C. Balling, Arizona State University)

-A Gallup survey indicated that only 17% of the members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society thought the warming of the 20th century was the result of an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.



http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=65

If global warming occurs, will it be harmful?

-The idea that global warming would melt the ice caps and flood coastal cities seems to be mere science fiction. A slight increase in temperature -- whether natural or mankind induced -- is not likely to lead to a massive melting of the earth ice caps, as sometimes claimed in the media. Also, sea-level rises over the centuries relate more to warmer and thus expanding oceans, not to melting ice caps.

-Contrary to some groups' fear mongering about the threat of diseases, temperature changes are likely to have little effect on the spread of diseases. Experts say that deterioration in public health practices such as rapid urbanization without adequate infrastructure, forced large scale resettlement of people, increased drug resistance, higher mobility through air travel, and lack of insect-control programs have the greatest impact on the spread of vector-borne diseases.

-Larger quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere and warmer climates would likely lead to an increase in vegetation. During warm periods in history vegetation flourished, at one point allowing the Vikings to farm in now frozen Greenland.


http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=65


Thought these two areas were the most important...

If global warming occurs, will it be harmful?

-The idea that global warming would melt the ice caps and flood coastal cities seems to be mere science fiction. A slight increase in temperature -- whether natural or mankind induced -- is not likely to lead to a massive melting of the earth ice caps, as sometimes claimed in the media. Also, sea-level rises over the centuries relate more to warmer and thus expanding oceans, not to melting ice caps.

-Contrary to some groups' fear mongering about the threat of diseases, temperature changes are likely to have little effect on the spread of diseases. Experts say that deterioration in public health practices such as rapid urbanization without adequate infrastructure, forced large scale resettlement of people, increased drug resistance, higher mobility through air travel, and lack of insect-control programs have the greatest impact on the spread of vector-borne diseases.

-Larger quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere and warmer climates would likely lead to an increase in vegetation. During warm periods in history vegetation flourished, at one point allowing the Vikings to farm in now frozen Greenland.


http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=65


Thought these two areas were the most important...

Your link is over 6 years old. All hell has broken loose since then. Here is a link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml) to a more recent study.

Talk to me in 50 years and we'll know who is right.

The world has lasted long before humans, and it will take more than an increase of temperatures to wipe out the world. Species will go extinct and new species will be created. It has been happening since the world came into being and probably won't stop just because some meddling species made a few mistakes.

Human beings are not separate from nature, thus anything and everything that we or anything else in the Universe does is entirely natural. There is nothing in any of the population models to indicate that human populations will be in any way negatively effected by global warming. Humans are among the most adaptive of species.

The idea of a static Earth is imaginary. Things have always been in a state of flux and species have always been going extinct since the beginning of Life.

Human beings will no doubt adapt by moving underground and by copying insect hive structure will finally harvest that other 90% of our brains, evolve into Grey Aliens, develop Time Travel and come back to the present and earlier times and perform anal probing experiments on us.

So it's all good and preordained. Don't worry about it.

Talk to me in 50 years and we'll know who is right.

We don't have that long anymore. You will understand what the big deal is in one of the next "few" years when America gets pounded by massive storms (more powerful than Katrina) like the chains of them that have struck Japan, Australia, India and China in the past couple of years.
Oh almost forgot: Al Gore's link (http://climatecrisis.org/)

Are humans causing the climate to change?

-98% of total global greenhouse gas emissions are natural (mostly water vapor); only 2% are from man-made sources.

Aside from the fact that your figures are incorrect, the inference you are obviously drawing from it is also incorrect. While you are correct that the vast majority of GHG's are not from man-made sources, that is not the issue. The issue is that even a small increase in the amount of GHG emissions (the increase being almost entirely caused by humans) increases the concentration of GHG's in the atmosphere, leading to climate change. It is sort of like running water in a sink. Previously the water was entering at more or less the same rate as it was being drained, so the amount of water stayed more or less constant. Even a small increase in the amount of water being poured into the sink will result in an increase in the level of water in the sink, even if the increase is small relative to the amount of water previously being poured in. The fact that it was only a small increase in the amount of water being poured won't be much of an excuse when the sink overflows.




- By most accounts, man-made emissions have had no more than a minuscule impact on the climate. Although the climate has warmed slightly in the last 100 years, 70% percent of that warming occurred prior to 1940, before the upsurge in greenhouse gas emissions from industrial processes. (Dr. Robert C. Balling, Arizona State University)

Citation?


-A Gallup survey indicated that only 17% of the members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society thought the warming of the 20th century was the result of an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

Meteorologists are supposed to be experts in weather, not climate.

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=65[/QUOTE]

Screw all the utilitarianism. There is something inherently wrong with willful destruction of existing ecosystems. In this atheists opinion, on a spiritual level. Are we allowed that?

Meteorologists are supposed to be experts in weather, not climate.


A quote from the American Meteorological Society website:

The American Meteorological Society promotes the development and dissemination of information and education on the atmospheric and related oceanic and hydrologic sciences and the advancement of their professional applications. Founded in 1919, AMS has a membership of more than 11,000 professionals, professors, students, and weather enthusiasts. AMS publishes nine atmospheric and related oceanic and hydrologic journals

Their areas of expertise are atmospheric and related oceanic and hydrologic sciences which would include climate. They are better placed to have an informed opinion than pretty much anyone else on climate change. You can't just discount their opinions because you see them as just weathermen when they are not.

We don't have that long anymore. You will understand what the big deal is in one of the next "few" years when America gets pounded by massive storms (more powerful than Katrina) like the chains of them that have struck Japan, Australia, India and China in the past couple of years.
Oh almost forgot: Al Gore's link (http://climatecrisis.org/)

Oh you mean like the predictions of the huge storms the US was supposed to get this year and when we in fact didnt get squat? Predictions are horseshit.

According to the NOVA program i watched last night on PBS, 99% of all species ever created are extinct. So my answer to the OP is...... so what?

Your link is over 6 years old. All hell has broken loose since then. Here is a link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml) to a more recent study.

Dragontide, you keep throwing out this link as if the fact the "newest study" is the best. CBS may have covered it this year, but the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment synthesis report was first presented in November 2004 (http://www.acia.uaf.edu/PDFs/ACIA_Science_Chapters_Final/ACIA_Covers_Final.pdf).

Screw all the utilitarianism. There is something inherently wrong with willful destruction of existing ecosystems. In this atheists opinion, on a spiritual level. Are we allowed that?

yes indeed. in fact, i typically refuse to even bother arguing the point. if someone wants to claim otherwise - that such other species and ecosystems and evolutionary histories and processes are not intrinsically valuable - then the burden of the argument falls on them.

one of the big arguments in environmental philosophy and ethics was that people just wouldn't accept a biocentric ethic. turns out that lots and lots of people not only will, but if they don't already, they are actually right on the edge of it already and just need a slight nudge.

According to the NOVA program i watched last night on PBS, 99% of all species ever created are extinct. So my answer to the OP is...... so what?

95% of all the humans who ever lived are dead. so what's wrong with me murdering a few more?

They are better placed to have an informed opinion than pretty much anyone else on climate change.

except for, you know, climatologists. real scientists that publish climate science in peer-reviewed science journals.

but who cares about them?

95% of all the humans who ever lived are dead.

I do not believe this to be even close to being true. A WAG is maybe 10-12ish billion humans have ever died ? If the world pop at 6 billion was 5% then you would need 120 BILLION dead humans LMAO

Human beings are not separate from nature, thus anything and everything that we or anything else in the Universe does is entirely natural. There is nothing in any of the population models to indicate that human populations will be in any way negatively effected by global warming. Humans are among the most adaptive of species.

yes, but natural doesn't always mean good.

and there is that little thing about the massive population displacements should even a smallish pecentage of the ice sheets go - you know, the ones that new studies keep finding are collapsing at unimagined rates due to a feedback loop of slight melting causing a pool of water which absorbs more heat than ice and therefore melts more faster.

oh, and the little thing about general changes in climate leading to still more massive displacement as formerly habitable areas become much less so.

but, and this is the point, even if anthropogenic climate change was uniformly good for us, it would be ethically wrong.

The idea of a static Earth is imaginary. Things have always been in a state of flux and species have always been going extinct since the beginning of Life.

yes, but usually it takes a giant rock from space or a dozen super volcanoes to reach the level of destructiveness that you and me are causing right now. we are well into mass extinction event mode now, and there have only been 5 of those before in the entire history of life on earth.

I do not believe this to be even close to being true. A WAG is maybe 10-12ish billion humans have ever died ? If the world pop at 6 billion was 5% then you would need 120 BILLION dead humans LMAO

we have about 120 billion dead humans since 150,000 years ago.

the math isn't really that complicated. there have been several hundred million people alive at any one time for the past 2,000 years, and we numbered in the tens of millions for all the time since the start of agriculture. that's 12 thousand years filled with tens and hundreds of millions of people dying. and then there are those 138,000 years (give or take a few tens of thousands) with a population around a million...

yes, but usually it takes a giant rock from space or a dozen super volcanoes to reach the level of destructiveness that you and me are causing right now. we are well into mass extinction event mode now, and there have only been 5 of those before in the entire history of life on earth.

Sorry im not buying it. Whos predicting this mass extinction event? The same group of scientists in the 1970s that said the worlds oil reserves would be depleted by the year 2000? Or to use a more recent examples, the "climatologists" that predicted this year would be one of the worst hurricane seasons on record for the US? These numbnuts cant predict accuratly what will happen 8 months from now yet you judge thier ability to determine MASS EARTH EXTINCTIONS to be competent? Im still waiting for hurricanes to arrive. Its the same type of bunch of kooks that say all the fish will be fished from the oceans by 2048. I call bullshit.

I think that every scientist in the world who publishes predictions in science literature must be forced to post a % of his previous sucessful predictions next to his name by law.

Sorry im not buying it. Whos predicting this mass extinction event?

i don't care whether you 'buy it'. it isn't a prediction, it's an observation. the facts are in. accept them or keep quiet and let us work out how to fix your mess.

the "climatologists" that predicted this year would be one of the worst hurricane seasons on record for the US?

got a source for that in a peer reviewed science journal? cause i don't remember that happening at all. why would somebody studying climate predict the weather for a particular year in a particular country?

I'm not sure it's possible for an animal that only exists in captivity and reproduces via artificial insemination to go extinct unless some serious fertility issues occurred.

That is not my point...

got a source for that in a peer reviewed science journal? cause i don't remember that happening at all. why would somebody studying climate predict the weather for a particular year in a particular country?



http://www.cnn.com/2006/WEATHER/05/22/2006.hurricane.season/index.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5005806.stm

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane.shtmlhttp://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/2006/june2006/



http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/051206_hurricane_forecast_2006.html


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12915678/


http://whttp://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/hurricane-season/mg19025533.500-hurricane-season-in-overdriveagain.htmlww.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5422929

and http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5422929

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane.shtml

http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/2006/june2006/

The point is, these people do this struff for a LIVING and cant accuratly predict things just months away, let alone intelligently draw conclusions on if we are in the middle of an global mass extinction. A reasonable word of advice when looking at the actual sucess record of these "predictions" is to take them with an ocean of salt.

...

you did read some of those links, yes?

cause this is what you said a couple posts ago:
"the 'climatologists' that predicted this year would be one of the worst hurricane seasons on record for the US?"

while this is what those links said:
"However, we do not expect to see as many landfalling major hurricanes in the United States as we have experienced in 2004 and 2005."

"NOAA continues to predict a high likelihood (75% chance) of an above-normal 2006 Atlantic hurricane season and a 20% chance of a near-normal season"

"The National Hurricane Center's latest forecast for the 2006 season calls for more Atlantic hurricanes than usual, but not as many as seen over the past three years"

"But it says 2006 will be less active than last year's record-breaking season"

that shit's just embarrassing, man.

additionally, i don't see any peer-reviewed climatology journal articles in your sample there - was that just an oversight on your part?

misspost

From CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/21/climate.species.ap/index.html):


It appears as though things are moving faster than we thought. Hopefully our leaders will take this as a wake-up call...


so what's the balance?
how many new species?

you do realize the weather forecasting is at best an art at worst deception

they can't reliably do a day ahead and we need to believe that they can forecast 50-100 years ACCURATELY?

get a life

it's about money/funding research/political power not temperature

Ok these are cites from each article and i will leave it for you to decide on thier accuracy.

"The 2006 forecast calls for:

* 17 named tropical storms; an average season has 9.6.
* 9 hurricanes compared to the average of 5.9.
* 5 major hurricanes with winds exceeding 110 mph; average is 2.3.

Though these statistical predictions cannot portend when any of the storms will form or where they will go, Klotzbach, Gray and colleagues calculate an 81 percent chance that at least one major hurricane will hit the U.S. coast in 2006."

"Government forecasters say 2006 is likely to be another busy hurricane season in the Atlantic."

"U.S. government experts say 4-6 could be ‘major’

This National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite image shows Hurricane Katrina as it made landfall on Aug. 29, 2005. The 2006 forecast is for a "very active" season but not quite as active as record-breaking 2005."

"EXTENDED RANGE FORECAST OF ATLANTIC SEASONAL HURRICANE ACTIVITY AND U.S. LANDFALL STRIKE PROBABILITY FOR 2006



We continue to foresee another very active Atlantic basin tropical cyclone season in 2006. Landfall probabilities for the 2006 hurricane season are well above their long-period averages."

"Busy Atlantic hurricane season forecast"


And on and on and on. The point is humans have a CRAPPY ability to accuratly predict the future. So take what you hear regarding predictions of the future from scientists with the same skepticism that you would a tarot card reader wearing a cape and a towel on his head.

not adaptation driven by anthropogenic destruction and disturbance

Whether you like it or not, humans are PART of the environment and modify it. Why is it a sin for humans to modify the environment such that it affects some species to adapt, but for beavers, ants, and the million other species that change the environment it's part of nature?:rolleyes:

+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

:mad: :upyours: The global warming theory is a bunch of crock so that scientist can recieve more grants meaning more money. That fact is that every 1500 hundred years the earth becomes warmer than it usually does. You can find this in tree rings all over the world. In fact during the dark ages it was 5-7 degress warmer than it is today. The reasoning behind global warming is not in large part to humans but regular cycles in the earth climate. You can look back at history and finds trends of warm periods such as 1930's then the earths tempature dropped below the usual amount in the 1950's. Even the great DR. Grey the hurricane expert from the university of Colorado disputes global warming caused by humans. The fact is that people are being sucked in to this unproven theroy and they dont see the real reason behind the subject. The fact that money keeps being thrown in the way of science every time they bring up global warming. If thses scientist were factual they would realize that during the Dinosaur era the Earth was 10-15 degrees warmer than it is today. Al Gore is oximoranic in his statements since his jet emmits more pollutants in a day than a factory in a month. Dont be fooled by the manipulative left wing media and open your eyes to the truth so all can see the underlying reason for global warming "Money":confused: :confused: :(

Good riddance. Fuckin' polar bears and penguins, eatin' my fish.

My astronomy professor was talking about global warming today and he had some interesting opinions on the matter. He told the class that there is still a fair amount of controversy among scientists on the matter and he personally believes that the recent peak in sunspots on the sun are causing the temperatures to rise. He pointed out that the same sort of temperature shift happened in the middle ages when sunspot activity was high.

He also said we should be more concerned about another ice age, which we are apparently due for at any time and that there would be next to nothing humanity could do to stop it from happening.

Now, I wouldn't automatically believe him without reading up on the matter, but his argument does make sense (I'm by no means very knowledgable on the topic). There have been periods where the temperature has dropped despite greenhouse gas emissions continuing to rise. Still, that's no excuse to keep blasting the atmosphere full of pollution and it is always good to be more mindful of the environment. Humanity may need to prepare for climate shifts, however, as I truly think the situation is beyond our control at this point and nations are not going to change policy until some negative event forces them into action.

Oh you mean like the predictions of the huge storms the US was supposed to get this year and when we in fact didnt get squat? Predictions are horseshit.

This could have been a terrible year for storms. They didn't stike the US this year due to an unscheduled El-Nino. (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2699.htm) They most certainly beat the shit out of the Far East though!

The study of global warming produces very few predictions. It produces the findings of the exact science that it is! DO THE MATH!!!

:mad: :upyours: The global warming theory is a bunch of crock so that scientist can recieve more grants meaning more money. That fact is that every 1500 hundred years the earth becomes warmer than it usually does. You can find this in tree rings all over the world. In fact during the dark ages it was 5-7 degress warmer than it is today. The reasoning behind global warming is not in large part to humans but regular cycles in the earth climate. You can look back at history and finds trends of warm periods such as 1930's then the earths tempature dropped below the usual amount in the 1950's. Even the great DR. Grey the hurricane expert from the university of Colorado disputes global warming caused by humans. The fact is that people are being sucked in to this unproven theroy and they dont see the real reason behind the subject. The fact that money keeps being thrown in the way of science every time they bring up global warming. If thses scientist were factual they would realize that during the Dinosaur era the Earth was 10-15 degrees warmer than it is today. Al Gore is oximoranic in his statements since his jet emmits more pollutants in a day than a factory in a month. Dont be fooled by the manipulative left wing media and open your eyes to the truth so all can see the underlying reason for global warming "Money":confused: :confused: :(

amen

Dragontide, you keep throwing out this link as if the fact the "newest study" is the best. CBS may have covered it this year, but the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment synthesis report was first presented in November 2004 (http://www.acia.uaf.edu/PDFs/ACIA_Science_Chapters_Final/ACIA_Covers_Final.pdf).

It is more than just a CBS link. It was a study that was funded by the Bush administration. Thing is....damm thing of it is: After Bush read the report he wouldn't do the right thing. He knows something should be done but he's not doing it!!

Of course it is Co2 that causes global warming. But the real reason behind global warming is greed!!!

Whether you like it or not, humans are PART of the environment and modify it. Why is it a sin for humans to modify the environment such that it affects some species to adapt, but for beavers, ants, and the million other species that change the environment it's part of nature?:rolleyes:

1) humans are moral agents in a way that beavers are not
2) the non-anthropogenic 'environmental modifications' that actually compare to modern human ones are 10 km diameter rocks from outer space slamming into the earth. beavers aren't even close. see "great power -> great responsibility" and all that jazz.

So it's a difference not in kind, but in degree?

I think you need to justify where you're drawing that line.

So it's a difference not in kind, but in degree?

I think you need to justify where you're drawing that line.

it's both, really.

it is only because we have moral agency that we can be morally responsible for our acts. if beavers are moral agents at all, it is at a different level than humans, and thus they cannot be held morally responsible at the same level. on top of that, beavers are not in the process of causing a multi-pronged global mass extinction event - so even if they did have the same amount of moral agency as humans, they would not be guilty of any environmental wrong-doing.

the wrong-doing does not reside in mere modification of habitat. everything does that. it resides in the utter destruction of entire habitats, species, ecosystems, etc, and the utter subjugation of the land to the will of just one member of the various morally relevant members of the community. and the blameworthiness of these actions comes from the fact that we ought to know better.

:mad: :upyours: The global warming theory is a bunch of crock so that scientist can recieve more grants meaning more money. That fact is that every 1500 hundred years the earth becomes warmer than it usually does. You can find this in tree rings all over the world. In fact during the dark ages it was 5-7 degress warmer than it is today. The reasoning behind global warming is not in large part to humans but regular cycles in the earth climate. You can look back at history and finds trends of warm periods such as 1930's then the earths tempature dropped below the usual amount in the 1950's. Even the great DR. Grey the hurricane expert from the university of Colorado disputes global warming caused by humans. The fact is that people are being sucked in to this unproven theroy and they dont see the real reason behind the subject. The fact that money keeps being thrown in the way of science every time they bring up global warming. If thses scientist were factual they would realize that during the Dinosaur era the Earth was 10-15 degrees warmer than it is today. Al Gore is oximoranic in his statements since his jet emmits more pollutants in a day than a factory in a month. Dont be fooled by the manipulative left wing media and open your eyes to the truth so all can see the underlying reason for global warming "Money":confused: :confused: :(
Except for the fact that there is more money to be found in denying Global Warming. But then, your use of the middle finger smiley frightens me, so I concede the argument to you. Please don't hurt me.

He told the class that there is still a fair amount of controversy among scientists on the matter The only remaining serious areas of controversy is how much of the warming trend is caused by humans, how warm it is going to get how fast, and what the effects will be. That the majority of the warming is caused by humans is no longer in dispute.


and he personally believes that the recent peak in sunspots on the sun are causing the temperatures to rise. He pointed out that the same sort of temperature shift happened in the middle ages when sunspot activity was high. Solar irradiation is responsible for some of the warming, but is a minor factor compared to greenhouse gases. The medieval warm period was regional, not global.


He also said we should be more concerned about another ice age, which we are apparently due for at any time and that there would be next to nothing humanity could do to stop it from happening.

We are overdue for an ice age, and there are some signs that it should be occurring, which is what makes the warming trend so alarming. A long-term cooling trend may actually be masking some of the effect of our increased greenhouse gases. So not only have we managed to increase the temperature by 1 degree, we may have increased it greatly over the natural level.

except for, you know, climatologists. real scientists that publish climate science in peer-reviewed science journals.

but who cares about them?

And guess who runs some of those peer-reviewed science journals (e.g. the Journal of Climate and the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology), the American Meteorological Society. Guess which society that many climatologists in the US are members of, yep the American Meteorological Society. In the UK many climatologists are members of the Royal Meteorological Society which publishes the International Journal of Climatology.

Good riddance. Fuckin' polar bears and penguins, eatin' my fish.Fish are far more susceptible to minor changes in water temperature than most other creatures. It's far more likely we lose most species of fish before we lose penguins.

And guess who runs some of those peer-reviewed science journals (e.g. the Journal of Climate and the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology), the American Meteorological Society. Guess which society that many climatologists in the US are members of, yep the American Meteorological Society. In the UK many climatologists are members of the Royal Meteorological Society which publishes the International Journal of Climatology.

Exactly. Wait, are you trying to argue that they don't know what they're talking about? Damn. That's just... Damn.

It is more than just a CBS link. It was a study that was funded by the Bush administration. Thing is....damm thing of it is: After Bush read the report he wouldn't do the right thing. He knows something should be done but he's not doing it!!

Of course it is Co2 that causes global warming. But the real reason behind global warming is greed!!!

I know exactly what it is. But this is the second time you've used this study as a better example because it's "more recent." You tried to tell me last month it was more recent than my June 2005 study in Nature was outdated because it was pre-Katrina, then you linked me to this even earlier study, claiming it was more recent (presumably because CBS reported it in 2006).

I'm not debating the cause of global warming. I concede that point. But cherry-picking the studies you want to use to prove your theory of the severity of global warming's effects only damages your own credibility.

Try this one: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060622173129.htm

Exactly. Wait, are you trying to argue that they don't know what they're talking about? Damn. That's just... Damn.

No, I am saying they do know what they are talking about. However as someone else pointed out there is still not full agreement between the experts. The media currently on the other hand, depending on their slant, are saying there is complete agreement or its all lies. The issue is that never black and white.

Also, I still do not understand why CO2 gets so much attention in the media when water vapour is a much more effective green house gas.

It should be noted that I am still in favour of controlling our emissions but not for global warming issues, rather I see much of the emissions as wasted resources that could be exploited (Think of all the dry ice that could be made from the CO2 emissions for discos :cool: ).

EDIT: I removed the link and my comments about it as Free Soviets kindly pointed out that the page I had linked to was not properly source its information and seemed to be fabricating data. Next time I will check my references properly.

no species can exist forever/

no species can exist forever/

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2802289840560459300&q=forever+queen&hl=en

Also, I still do not understand why CO2 gets so much attention in the media when water vapour is a much more effective green house gas.

The link below demonstrates this:
atmospheric water vapour (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html)

hey, haven't seen that one in awhile. it's nice, if you enjoy things that blatantly make shit up and lie about it.

look at table 1. now go to the source it cites (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html). now tell me where the hell the numbers for 'natural additions' vs 'man-made additions' comes from.

mmmm, academic dishonesty

1) humans are moral agents in a way that beavers are not
2) the non-anthropogenic 'environmental modifications' that actually compare to modern human ones are 10 km diameter rocks from outer space slamming into the earth. beavers aren't even close. see "great power -> great responsibility" and all that jazz.

In response to 1), I agree, but in response to 2), why does it matter that we can impact the environment more? We've become sophisticated enough to do so, so it's natural that we do. If sea otters evolved to such a state, they'd do the same thing.

Btw, I don't disagree that global warming is happening, just statements like that irk me.

Good riddance. Fuckin' polar bears and penguins, eatin' my fish.
It's the seals who are eating your fish. If you'd let us club more baby seals, we'd have more fish.

It's the seals who are eating your fish. If you'd let us club more baby seals, we'd have more fish.

:sniper: *BOOM* Headshot! Sniper > club?

hey, haven't seen that one in awhile. it's nice, if you enjoy things that blatantly make shit up and lie about it.

look at table 1. now go to the source it cites (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html). now tell me where the hell the numbers for 'natural additions' vs 'man-made additions' comes from.

mmmm, academic dishonesty

Damn, I will check the references next time. I knew it was biased but I didn't think they would be dishonest:mad: . Just great, I found the link because I was looking for a simple explanation for why I believed there was too much emphasis on CO2. I will go back to my post and remove that link.

I will just reference this research paper that demonstrates the point I was trying to make:

Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget, Kiehl, J. T. and Trenberth, K. E.,
Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 197-208 (1997).

I was trying to emphasise the much smaller effect that CO2 has compared to water vapour for the green house effect.

In response to 1), I agree, but in response to 2), why does it matter that we can impact the environment more? We've become sophisticated enough to do so, so it's natural that we do. If sea otters evolved to such a state, they'd do the same thing.

should sea otters get to point 2 then they would be morally blameworthy too. unless they hadn't become moral agents along the way - then they wouldn't be morally responsible for their destructive actions, but one would be well within the realm of moral justification to stop them.

:sniper: *BOOM* Headshot! Sniper > club?
Okay, to be honest most seal hunting is done with rifles.

From CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/21/climate.species.ap/index.html):


It appears as though things are moving faster than we thought. Hopefully our leaders will take this as a wake-up call...

about time