Crunch time for the cosy cousin?
You'd think that conserving the world's biodiversity would be a pretty uncontroversial aim - wouldn't you?
Who wouldn't think it a good idea that the giant panda survives for our children's children to marvel at, that the intricate dependencies of coral reef ecosystems remain un-ruptured by dynamite and fertilisers, that savannahs and forests and mangroves be allowed to continue providing humanity with game and oxygen and coastal protection?
According to York University's Alastair Fitter - you need to think again.
Co-chairing a wrap-up session at the recent InterAcademy Panel conference, the biologist suggested that biodiversity may not remain climate change's cosy cousin for much longer.
The fundamental reason why e-mails were stolen last year from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit was, he said, because climate change had reached such a fever pitch of political heat, and if it becomes evident that conserving biodiversity means changing lifestyles, those working in the field must expect debate to reach similar temperatures.
With this year being declared the International Year of Biodiversity, and with the critical session of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) coming up this October, you'd expect such heated conflict to materialise this year, if at all.
History suggests that Professor Fitter may be correct.
Just two countries in the world are not parties to the CBD: Andorra and the US.
I'm a little shaky on Andorra's reasons. But the aetiology of the US position speaks absolutely to the argument that the "mom and apple pie" view of biodiversity can quickly turn into "mom and a lacing of strychnine".
After President Bill Clinton signed the convention in 1993, it went swiftly into Congress for ratification, and the first indications were that it might well pass.
But a number of interested parties began to argue against - organisations concerned with land ownership and land rights, such as the Montana Farm Bureau Federation and Grassroots for Multiple Use, allied with groups opposed in principle to extensions of government and regulation.
Concerns were expressed about possible restrictions on the unfettered access that US pharmaceutical companies had to the developing world's biological riches, and on the nascent technology of genetic engineering.
With senators lining up to condemn the convention, using phrases such as "I am especially concerned about the effect of the treaty on private property rights in my state and throughout America" and "a rather common view among so-called developing nations that this treaty is some sort of an international cash cow to be milked", it went un-ratified - and remains so to this day.
In the domain of public opinion, the parallels are striking.
On the website of Sovereignty International, you'll find a video clip of Lord Monckton speaking against carbon curbs through the UN climate convention, and a video clip of US lobbyist Henry Lamb speaking against moves to protect wild lands through the UN biodiversity convention.
A related consultancy, Environmental Perspectives Incorporated, links the issues by talking of "false environmental catastrophes like global warming and ecosystem destruction" - both promoted by people who want to establish global governance.
The rhetoric on news media is also familiar: "Your instincts tell you there is something wrong, or incomplete about what the media is telling you... We provide information the media leaves out - the other side of the story!"
Now, this post isn't a history lesson, isn't an examination exclusively of US lobby groups, and doesn't assume that UN conventions are the only way to protect biodiversity.
But it does demonstrate the wider point that when panda push comes to financial shove, biodiversity can become every bit as heated as climate change.
Here's a hypothetical example raised at the InterAcademy panel meeting.
Let's say you want to protect the Amazon rainforest and the rich biodiversity it contains.
One way you might look to do that is by reducing deforestation; and one of the main causes of Amazonian deforestation is clearance for cattle ranches.
So you might choose to campaign among Western consumers, or to lobby Western governments, to reduce the amount of beef consumed on Western plates; less beef equals more trees.
Does the issue look uncontroversial now?
So with something of a nod to the industry of our regular commenter davblo2, and without a hint of judgement on their merits, here are just five arguments that I expect to see deployed at some point during the year:
• Biological diversity around the world isn't really declining
• Where it is, it's a product of natural cycles such as the normal run of predator-prey dynamics; species have always gone extinct and always will
• Much of the evidence for declining biological diversity comes from eco-extremist groups, so cannot be trusted, as these organisations have a financial stake in portraying a crisis
• Moves to protect biodiversity are just an excuse to raise taxes
• Developing countries should concentrate on economic growth first, then use their wealth to repair any damage caused; they have more to gain by ripping down their forests and selling the timber than by protecting them
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© 2012~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~41~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Anyone who thinks there is something valuable per se about biodiversity, please explain what is valuable about it -- why it is valuable.
Complain about this comment
hit the nail smack on its head.
i'm sure that the slide al gore parodied in his superb film 'an inconvenient truth', where the entire globe is balanced on some scales with a bag of dosh, is being shown by lobbyists all over the world.
protecting the planet is just plain bad business.
Complain about this comment
As global warming collapses, a substitute needs to be found very soon.
Merkel already suggested to create a UN agency on the same lines as the IPCC, and that the UN should pursue a legally binding agreement on the matter, and that rich countries should pay for poor countries to not use the space of "endangered" animals.
Oh well, I think I have seen this same story before.
Complain about this comment
Global Warming = Biodiversity = the same group of advocates pushing their own political agenda.
Sam old, same old.....the usual suspects....WWF...Greenpeace...UN bodies....government spin.... media nonsense....exaggerated scientific claims....fraud....been there done that.
Lets move on nothing of importance here.
Complain about this comment
Well I have zero business interests, and I'm in favour of more market regulation. I'm "left-wing" in the sense that I favour large-scale re-distribution of wealth, and heavy taxes for the rich to pay for generous social welfare for the poor, free education, free health care, etc.. I agree with the Marxist slogan "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". I have had a lifelong interest in living things, and I have a compassionate attitude towards most of them.
BUT I don't see what's valuable per se about biodiversity. I'm glad the smallpox virus is extinct in the wild, and I sincerely hope the polio virus soon becomes extinct too.
What I keep seeing in unexplained, unjustified pleas for biodiversity is RELIGION. Explicit religious belief has been on the wane for centuries, but Man remains "a religious animal", and many people think nature is "sacred" in some way -- that biodiversity is "meant to be". But meant by whom? Should that be: By Whom? Are we talking of "God's design"? If so, let's be honest about it!
Complain about this comment
The very idea of living in a world with a degraded environment - nothing but Homo sapiens and his destructive works - appals me. And I suspect we would not survive it as we need the species we share the world with. Our species is the only one that contributes nothing to the ecosystem and only takes from it; I suggest we rename our species Homo bardus or Homo avarus.
Complain about this comment
@Bowmanthebard:
I'll admit that as a computer repair geek I'm no expert on Biodiversity, but since no-one else is trying to explain this I'll give it a go.
It seems biodiversity is important because a species cannot exist in isolation. To an extent we all exist in a symbiotic relationship with other species.
For instance, Bee populations are plummeting unexpectedly. The initial suspect was, of course, global warming. But further analysis shows a complicated web of factors including, but not limited to, a virulent fungal infection, pesticide/farming eradication of food plants, increase in predator animals (or just predator animals eating more Bees due to lack of other prey) and encroachment of Bee habitat by other insect species that compete for the same resouces. All this culminates in a lack of Honey for you to spread on your toast.
What this means is that to ensure the healthy existence of species that we rely on for our survival, we may need to ensure the survival of an unexpected number of, superficially unrelated, other species (what if the fungal infection in Bees is because the fungus originally attack a species of fly that we are controlling with pesicides, and so has evolved to feed on Bees instead?).
I hope that helps you, as an explanation. If I am mistaken - then I'm sure an expert will shortly correct me! :-)
Complain about this comment
I and many other skeptics I've run into have actually been complaining for quite some time that the REAL issues like biodiversity and pollution are taking a back seat to "climate change". It's just been a bad idea lumping them in together. Of course, as skeptics are often skeptical of everything they usually do admit that we're not going to save everything. Some biodiversity is more valuable than others.
A fish that lives in ONE tiny pond is likely going to be wiped out no matter what. Small, vulnerable populations like that just don't usually make it for long in geological terms. Such species likely show up quite often but its difficult to know how often. The rate of speciation and extinction is certainly FAR higher than that seen in the fossil record.
Giant pandas are kind of borderline in this respect. They're a great PR tool because they have an interesting look...but the species appears to have never managed much more than just clinging to existence. It hasn't even managed to adapt enough to harbor sufficient numbers of cellulose digesting bacteria (a significant disadvantage given their diet)
On the other hand, some species just occupy odd little niches within their environments. While they may be found scattered over vast areas of the continent they may be vulnerable to humans simply not liking their preferred habitat, food, lifestyle, etc. On my family's land...protected under the nature conservancy (I was in on that decision) and the location of the solar heated home I grew up in...we have an abundance of a species like that, the Big Leaf Magnolia (Magnolia macrophylla)
They're found in little patches all over the southeastern US and do very well in their preferred environment...but they generally die if you try to use them as ornamental plants (what a pity).
Anyway, biodiversity is important but not every species can or should be saved. Whatever's going to live here on this planet is going to have to live with us too. Bending over backward to make sure there are viable ecosystems is actually pretty reasonable. Bending over backward to save the pup fish...not so much. The all-or-nothing approach that you get when you try to lump diversity in with "climate change" is unrealistic at best and might even have an overall negative impact on conservation.
Complain about this comment
Amazon being cleared to make cows to make burgers. The common answer is lobby western consumers to eat less. Thats NEVER going to work.
The real issue with protecting habitat, bio diversity and minimising our impact on the environment generally is to address the elephant in the room issue:
POPULATION.
Complain about this comment
#9 jasonsceptic wrote:
"the elephant in the room issue:
"POPULATION."
So think about it: What made it rise when it did? What kept it down before?
Complain about this comment
oh dear. the 'infinite growth', pro business lobby are spamming the bbc again.
the fact of mass extinction is another inconvenient truth. however, hedonistic layman and business interests will stop at nothing to prevent action being taken no matter how serious the situation.
it seems cowardly denialism is a knee jerk reaction to most people when their cushy lifestyles and profits are threatened.
unless these layman denialists can bring anything constructive to the debate, i suggest we ignore their transparently self interested rhetoric.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard
You are right. Biodiversity isn't valuable per se.
However there are so many specifics where biodiversity is valuable and so few specifics where biodiversity isn't valuable that as a practical generalism "biodiversity is valuable" works.
Note, this comment does not discuss either relative value of biodiversity or methods of preserving biodiversity, both of which are more pertinent to the problems highlit by Richard.
Complain about this comment
To bowmanthebard and others asking "why is biodiversity important," here is an article worth reading:
Global Issues: Why Is Biodiversity Important? Who Cares?
Complain about this comment
Bowmanthebard at #5
For an example of intrinsic value of biodiversity, have a look at 'ecosystem services'.
Complain about this comment
@Richard Black
It was my impression that some of conservationists' biggest successes were based on listening to the locals.
Listening to the locals uses local knowledge and can help identify practices that benefit the locals as well as wildlife. And most people are naturally motivated to look after their home and the long term lookout of their livelihood.
Complain about this comment
"What I keep seeing in unexplained, unjustified pleas for biodiversity is RELIGION. "
one reason is pure self interest. no-one knows how lost species of plant would benefit future agriculture, medicine or some unforeseen need. so, this practical reason alone is proof that preserving biodiversity is entirely objectively justified, and is no religion.
to turn your silly argument round, mr growther, can you explain how your idea of 'infinite growth' on a finite planet is not a matter of pure, blind, religious faith?
i put it to you, mr infinite growther, that it is yourself that holds the quasi religious position.
Complain about this comment
Why do we continue to assume that we are the most important element in biodiversity and that our needs as humans should be held more important than all other life on earth?
A reduction in population growth through education is, in my opinion, the only solution to climate change, degredation of air and water quality and reduction in biodiversity.
Complain about this comment
May I just point out some undeniable scientific facts:
Plants act as an air filter i.e. they turn carbon dioxide into breathable oxygen. More Trees means less carbon dioxide and more oxygen. Less Trees means less oxygen and more carbon dioxide. This is detrimental to all forms of life.
Increasing human population means increased livestock population which also means more demand for arable land which of course means increased carbon dioxide release, increased oxygen demand. Of course this also severely damages the earth's capacity to contain life directly and indirectly. Atmospheric composition greatly changes and the damage accelerates.
Deforested land is not easily reparable. The land becomes desertified because of the change in weather and thus becomes essentially useless.
Now, as for this opinion that bio-diversity is not valuable 'per-se'. Economic growth is not desirable per se. Technological advance is niether. It is unlikley people are happier now than they were pre-civillisation. In fact, there is significant evidence to suggest people are less happy now and more prone to depression. Of course one must differentiate between what is good for the few and what is good for the many and they are almost always directly in conflict.
In addition, the most desirable world would be one devoid of need. I.e. nothing will run out and everyone gets enough of necessities. This is not good for those that benefit from imbalance of course, shareholders, big companies etc. But it cannot be denied that this is the theoritical ideal. A world where everyone has access to renewable clean safe power, healthy food and a suitable home. This becomes less and less achievable every moment the world continues as it is currently. The earth cannot support rapidly growing populations nor can it be assumed the rich west will be able to maintain their dominance over the rest of the vastly numerical superior world. China, India, Africa have populations who do not enjoy the same standard of living as the west and their demands will greatly rise in the near future. The earth simply cannot support this unless radical measures are taken such as ceasing of all deforesting of the Amazon, the complete abandonment of fossil fuels etc.
Complain about this comment
You missed out the most obvious and logical argument against biodiversity Mr. Black:
Why should anyone care?
Make no mistake, just about every form of life that has existed on this planet is extinct and the ones still around will follow the others into oblivion. By the good grace of human ingenuity their genomes can now be preserved. We should be very proud of ourselves and nature should be very grateful.
The panda you have a picture of up there is a prime example of something which should not be. Its digestive system is so appallingly unfit for purpose that it has to sit around all day munching on a food source that sprouts in such a fickle fashion that those podgy, lazy, methane outgassing lumps of cytoplasms' days are undoubtedly numbered. To waste our precious and dwindling fossil fuel supplies tiptoeing around such an obvious genetic dead-end is foolish. Sequence its genome, dump that in a freezer (or preferably on a database so we don't have to waste our resources keeping it cold), and then raze and strip-mine the poor thing's habitat for anything that can make our lives easier. The resulting slag heaps will soon be fertile pasture for a utile species that we can eat. Yum.
The only species that matters is us. This is self-evident in such a basic and ubiquitous way that any argument against it can only be the product of zealotry.
And there's people arguing against human overpopulation! Are they kidding, what species are they? We strip-mine the entire planet to whatever depth our technology allows (only human extinction could prevent this happening eventually anyway); and if we pour our resources into space exploration and terraforming we might be able do the same to Mars, the asteroid belt and the gas giant's satellites before this rock we're on is totally depleted. If you don't agree with me you're depressingly myopic.
To be perfectly honest with you, now that the polar bears' genome is on file, I'm planning to consult with indigenous Arctic elders to see if I can't tag along on the next cull. I'm sick to my teeth looking at those seal-murdering bears dangling precariously off ice floes and savaging the heads of their infanticide victims. It's thanks to the efforts of AGW fanatics filling the newspapers with pictures of these horrendous animals that I consider them to be useful only for floor coverings and taxidermy and pledge to do all I can to limit their burgeoning population.
Complain about this comment
@Richard Black
The side effects of Amazon exploitation are not confined to loss of biodiversity.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/amazon/2008/05/antislavery_raid.html
http://thereport.amnesty.org/en/regions/americas/brazil
Complain about this comment
FergalR #19.
"Why should anyone care?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
Complain about this comment
jr:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/realism
Complain about this comment
"The only species that matters is us. This is self-evident in such a basic and ubiquitous way that any argument against it can only be the product of zealotry."
hmmm, bit of a short sighted (and bigoted) opinion you got there, not least because, as top of the food chain we literally depend on more species to survive, than any other species. as such, they HAVE to matter to us for entirely practical reasons.
but the selfish growthers here have not answered my previous question. you believe in the absurd quasi religious notion of a continuing population/economic growth at the expense of all living things and the integrity of the system itself. please explain how infinite growth continue on a finite planet?
in light of this self evidently not being possible, and the fact that the energy that sustains us is soon to run out, would it not make sense to 'throttle back' on human growth while we STILL have a viable climate, water supply, food supply and reasonably intact biodiversity to boot.
arguing, as you lot do, that its a great idea to continue mindless growth when all signs that we have reached complete saturation of the planet, is truly insane.
there are a whole raft of reasons to cut our numbers and parasitic economy while there is still time. its not just about saving some rare swamp lizard somewhere.
Complain about this comment
Right on Richard, or, as rossglory said, you "hit the nail smack on its head." (post #2)
And I miss davblo2 - he hasn't been commenting for some time now. The deluge of special interest comments wears on me, and I am sure on others.
It's hard to know how to respond to 'the lobby.' Some just do their best to provide accurate information, and refute the more absurd claims. But right now special interest/business as usual is definitely winning.
I just received Jim Hansen's latest mailing, and it is worth a read, especially the first few paragraphs, which comment on the ad hominem attacks on scientists.
And Dr. Hansen is very revealing in his personal outlook, which I will illustrate with the following excerpts:
"The spiral into an almost surrealistic situation with ad hominem attacks on scientists may have originated in part with vested interests who do not want society to address climate change. But there is more than that – including honest, wishful thinking that climate change is not really happening. But wishing does not alter facts. The scientific method practically defines integrity. [Albert Einstein: "The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true." Richard Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool."] (my emphasis)
We know of no cases of fraud in analyses of global temperature measurements. Despite unfounded accusations, we believe that our best approach is simply to continue to report our scientific results as clearly as possible."
As this is a pdf document, you will have to access it by going first to James Hansen's website. See - "Jan. 26, 2010: If It's That Warm, How Come It's So Darned Cold?"
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
---------------------
PS:
I would also like to mention that two of my posts on the last blog were removed because of too much political/economic content, i.e., 'off topic.'
Your current blog is almost entirely political and economic, as well it should be.
I would like to see the policies of some of your moderators changed to reflect the fact that the economy and the environment cannot realistically be separated.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Some people have complained that i never chip in on posts not related to climate change, not sure why, but here's my two-pennyworth (about 1p in new money lol)
Bowmanthebard tells us biodiversity per se isn't important and to an extent I agree, but let's remember for each and every species that goes extinct for whatever reason, it isn't just the one species that is affected, there is a knock on effect and other species move in to fill the void. The rhododendron introduced to the UK is an example of how a foreign species can cause havoc and destruction of the native population. To my mind the rhododendron is a weed.
Trying to preserve the biodiversity of the planet is important because every time i see a butterfly or galloping horse or an orchid in full bloom it makes my day better.
The diversity of life on earth is worth preserving simply for the joy of life.
OK, so now you know why i don't chip in
/mango
Complain about this comment
To jr4412 #21:
Excellent link!
I see Richard's prediction took about one second to be fulfilled (post #1).
Everywhere I look, everywhere I have worked, the corrosive juices of 'business as usual' have taken their toll on the human spirit.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #24
It's hard to know how to respond to 'the lobby.' Some just do their best to provide accurate information, and refute the more absurd claims. But right now special interest/business as usual is definitely winning.
You're sounding more paranoid every day, my friend, although i think the Einstein quote is worth repeating:
"The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true."
/mango
Complain about this comment
andy #23
You describe my comments as bigoted and then suggest that we "cut our numbers". Your suggestion is properly called genocide. As is AGW's poster boy James Hansen's call for a moratorium on the burning of coal.
If you take the time to actually read my post I specifically point out that infinite growth is impossible. However, the earth's crust averages several tens of kilometers thick so we've a while to get through that while we develop the technology to take advantage of the molten part.
The only biodiversity humanity depends on is that which we need as a source of nutrition and oxygen. Anything else is decoration. My apologies if the truth offends anyone.
Complain about this comment
Biodiversity valuable per se? Of course - systems that are diverse tend to be more stable than those that are not. Thus when changes occur, e.g the climate, there is sufficient variation in species available to adapt.
If we lose our bees through disease for example, we will want to find species or subspecies that can replace them. Some people suspect that part of the problem with bee decline recently is that the genetic base of commercial varieties is just too narrow.
"Sweet are the uses of adversity" and the uses of biodiversity are equally sweet - ask the bees.
Complain about this comment
FergalR #22.
realism would include recognition of interdependence.
Complain about this comment
Hmm biodiversity again.
Easiest solution for the EU especially to take definitive action in improving global biodiversity, scrap the Common Agricultural Policy.
Then get rid of all the red tape surrounding farming, kick the supermrkets hard with their stupid packaging requirements. Allow for local slaughtering of animals for butchers. Prohibit the planting of things such as rape as it destroyed mounts of biodiversity.
Drop the idea of set a side, but encourage boundary protection
Next ban all biofuels
Western advantage is you will see a fall in the price of your locally produced products. I mean you lot are paying how much for a kilo of beef, I just bought 2 kilos of top side for €6.50 it came from Argentina!!!!!
Complain about this comment
@FergalR #28
"You describe my comments as bigoted and then suggest that we "cut our numbers". Your suggestion is properly called genocide."
Actually there is a human rights issue whereby some women in developing countries are either dissuaded or actively prevented from family planning measures that they would like to use to keep their family size down. For instance, there are some powerful people that say the use of condoms is evil because sex should only be used with the aim of conceiving children in wedlock.
Complain about this comment
For all the rolling eyes out there at the "sheer joy" of seeing pandas or horses or anything such as, I'd like to posit this - humans COULD survive in artificial environments eating nothing but protein gruel, with the only surviving species out there being micro-organisms and probably chickens - but would you want to? Seriously.
Would any of you like to live in a world where the only other animals are humans and maybe some pets?
I believe the first comment on this blog asked why biodiversity is valuable per se. Throwing out your "make me look smarter" latin, I'll tell you why it is simply valuable
Here's a small example http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/rainforest-fung/
That's an article (one of many) about a fungus found in trees in South America that naturally produces diesel fuel. Diesel is cleaner and more efficient than tradition gasoline, and here we have an organism that produces it naturally - no need for a giant production plant spewing CO2 and other noxious fumes (which by the way, even if global warming isn't caused by humans, do you really want to breathe in that stuff? Go sit in a room full of industrial exhaust and see how healthy you are when you come out).
Now that is valuable. And that's one little fungus in the rainforest. And we would never have found it if we simply slashed down the rainforest for a bunch of beef.
If no one is making millions off of this little fungus, it's only because there are forces unseen (cough oil companies cough) who don't want their business model challenged.
And for the record, FergalB, I'm all for getting the population down. By any means. I'd have thought a realist like yourself would appreciate genocide as a viable tool for population control. Logically, it's easier than changing people's habits.
Complain about this comment
"It's hard to know how to respond to 'the lobby.' Some just do their best to provide accurate information, and refute the more absurd claims. But right now special interest/business as usual is definitely winning."
most of them are too pathetic to bother talking to arnt they. i just confront growthers with their sacred cow - just how does infinite growth continue on a finite planet. they simply have no answer to the obvious point that growth HAS to stop at some point, and all this winging about whether AGW or biodiversity loss matters is a moot point as the oil that sustains 7 billion humans is running out anyway. there simply is no constructive argument for continued growth in the light of the obvious looming, unsolvable problems resulting from it.
Complain about this comment
I have been watching the global warming debate and I am appalled by the level of debate and the common resorting to personal attacks an insults. When in university, we always determined the loser in a debate by their resorting to personal attack.
As a research scientist working on renewable resources, I have the perspective of science from the inside. While there are some of those whose egos and self-importance is annoying, and others who play the political game, there is one thing we all agree on: The facts are the facts. It does not matter what the faults of the person are, science is judged on the facts and the cornerstone of this world view is the peer review.
So what are the facts about global warming?
1. The decade average temperature of the earth is increasing.
2. The arctic and Antarctic are warming.
3. The sea level is rising
4. The above changes are all correlated to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
So what are the consequences of these facts? Prediction and climate modeling are educated guesses and are not facts, but they are our best sources of information to make decision on what to do continue to live the life we are living. If we ignore the predictions of the climate models we do so at our peril.
We are losing species at an alarming rate some 1000x more than the average rate of extinction. With the loss of biodiversity we are reducing our chances to adapt to changing conditions. If humans keep polluting the air, the water and the soil we are setting the stage for a population collapse of the human species.
We really learned all we need to know as kindergarten: Play nice with others and clean up any mess you make.
Complain about this comment
Sorry about this Richard as it is meant to be about biodiversity, but I am sure nearly everybody will smile or laugh at this
“The terms global warming, climate change and climate crisis are wholly inadequate to accurately describe the catastrophe that our planet faces if we continue to treat our atmosphere like an open sewer”, Gore said. He added, “I recognize the difficulties the public, journalists and the consensus of scientists will have in referring to this unpronounceable symbol in spoken or printed words, therefore I would urge everyone to refer to this symbol as simply, ‘The Phenomenon Formerly Known as Global Warming’”.
You couldn't make it up if you tried the rest at:
http://algorelied.com/?p=2824
Complain about this comment
#35 Here we go scare tactics and hysteria, my friend I live in a country that looks on this sort of writing as rubbish. Carry on like that and you will destroy any hope of saving the plant, they'll just stick up two fingers at you.
Well can you name 5 major animals (not island extinctions that is something different) that have disappeared in the last 500years? Your starter for 10 is the Dodo.
By the way I care very much about biodiversity and my local environment.
Complain about this comment
@Alexis Mackintosh
I too am appalled at the unpleasantness.
Your rule of thumb won't work here. People on both sides have resorted to it. Which in my view means both sides misunderstand each other.
PS, please, this thread had been relatively clear of global warming posts and the associated unpleasantness. There are at least two relevant threads you might prefer to post on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/01/the_dam_is_cracking.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/reflections_in_a_confusing_cli.html
PPS, your case for global warming is far more incomplete than the "official" one. Some of your facts need qualifications, and some of your facts are disputed.
Complain about this comment
Richard: "...here are just five arguments that I expect to see deployed at some point during the year:..."
And here are just 18 business-as-usual arguments deployed so far on this blog (note: from just four main commenters)...
Biodiversity vs. business-as-usual
00. Oh no; not another list!
01. Why is it valuable anyway (btb #1)
02. It's being pushed by the same group with their own political agenda (mue #4)
03. Nothing of importance here (mue #4)
04. Unexplained, unjustified pleas for biodiversity is RELIGION (btb #5)
05. Some biodiversity is more valuable than others (psp #8)
06. The rate of speciation & extinction is far higher than seen in fossil records (psp #8)
07. Giant pandas are just a great PR tool (psp #8)
08. Not every species can or should be saved (psp #8)
09. Whatever's going to live on this planet is going to have to live with us too (psp #8)
10. Lumping "diversity" with "climate change" is unrealistic at best
11. Why should anyone care? (flr #19)
12. Just about every form of life that has existed on this planet is extinct (flr #19)
13. We should be proud of ourselves and nature should be very grateful (flr #19)
14. To waste precious fossil fuel tiptoeing around a genetic dead-end is foolish (flr #19)
15. The only species that matters is us (flr #19)
16. I'm sick to my teeth looking at those seal-murdering polar bears (flr #19)
17. I consider polar bears to be useful only for floor coverings and taxidermy (flr #19)
18. The only biodiversity we depend on is that which we need for nutrition and oxygen (flr #28)
All the best; davblo
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
"If you take the time to actually read my post I specifically point out that infinite growth is impossible. However, the earth's crust averages several tens of kilometers thick so we've a while to get through that while we develop the technology to take advantage of the molten part."
you are contradicting yourself then. you are saying growth is impossible but magic tech will discover a magic energy supply, so keep breeding folks. how is that not condoning infinite growth.
bit of a dreamer arnt you, as we are in overshoot already. having a battery of free energy allowed the astronomical excess to develop. having more will just make overshoot worse, and the future 'accounting' to be more savage.
and if we find all this magic energy? what do you suggest, some kind of magic agriculture to feed everyone. turn the earth into a complete mono culture or something. i suppose you think a biosphere containing just 300 billion humans and a genetically modified wheat monoculture is a good idea. so much better than facing up to some kind of sensible population control or mass die off. even if we destroyed everything to make way for human biomass, population control WILL STILL BE NECESSARY AT SOME POINT! putting off dealing with population off just heightens the seriousness of the future problem, making the issue worse for ever more humans.
growthers are irrational dreamers.
Complain about this comment
@Kamboshigh #36
"You couldn't make it up if you tried"
You could make it up. Someone did. That webpage includes "satire" as one of its categories.
Complain about this comment
To Mango #27:
You're right, I am getting a little paranoid these days.
It reminds me of a time eight years ago on a big glaciated mountain. We had 'pushed the conditions,' and pulled one of our four member team out of a crevasse, he having slipped through a too soft snow bridge. I was team leader, and I must have looked a little paranoid just before, as I literally had been crawling on all fours over the suspect snow bridge to distribute my weight, and probing with my ice-axe.
We summited too late in the day, and spent a miserable emergency bivouac night out. In the morning, the rest of the group favored returning the way we had come, but I decided to try a new route down, which involved crossing over the beginning of an ice-fall much lower down, with abundant gaping crevasses clearly visible, and the threat of one of these serac like features collapsing when we 'crossed over.'
But there was this advantage, we could at least see the danger.
Obviously the crossing went well, despite a few hair-raising episodes.
When I talked to an extremely experienced full-guide about this some days later, he smiled and said it usually didn't pay to 'push the conditions.'
Lesson learned! And the Precautionary Principle in action.
Thanks for straightening me out Mango, and giving me an opportunity to de-intellectualize the 'Precautionary Principle.'
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
#38 Jane well said.
Davblo whilst you radiate in your glory your list is totally unacceptable. I am most definately anti AGW (or whatever Al Gore calls it these days)but I am 100% pro-diversity and the environment.
From personnal experience if this issue is presented in the "save the world" and dictated to the world by the west it will FAIL. They see it as colonism in reverse or re-introduced.
Add in the corrupt UN and it is guarenteed that not just 10% of rainforests will disappear it will be more like be 90%. You cannot do biodiversity by commitee, you have to tackle the grass root problems with incentive and their personnal profit to stop cutting down trees.
See post #31 for were to start mate, no more stupid lists it be-littles you
Complain about this comment
The 'five arguments" at the end of your article are simply the product of limited minds. Only a fool would support these positions.
While there are many difficulties associated with maintaining and encourging continued biodiversity - I believe that you hit the nail on the head a few weeks ago - its all about maintaining and restoring the natural habitats - it is those habitats which are the key to biodiversity.
While the US may be 'your favorite whipping boy' - I would point out that the US is ranked number 3 in the world with regards to Fisheries and Marine management. Twenty years ago, oysters in the Chesapeake Bay and Galveston Bay were not edible - now they are thriving and good to eat - and sustainable. President Bush created the largest expansion of marine sanctuaries in US history. Strides are being made.
I recall, around ten years or so ago, the 'wetlands protection act' - which was highly controversial. It passed, but posed and continues to pose a lot of issues - with regards to what I believe will be the biggest issue we fact this century - land use. Land use is the key to our future (and water use, of course). It is a very difficult proposition - particularly when you have 'environmental' groups acting as staunch proponents of building windmills and roads (to service them) in ecologically sensitive areas - such as bogs and wetlands.
It is very difficult to tell land owners how they can use their land, when public lands are being raped - and make no mistake, those buiding windmills are doing it to make money - not from the 'goodness of their hearts'. This is just one example of many.
I am not a believer in paying developing countries not to cut down trees nor use their land - but I do believe we need to show them that the forests are worth more to them standing - as both a habitat for biodiversity, but also as a managed resource. I think selective logging is perfectly acceptable - its the wholesale decimation of the forests which is so damaging. Take the rainforests - there is much value there in terms of not only selective logging, but medical research and tourism.
Lets also look at Africa. It takes ten times as much land in Africa to grow food for one person as it does in the US - twenty times, if African's got to eat so well. Introduction of modern farming techniques and cheap energy would alleviate much of the 'land resource pressure' in Africa, and other places as well.
If Africa was able to develop with cheap energy and cheap food, education and stability would follow - and Africa would become the would's number one tourist destination - hands down. How much would that be worth?
I remember walking through the jungles and rainforests of Sumatra in the early 90's - one morning in particular, I was quite startled standing next to the jungle, having my morning coffee and smoke, when a giant monitor lizard, at least 8 feet long - took off like a rocket, heading for the treeline - he was less that ten feet away - my eyes were in the trees, checking out the monkeys and the rare hornbill bird. That piece of forest is now gone - its palm oil plantations, used for making 'bio-fuels'. What a waste. For more than two years, the smoke from burning forests stretched 2000 miles - people in Jakarta had to wear masks to go outside. Absolutely horrid.
For Bowthemanbard - biodiversity is important, in and of itself, because all life on this planet is inter-dependent. Ever heard of something called the food chain? Yes, we are near the top of the food chain, but without all those creatures below us on that chain, we could not exist.
Just imagine, if we could restore the world's fisheries to the conditions of 400 years ago. We could take a sustainable catch of ten percent - and still be harvesting more than twice what we get today. This is something that is achievable - but requires time and money. We need close fisheries not only by region, but also by species for highly migratory species, such as the bluefin tuna. Unfortunately, I fear, as with Newfoundland, fishing in many places will continue until the last fish is caught.
The high price of beef may be driving more deforestation in Brazil; however, much of that is caused by the diversion of farmlands to corn for ethanol. Take away the subsidies for ethanol and the price of corn and cattle feed drops - as does the price of beef - the value of destroying rainforests for ranchland becomes much less of a value proposition.
Ecotourism has been a rapidly growing business over the last twenty years or so - it is a win-win proposition for those developing countries that have those natural habitats - but can't continue to grow unless we stop trying to tax people out of flying there.
In my view, it is such a shame that so many environmental groups have moved from 'saving the whales' or 'saving the rainforests' to 'tackle climate change'. They would do much better to return to their roots.
Cheers for the Article.
-Kealey
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #43
not sure that is a good example of the PP
and i'm not going to respond further, because this thread isn't about AGW
/mango
Complain about this comment
@rossglory
Biodiversity may seem like 'bad business' - but in the long run, it can be very good business.
Regarding Al Gore - it would seem that global warming scaremongering has been very good business for him.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Kamboshigh #44: "...your list is totally unacceptable"
Did you miss something? That's the whole point.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
Re: Ecosystem services
the intellectual and scientific origins of Ecosystem service provision and maintenance are not good example of instrinsic valuations of BD. It is instead a workable model for placing value on biodiversity and ecosystems in current economic structures i.e. a forest is worth more standing than it is logged (something i strongly agree with). For a real example of someone describing the intrinsic value to biodiversity read Rachael Carson's 'Silent Spring'. her statement that all living things simply have 'an obligation to endure', irrespective of human preference is one of the most effecting statements i have ever read.
AJC
Complain about this comment
All animals on this planet were saved by Noah; he led them two-by-two onto his ark! If any species die we undo the results of this great rescue operation, and we will be punished! Greater plagues than those that hit the Egyptians will descend on us; tea will taste like coffee, coke will go flat, and hamburgers will taste like, well like hamburgers.
Amazing how the creationists and greenies have found common cause around this issue? The world will keep on spinning around the sun whether there are Polar Bears on the Arctic Ice, Panda’s chewing bamboo shoots in China, or Elephants trampling villagers too death in Asia and Africa! The strong will survive; adapt or die!
Complain about this comment
Biodiversity, the dark side.
(AKA business-as-usual)
...
19. Rapidly growing ecotourism is a win-win proposition for developing countries (lky #45)
20. Biodiversity can be very good business (lky #47)
/davblo
Complain about this comment
21. The world will keep on spinning, the strong will survive; adapt or die! (jgm #50)
/davblo
Complain about this comment
Instead of helping the pandas why not just hide the decline?
Now where have I heard that recently?
Complain about this comment
#7 CoDominion wrote:
"biodiversity is important because a species cannot exist in isolation."
Thanks, CoDominion -- although to some extent this explains the value of biodiversity in terms of the value of "not living in isolation", which is a tad close to the concept of biodiversity itself! But I accept your implicit point, which (I think) is that sentient life relies on non-sentient life -- which is "networked" in complicated ways.
"All this culminates in a lack of Honey for you to spread on your toast."
I often wonder if intensive bee farming -- aimed at making more honey to spread on your toast -- is the real culprit, as it overcrowds bees (45% more cultivated bees today than 40 years ago). And it steals immunity-boosting honey away from the bees (beekeepers leave nutritionally poor manmade syrup instead). Ironically, the very large numbers of cultivated bees reduces biodiversity, because the more cultivated bees there are, the less food is left for non-cultivated, diverse bee species.
If some environmental outrage has been committed, my motto is: cherchez le farmer!
Complain about this comment
#45 LarryKealey wrote:
"I am not a believer in paying developing countries not to cut down trees nor use their land - but I do believe we need to show them that the forests are worth more to them standing - as both a habitat for biodiversity, but also as a managed resource."
What about the idea of selling the land to people who are carefully vetted to protect them? For example, if Sting and Bono care so much about the Amazon rainforest, why not sell them bits of it to protect? Then they would have the responsibility for its inhabitants, and for its future when they die.
Complain about this comment
"The strong will survive; adapt or die!"
As a committed Darwinian, I'd like to distance myself from boneheaded remarks like these. Nature is no guide to morality. As Darwin himself said:
"What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature!"
Complain about this comment
I hope there isn't a stitch-up about biodiversity as there has been about climate change.
The zealotry, rudeness and "voodoo science' shown by those with an agenda to promote climate change - plus a willingness to dissemble, lie or rudely dismiss sceptics (even though 'science' is supposed to be open to interrogation) - must not be allowed to manifest itself in issues about biodiversity.
Best keep the CRU and IPCC well away from it then!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I, for one, can't wait until we start to see a decline in human population because of human factors. Only then will the true impact of our ignorance be appearant. The buisness man, who cares little for biodiversity if it gets in the way of proffit, may finally understand the consequence of everyday decisions. Not that he will care. The ones that will die will not be the rich social elite (unfortunatly), the ones controlling the masses, feeding brainwashing media lies to everyone who is unfortunate enough to own a TV and cannot think critically. Why, for MONEY. They claim godliness, divine authority, appealing to the fabricated beliefs of the people they have to control. What would happen if the truth was unleashed? What would happen if the veil was lifted and we saw how we've been manipulated through the ages? Perhaps the 99% of the world being controlled and fed lies may start to think for themselves, take the power back from the 1% that keep the control. You have to be a fool not to respect the beautiful planet the sustains us. It makes me sick that there are people fighting against environmental causes.
Complain about this comment
I think biodiversity is important for various reasons and that it should be maintained is without question for me, even if only out of interest and enjoyment. However the notion that it underpins our life on earth and all that entails is less clear to me, even though that mantra is repeated time and time again, and I have yet to see a coherent arguement why that would be the case.
In fact I am intrigued by Gebser's notion that biological diversity is an enclosing process, particularizing a species to a limited environment. I.e. it doesn't occupy a niche, it becomes a niche itself or creates a niche which is not necesarily permanent. Following that reasoning, it is the species that is particularized, not the environment, which, when opening up due to the absence of that species, will simply become available (again)to more or the next specializing species.....
So is the biodiversity debate a cultural debate or indeed, as we keep hearing, fundamental to life on earth (and not just as we know it...)
Complain about this comment
@davblo2
why do you bother contributing?
/mango
Complain about this comment
Anyone who is not for saving biodiversity is against saving the human race. There are so many precious functions humans depend on that are given to us freely by this planet. Take, for example, the process of water purification through wetland ecosystems. We dump in our waste water and through different processes, wetlands remove the toxins, creating drinkable water. If we fail to care about biodiversity, and destroy precious ecosystems, like wetlands, humans will eventually fail as well. Everything in nature is connected and it is ignorant to believe that humans are an exception. We rely on a diverse planet for many reasons and it would be a shame to see us fail because we chose short-term wealth for a few over long-term health for the entire human race.
Complain about this comment
I normally just read the comments on Mr Blacks blog, however, I was wondering why some of the more pro-AGW bloggers keep claiming that the anti-AGW bloggers are in the pay of big coorporations?.
This seems illogical, billions of pounds of tax payer money is being spent on new green industries, these industries are dominated by big co-orporations, so it is difficult to understand the claims that the sceptics (if I am allowed to use that word)are also in the pay of the same companies?.
Anyway, as someone who has no vehicle, rides a bike to work everyday, eats meat about 2 times a week, I feel that people like Al Gore do the green lobby no favours with their hypocritcal behaviour.
P.s I loved the picture of the Panda!.
Complain about this comment
hello everyone,
I like the picture of the cute cuddly looking panda. Trouble is, I have also seen them looking blood stained around the chops when they have tucked into some meat. The image of photogenic critters detracts from the real issue of biodiversity. When entire ecosystems are destroyed in an attempt at making a profitable living out of a venture such as cattle farming or selling exotic timber, the damage extends further than the area harvested.
Rainforests are quite amazing. They often sit over areas of poor soil and create a thriving environment while keeping the terrain stable. Take away the trees and the poor soil that is left is unable to cope with the heavy demands of industrialized farming. The soil, hammered by extremes of blazing sun and torrential rain, farming and other uses, quickly erode or get washed away. What a shame! The irony of the situation is, that what has been cut down and destroyed has more value (when finally realized by all) than the cattle and finite timber that is harvested.
Advertising could have some use if it were directed towards enabling us to see the consequences of our consumer choices.
Perhaps the usual focus on a few photogenic creatures should be replaced by more images of ecosystems at risk. If people saw more of the areas under threat and less of the individual creatures, they might start to take notice. Advertising should show more of the before, during, and after effects of exploitation against a backdrop of how our consumer choices cause part of the problem.
Complain about this comment
RE:-
55. At 7:35pm on 28 Jan 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:
#45 LarryKealey wrote:
Rain forests etc to which you replied :-
"What about the idea of selling the land to people who are carefully vetted to protect them? For example, if Sting and Bono care so much about the Amazon rainforest, why not sell them bits of it to protect? Then they would have the responsibility for its inhabitants, and for its future when they die."
Excellent idea......I think it's called "put your money where....etc.)More later on this.
Re:-
61. At 8:26pm on 28 Jan 2010, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
@davblo2
why do you bother contributing?
/mango
Mango, Davblo has a right as everyone else does to express their perceptions on any issue. The fact that you don't like his perceptions is irrelevant. Who was it that quoted (words to the effect)
"I hate what you say but I will fight for your right to say it"
Now this "blog" isn't about Democracy (or is it?) but it seems to me in the "Western" world, this right to free speech is the only "democratic" right we have left.
On the other foot.....really appreciated your contribution #25.
However in #46/43
Manysummits example is in fact (notice.fact.not opinion) an excellent example of PP (by the way thanks for shortening that one....so much easier) and should just like to point out that PP wasn't invented just to deal with AGW..........the principle has been around much longer than that. Believe it or not, it's even relevant in Biodiversity, but I'm not going to continue with what some consider my "one track mind">
So back to the topic and now to Larry.......Welcome back.......I remember your comment on the previous "blog" re amount of traffic that AGW engenders vs. other environmental problems!
Land Use Change........It seems to me that when we talk about "saving" species we need to start at the beginning......."destroying".
As some have pointed out, species come and go irrespective of man's activities, and probably for a variety of diverse reasons. That doesn't deter from the fact that man has also had a large input into the "destruction" of species, sometimes that has been deliberate but mostly as a "side effect" of other activities and in my opinion, those that Larry has outlined in Land Use Change figure highly in this.
As such, I repeat, Bowman @ #55, you may have tossed that one in as a flippant comment but it ties in with Larry's "not "paying" countries to preserve" principle (which would eventually lead to more and more extortion) but which would put ownership of these essential environmental resources into the hands of people who care AND who can afford the purchase and ongoing maintenance.
How about suggesting to Al Gore that he puts together a consortium of some of the "ultra" rich people in this world (the list is open knowledge) like Sting and Bono Bill Gates Larry Ellison (the list is endless....almost) to buy up ALL the remaining rain forest and to maintain it in perpetuity.
Here in New Zealand and I'm sure we are not alone, a vast amount of land, mainly native forest, is held in stewardship by the Department of Conservation. Unfortunately, the NZ taxpayer is not in a position to go out and buy the Brazilian rain forest.
Finally, to #19. At 1:01pm on 28 Jan 2010, FergalR wrote:
Feel free to be as obnoxious as you like.........you see.I'm "depressingly myopic"
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #61: "why do you bother contributing?"
Well; Richard wrote a list of five "business-as-usual" arguments against concern for the decline in biodiversity, which he expected to see surface during the coming year. So I thought it would be interesting to see how many, and which, arguments surfaced from the business-as-usual brigade right here on this blog. Well within "topic" I thought.
I also thought that readers would appreciate seeing a concise summary of those arguments together, which allows easier scrutiny and tends to highlight their common inclinations.
Finally it's always interesting to see how people react to such things.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
RE:-
64. At 9:25pm on 28 Jan 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:
"Advertising should show more of the before, during, and after effects of exploitation against a backdrop of how our consumer choices cause part of the problem."
I wish I could show you an ad (or series of ad's) here in NZ by one of our leading manufacturers of dairy products. The Ad Agency has chosen to use two old, lovable characters (not "grumpy" like me)in a long running series of Ads.
In one, they begin by looking down into the distance over a fertile green valley (plenty here in NZ) As the Ad progresses, development begins and eventually the view of a green valley has been replaced by a large township, full of houses and factories belching grey smoke. The words "progress" and "tipping point" come up in their conversation>
Cheers
Complain about this comment
apologies davblo, i'm just bored with your lists
/mango
Complain about this comment
Good little article that. Thank you.
Davblo's lists clearly hit a nerve with certain people!
LarryKealey @45: I don't think the article was anti-american. It's just that the US is almost the only country to not sign up to that UN Convention. Also, it annoys me that we in the west would have to pay for others not to chop down rainforests, but frankly that looks like the only viable option in some circumstances.
Also, I agree with most of what you say - biofuels are a disaster. However, I understand that the pressure on rainforests comes predominantly from other causes - not least our flabby western meat demands (sadly that includes me).
Rustig @63: "I normally just read the comments on Mr Blacks blog"
Dear oh dear...
Various: I'm not a big fan of the Pope either but for the love of God why must you blame every human opinion on religion. Read 'Nature' by Peter Coates. From memory it has some stuff on environmental thought and religion. I think 'Man and the Natural World' by Thomas also covers the territory as well. It's all very ambiguous and goes both ways!!!
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
MangoChutneyUKOK #69: "i'm just bored with your lists"
I see you're not bored with boring us with off topic comments as per #71.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
Re:- 70. At 10:10pm on 28 Jan 2010, Yorkurbantree wrote:
Good little article that. Thank you.
Davblo's lists clearly hit a nerve with certain people!
When someone claims to be bored by (in this case) Davblo's list, yet (obviously) continues to read it, does that show some signs of masochism? However, publishing a list (which amuses me but bores Mango) just adds to a "Them" and "Us" and doesn't actually take us forward.
Re:- rain forest destruction and it's purpose.
In Brazil it appears (as you say) that beef production is the primary motivation. I wonder where that beef actually ends up? Your local butcher? Or McDonalds?
However, in the East, Indonesia for example, I understand rain forest conversion to palm oil for synfuels is the primary motive. (Which as most of us who are not into benefiting financially would agree..total waste of time.)
So, since several of us, from all around the AGW debate but who are more closely aligned on this topic, debate and see if there is some way we (and others similarly inclined) can put pressure to bear to bring Bowman's option to fruition since we are "sceptical" of other options to "save the rain forests"?
How about starting with this question?
Who present on this site, is willing to put up their hand in favour of preserving the remaining rain forests?
If enough, we can investigate options later.
Cheers
Complain about this comment
How is a decrease in consumption of beef going to help the
Amazon? Make it safer to grow soya beans?? It will still be utilized by someone or something.
Complain about this comment
RE 71/72
See what I mean?
Come on both of you..lets look for solutions and agree to drop the playground stuff
Complain about this comment
xtragrumpymike2 73: "Who present on this site, is willing to put up their hand in favour of preserving the remaining rain forests?"
My hand is up.
Take a light stroll through Rainforest Facts
There is a section concerning solutions at the end.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
xtragrumpymike2 #73.
"Who present on this site, is willing to put up their hand in favour of preserving the remaining rain forests?"
if preservation means: no logging (none whatever!) and all benefits derived from new knowledge (eg pharmaceutical) are for the public domain, I'd raise my hand.
nb. I also like bowmanthebard's idea but would prefer forests to be held in trust, rather than owned by individuals -- Sting and Bono -- loathe their music! -- could manage the trust?
Complain about this comment
not only are we top of the food chain [unless we meet a grizzly unarmed in the forest], we are at the top of the responsibility chain;
because of our elevated and self important position, the buck stops with us. unfortunately that will impact on our children in ways we can scarcely immagine; the same children we treat as comodities [or econonomic units, as gordon brown put it]
historically, the decline really gained momentum when the church
introduced the concept of consecrated ground; this implied that only land blessed by a priest was sacred; all else was there to be exploited 'for the glory of god'. whole forests were decimated so that the riteous could build ships to take the message to the savages
who saw nature as sacred..the play continues; all that has changed are the costumes and the appaling scale of mindless destruction to 'improve
our quality of life' when we have largely forgotten what it means...
i think the next species that faces catastrophic decline will be clever
middle class 'chaps' who, when their gas guzzlers run out of gas will
have to trudge to the supermarket [which stocks dwindling supplies]
and who can only take what he can carry on his hunched back, will probably sit down and give up; the victim of his own short-sighted selfishness...the poor will likely survive, as they allways did on next
to nothing with the skills and adaptability that is second nature...
of course, the sceptics will scoff at all this, saying 'but we are clever
our great experts will come up with clever solutions for any mess we make;
untill they realise the same 'expert' mindset created these problems in
the first place and are too busy saving themselves...
nightmare? too right..TIME TO WAKE UP...
Complain about this comment
To extragrumpymike, re rainforests:
You can make that three hands Mike.
I am also opposed to private ownership of these 'trusts.'
There are important roles for governments, not only in public utilities, banking and monopoly-busting, but in 'world heritage site' zones.
In many ways, now that many of us long ago lost the cohesion of the tribe, our natural unit of governance and society, the government, for all its apparent flaws and foibles, is our only friend - capable of delivering not only policy but a muted form of compassion, for example labor laws and courts of last resort, environmental protection agencies etc.
Nobel laureates in economics write books on topics like this, for example the new book "Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy" by Joseph Stiglitz.
To expect anything from the board of governors and directors of a 'big corporation', other than attention to the welfare of its owners, the shareholders, as nameless and unprincipled a group as ever existed, is to demonstrate a true ignorance of the legal framework of the modern publicly held corporation.
Many reading this are doubtless shareholders in one way or another, mutual funds, pension plans etc...
How much attention do you pay to the goings on and operations of the multitudinous corporate entities which you have a stake in, and a voting privelege in?
I will answer for the vast majority - NADA !
You are part of the problem.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Well said, niall drinan # 78, if you will permit a compliment?
Your comment on sacred ground reminds me of my time in the mountains - seven years a part of nature, much of it spent in various National Parks.
It occurred to me more than a few times that true sanity would make of our entire planet a National Park - if you get my meaning?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Perhaps the Giant Panda hints at present problems with some humans.
The panda is an omnivore of the order Carnivora. It is a bear, a bear that has become so lazy that it chooses to spend all day sitting chewing grass rather than hunting. If it stumbles across any of its former prey lying dead or injured it will happily tuck in but with any prey that walks or runs it's back to the grass.
A bit like TV dinners?
Complain about this comment
You have emphysema, from too much smoking for too many decades.
You refuse to quit smoking. A doctor or two propose mitigation strategies; occasionally, you promise you'll try one of them. But you don't. You keep putting it off.
Each time you light up, you swear it's the last time, last day, last week... And it never is.
Meanwhile, you want to make a show of looking better than you feel, because all kinds of people are commenting on your emphysema and how it is ruining your looks.
You go into a posh salon for a full hair programme.
The stylists are too distracted gossiping, and over-treat your hair. One miscalculation on top of another, and before you know it, you are left looking like a likely candidate for the alien left behind by that mothership we've been told to be on the lookout for.
Naturally enough, you are furious. You berate the stylists & the salon ad nauseam. You wish you could take their licenses away. You demand that the entire industry be raked over the coals and possibly put out of business.
But you still have emphysema. And you are still smoking...
Complain about this comment
Re some of the enlightened comments on this board:
"Dwarf":
It is important to note that the English term, unlike its German and Scandinavian cognates, had been devoid of any mythological sense, referring to people of stunted growth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf#Etymology
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@davblo2 #51
Cute list, unfortunately, you took both of my contributions 'out of context'. I do not support 'business as usual' with regards to land use. Significant changes are required - It is my belief that land and water use will be the primary issues and challenges of this century. Both are coupled tightly with the population explosion. Continued denial of development for developing nations with cheap energy and cheap food, means more strife, less education and exacerbated rape of our already stressed environments.
Be realistic - or is reality to complex for that mind of yours? Just what do you propose to encourage biodiversity and preservation and restoration of natural habitats? - which seems to me to be the key to maintaining biodiversity. Do you have a silly little list for that?
Tell me what is wrong with ecotourism? What is wrong with intelligent and forward thinking ideas around land management and use? I did not propose 'BAU' as you suggested. I proposed some realistic solutions - like educating people in the third world to understand that there is much more value in having a standing forest rather than having a scarred landscape of clear-cut trees. In the long run - it is worth much more to them, and everyone in turn.
So, aside from your silly little lists - what do you propose? Should we kill off 95% of the population and have the rest of us live in caves? Can we even be allowed to pick fruit? Please, contribute something worthwhile.
And please, don't quote me out of context again. I think Richard's use of your nickname has gone to that silly head of yours...
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Yorkurbantree #70
I don't know if you read it - but I sure got an anti-American tone from it -
"But the aetiology of the US position speaks absolutely to the argument that the "mom and apple pie" view of biodiversity can quickly turn into "mom and a lacing of strychnine"."
Please - can anything get done in the world without America's involvement - America paying for it - and then finally America having to do it ourselves?
I would agree with Richard's assumption regarding the parallels with Copenhagen - from his point of view, it seems to all be up to America to pay for it all...
Actually, I wouldn't mind paying for not clear-cutting the Amazon rain forests - provided that we get the Amazon rain forest in return. If we are going to pay for it - we should own it. I would be happy for the US government to pay the going rate per hectare for rain forests - and then we get to keep them and manage them as we see fit. But no - America should chalk up all the cash and get nothing in return - no one here is going to go for that - so forget it.
Property rights have changed dramatically in the US in the last 30 years. No longer can one 'do whatever one wishes' with their land. If you own a wetland, you can't fill it in and develop it. If you are dumb enough to build a house on the beach, next to the water, in hurricane prone areas, and the vegetation line moves across your property - you no longer have your property and you can't rebuild. I would agree more changes are needed, but we are on the right track, and it will take time.
I would like to see a ban on rebuilding within flood plains. The flood plain can still be used for farming - but re-build your farm house outside the flood plane the next time it floods - or you don't get your flood insurance payout. (All flood insurance in the US is covered by the government) Same thing with building on the beach. In 50 years, our flood planes would be cleared of development, the levies gone, and the soil replenished annually by the spring floods - as nature intended.
If you own undeveloped land which is home to protected or endangered species - you can't just go and develop it.
Just try fishing without a license here - or take more than the limit on any particular species of fish - or fish that are too small or too large - you'll be paying big bucks - and you will get caught.
Take a good look at satellite photos of the US from the 70's and compare them with today - you will see a very striking 'greening' of America.
Now we need to educate the developing nations as to the real value and wealth of their natural resources. We need help them develop with cheap energy and cheap food - to allow them to reduce their footprint on the landscape.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@MangoChutneyUKOK #71
Mango, that's one of many feedbacks. You need to ask how the carbon cycle feedback is currently used in the models.
"The IPCC's fourth assessment report had a broad range of estimates as to how far natural systems would contribute to a spiral of warming. The Nature paper narrows that range to the lower end of previous estimates.
The report's lead author, David Frank from the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, told BBC News that many of the calculations for the IPCC assessment report did not include an integrated carbon cycle.
He said that if the results his paper were widely accepted, the overall effect on climate projections would be neutral.
"It might lead to a downward mean revision of those (climate) models which already include the carbon cycle, but an upward revision in those which do not include the carbon cycle.
"That'll probably even itself out to signify no real change in the temperature projections overall," he said."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8483722.stm
Complain about this comment
@xtragrumpymike2 #73
Another hand for the rainforest from me.
Complain about this comment
@xtragrumpymike2 #73
My hand has been raised high for the rain forests for more than 25 years - as well as the forests, the wetlands, the peat bogs, the savannahs, grasslands, and of course, the seven seas.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Many of you may be asleep as I write this but to those who have put their hands up for preservation of the remaining rain forest......thank you.
Mango, Larry, Kambo, Labmunkey and of course, Bowman who set this idea in motion on this "blog" (although I seem to remember a similar comment on an earlier "blog" Was it Larry?).My question is a "no strings attached" question and no outside agenda. I'm simply trying to seek an area of common agreement where we might be able to make a significant change.
I hear your comments re-ownership but as I suggested, the options as to "how" can follow later (preferably sooner but "later" in the context that there are many of us who have agreed on this ambition now despite our differences elsewhere.)
Complain about this comment
Thanks, Larry I actually thought that was the case but our respective comments must have crossed in cyberspace.
Cheers
Complain about this comment
@Richard
Regarding Brazil's beef production and its affects upon the rainforest - it is interesting to note that exports have tripled in the last ten years - and the primary market for Brazillian Beef is Europe. The US exports just about as much as we import in terms of beef (single digit percentages with regards to US production). Most imports come from Canada. Perhaps Europeans should raise more cattle if they want to eat so much beef...oh, but thats right - BSE - a disease, which although is very bad, affects so very few people - and is a significant factor in the loss of such a valueable resource: the Amazon rain forests. Without the rapid growth of the European Market, the Brazillian Beef Producers would have no need nor interest in decimating more rain forests.
Or, you could pay higher prices and buy American or Canadian Beef - the best in the world...;)
some interesting statistics regarding beef production:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/news/bsecoverage.htm
I also find that you ignore a major driver for the devestation of rain forests in the far east - for palm oil plantations to create bio-fuels for export to - primarily Europe, China and India. When you look at the area of most rapid expansion in Palm Oil Production, Northern Sumatra - where the fires still burn after 20 years - the primary buyer of all that Palm Oil is Europe. So while you pat yourselves on the back for using and mandating 'renewables' - keep in mind that you are doing it at the expense of non-renewables - i.e. the rain forests of Sumatra.
And you pitch a fit about the US not signing an accord which was clearly designed as no more than a redistirbution of wealth.
Come talk to me when the rainforests are not being cut to put beef on the plates and in your pubs and the ethanol in the gas for your cars...
http://www.indonesia-ottawa.org/trade/profiles.php?fid=8&db=ind&mode=list&cat=11&pid=6
http://jakarta.usembassy.gov/econ/Sumatera_palm_oil_dec05.html
The second focuses on Northern Sumatra Palm Oil Production. You know, the place that burned so badly it produced a plume of smoke more than 2000 miles long and forced people all the way to Jakarta and Bali to wear masks just to leave the house...
All this, Europe has managed all by itself, without any help from the US. Yes, we should certainly be having the liberal elite of Europe telling the US how to spend its money...NOT. You bash 'Mom and Pop and Apple Pie', but you refuse to look in the mirror. A Real Shame.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
#32 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"Actually there is a human rights issue whereby some women in developing countries are either dissuaded or actively prevented from family planning measures that they would like to use to keep their family size down. For instance, there are some powerful people that say the use of condoms is evil because sex should only be used with the aim of conceiving children in wedlock."
If you care to look at the latest UN population growth estimates you'll see that the human population is set to go into decline mid-century, despite whatever social mores exist.
http://esa.un.org/unpp/
You're right, though, there is a large human rights issue around the subject of fertility and the diktats of powerful people:
From: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/27/with-1-child-policy-china-missing-girls/?feat=home_headlines
When Chinese officials created the country's one-child-per-couple policy in 1978, they intended to contain the country's burgeoning population for the sake of economic growth, national security and environmental preservation.
"Sex-selective abortion accounts for almost all the excess males [25 million in 2005 +1 million per year]," said study authors Wei Xing Zhu, Li Lu and Therese Hesketh, who urged China to enforce its laws forbidding abortions based on gender.
-----------------------------------------
I suggest you all read this enlightening article; just so you don't sign up to policies of compulsory abortion with your eyes closed. I dread to think that my descendants would face such horror for the sake of a few hundred pandas.
(Incidentally, I trust the UN population estimates since they involve counting physical things as opposed to certain other estimates which exist only in the imaginations of dissembling climatologists and their computers.)
Complain about this comment
@LarryKealey #91 RE:beef, palm oil, etc
Hey, don't forget the 24million acres of tree farms in the American Tree Farm system (started in the 40s)
http://www.treefarmsystem.org/cms/pages/69_1.html
And contrary to popular belief...these tree farms are nothing like "farms"...basically just forests that we plan to use some day.
http://www.treefarmsystem.org/cms/pages/20_5.html
Complain about this comment
Asking for a value to be put on biodiversity, and in the same breath indicating that there IS no value reflects the fundamental problem of our age: we use accounting terminology and human value terminology interchangeably. For example: one says "we have a wealth of species in the woods". (The other says:No one can put an economic value on these species, therefore they have not value and therefore we have no wealth in the woods).
But just because no one can identify the value of a biodiverse habitat does not mean it is worthless: its just we have not, given the blunt accounting instruments we use, expressed it. What we CAN say is that the economic value of the combined services nature gives us (food, wood, fuel, clean water etc) is many times more than the combined GDP of all nations. And for those services to work, biodiversity is essential.
Complain about this comment
@xtragrumpymike2 #73
Who present on this site, is willing to put up their hand in favour of preserving the remaining rain forests?
i think there would be hardly anybody on these pages who wouldn't put up their hands, so here's my hand raised, although i too like bowmans idea and it's not as though the likes of Sting, Bono, Bill Gates, al Gore, George Soros etc couldn't afford to buy a small piece of land to ensure the preservation of these areas.
@JaneBasingstoke #86
will answer on the previous thread to try to keep this one clear of AGW - i shouldn't have replied to TFY here (TFY shouldn't have brought it up - yes, i know i have been guilty in the past and probably will be in the future), perhaps the mods could remove my comment #71?
/mango
Complain about this comment
Thank you Stephen! (at #94)
Complain about this comment
Stephen_Hinton #94: "we use accounting terminology and human value terminology interchangeably"
Yes, thanks for that.
I'd go even further; it disturbs me greatly that so many are talking from the standpoint of things having to have a value to be able to exist. To me that seems to be lacking in understanding and even worse liable to change at the rise or fall of a consumer market.
You'd protect the forests as long as they provide income as a source of pharmaceuticals?
You'd protect the forests and the wildlife parks as long as tourists come in hoards and spend money there?
How long can that kind of strategy hold up?
There is such a thing as respect for Nature without having to put a value on everything.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
@All interested in buying a bit of rainforest
Not that I'm a big fan of Sky, or indeed of their claimed reason for doing it, it has to be linked to C02 and global warming for marketing purposes doesn't it.
But if you wish to preserve a bit of rainforest and therefore all of it's flora and fauna then you could do worse than use this link:
http://rainforestrescue.sky.com/our-campaign
Hopefully, the mods will allow me to include it. It's for a good cause afterall.
Another vote for the forests by the way, as well as all other habitats, where it's possible.
Almost missed davblo and almost nice to have him back, I guess he's been away revising for his GCSEs ;-)
Complain about this comment
#29 PBak wrote:
"Biodiversity valuable per se? Of course - systems that are diverse tend to be more stable than those that are not."
But in that case, the thing you really consider valuable is stability, and only secondarily do you value biodiversity as a means of achieving stability.
Political conservatives value political stability because they think it promotes human well-being -- they think revolution entails violence and the imposition of a new and untried system that is probably worse than what preceded it.
It's not clear to me what justifies "natural conservatism", although that is clearly what lies behind much "climate change anxiety". I suspect most people think there is a "way things are meant to be" -- and that we have something like a sacred or religious duty to protect that.
Alas, religious duties lend themselves to lack of thought, or even cruelty. For example, there are many people who think the grey squirrel "should not be here" -- they're "not meant to be in the UK". Many are even prepared to kill sentient individuals to "maintain the natural order" as they see it. That is the sort of thing I object to in unthinking support for "biodiversity".
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey #84: "I proposed some realistic solutions - like educating people in the third world to understand that there is much more value in having a standing forest rather than having a scarred landscape of clear-cut trees."
I'd submit that it is precisely because we have educated them in the ways of our world that they abandon their old ways and indulge in deforestation for profit and gain by supplying our markets.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
@davblo #100
Even if it is our fault in the first place, you can't use that as a basis for criticising LarryKealey's proposed soltion. If not Education/Re-education, then what?
I think, from memory, that the sort of education suggested has already been used to great effect in a number of places. I'll trawl for some links re-this, when I get home.
Complain about this comment
blunderbunny #101: "If not Education/Re-education, then what?"
We should educate them more?
So they'll be more like us?
Maybe that's the wrong way around.
(See my #97)
/davblo
Complain about this comment
To Stephen #94:
Agreed! But in the end, quite literally, we still use accounting terminology, i.e.,:
"What we CAN say is that the economic value of the combined services nature gives us (food, wood, fuel, clean water etc) is many times more than the combined GDP of all nations." (#94)
The mountaineer and former green party member of the German parliament Reinhold Messner said that when we began to perceive nature rationally rather than intuitiely we set ourselves on a path to the exploitation of the natural world.
When you think about this though, you see that is is after all a 'rational' argument.
In other words, we human beings have this tool, our rational/technological mind, and quite naturally we use it to full advantage to 'make a living,' and appear always to have done so.
When I left the rational world to climb full-time at my own expense, I ended up in Messner's intuitive world. It was wonderful, and because of this devolvement, I, late in life, was granted the gift of a wife and son, something which had eluded me.
But I noticed that I was very much alone in my pursuit and devotion as I conceived it.
Conclusion - most people are simply too conditioned from birth in the ways of our society to change more than a very little.
Peer pressure is immensely powerful, and the sanctions applied by our society on those who stray from the norm are severe. This I can tell you from personal experience, and I imagine Maria Ashot and other artists might tell you the same?
Human nature is a paradox.
Many are the dissertations on this theme - the resolution is not yet apparent.
The natural world has 'iron laws,' none of them written down. Your aged mountaineer has surely learned many of these, and had a bit of luck too. Those who failed nature's test or were simply unlucky are survived by grieving relations.
I would ask that you not discount my continual 'notes from the field' as mere nostalgia. The lessons learned there, in the natural world, not as an observer but as a part and parcel of the whole, are my most valuable source and sounding board.
I have not solved the human paradox, nor do I expect to.
Continuuing as we are now, and as it looks like we will into the indefinite future, will put us in touch with a few of the natural world's 'iron laws.'
Then there will possibly be survivors.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@davblo (Again)
I wouldn't want to accuse someone of being deliberately stupid, but that wasn't and still isn't an answer. Perhaps, you could add that to your list as an unanswered question?
Complain about this comment
blunderbunny #104: "that wasn't ... an answer"
It's no wonder they is so much conflict and disagreement when everyone seems to expect answers and solutions up front when they haven't even agreed on the problems.
I'm suggesting that our record of "educated" exploitation of resources is not good; and business as usual won't make it any better.
I'm suggesting that deciding what should exist and what shouldn't exist based on economics and values assessments is a bad idea. I guess most disagree.
I don't claim to have a complete and practical solution to the problems.
As manysummits said in #103 "most people are simply too conditioned from birth in the ways of our society to change more than a very little"
I accept that I am restricted by being too deeply embedded in the existing System. It makes it very difficult to find satisfactory solutions. Talking helps. Insults don't.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #103 who wrote...
"Agreed! But in the end, quite literally, we still use accounting terminology"
Its something we're stuck with for the sake of reasoning. Instinct is good for some things...like social interaction...because many of our social interactions are partly instinctual. BUT if we're going to analyze anything, we're going to have to assign a value to it. Even our "instincts" assume values on certain things, just without any thought. But instincts are inflexible and can cause problems that logic and reasoning can solve (see:humanity).
Without our big ol' brains we still would have had many problems. Yes, they lead to war but that's because we're the only competition we have. Without our big brains there would be far fewer of us living far shorter lives and generally dying early...often the victim of predators.
"Continuuing as we are now, and as it looks like we will into the indefinite future, will put us in touch with a few of the natural world's 'iron laws.'"
Continuing as we are now? Do you mean...adapting to whatever the current conditions are? We've been pretty much stuck with the 'iron laws' the whole time. Cities couldn't go beyond a certain density (which is good for the environment, actually as we take up less of it) because they couldn't build high enough without elevators. The lack of a significant ability to process various types of waste, food, transportation, communication, medicine...they've limited our growth the whole time. Even today we're limited.
Complain about this comment
@RobWansbeck #81
@FergalR #19
Whoa. "Lazy"? Too much anthropomorphism here.
The giant panda acquired its lifestyle due to having to get by without sufficient game. It is no more "lazy" than people forced to live off TV dinners because they got snowed in and they've run out of fresher groceries.
@poitsplace #8
@FergalR #19
@LabMunkey #40
I would be extremely wary of writing off the panda as an evolutionary dead end. The panda looks more like a species in transition, with the possibility of evolving more traits to help with its bamboo diet. (Think Galapagos finches, and ask how well some of them were adapted in between their arrival in the Galapagos and now.)
Recognising a species that would be successful without our influence is not a trivial task.
Complain about this comment
@FergalR #92
@Yorkurbantree #70
@andy765gtr
I gave the condoms example precisely because it didn't involve nasties like enforced sterilisation or pressures on women to undergo abortions. And yes I am scratching the surface here when it comes to population control nasties.
I had hoped that my condoms example would prompt andy765gtr to give the other main example of painless reduction in family size in large families - tackling poverty. Tackling poverty is hard work and expensive, but it is consistent with human rights.
PS I would like to make it clear. My comment is not confined to any particular religion, it is not even confined to religion. It can and does apply to dynasties, where there is pressure on women to produce male heirs, and some secular groups, although the specific term "evil" gets replaced with arguably more unpleasant terms such as "unfeminine" or "treasonous".
That belief is the norm. Historically it "worked", it dealt with both the high mortality rate, and the need for mothers to be supported in their childrearing efforts. It is two children per couple that is the novelty.
Complain about this comment
@LarryKealey #45 #91
@Kamboshigh #31
(@Yorkurbantree)
You need to know there are a lot of people over here that are very angry about the "free lunch" approach of some politicians to biofuels, and have been campaigning against abuses of biofuels. (Reusing rancid cooking oil is OK, if a bit whiffy.)
George Monbiot
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/
Greenpeace, Oxfam, RSPB, Friends Of the Earth
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/biofuels-green-dream-or-climate-change-nightmare-20070509
Britain's Royal Society (the Royal Society promotes science)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7187361.stm
Relevant UK parliamentary committee
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7199073.stm
UK government's chief environment scientist
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7309099.stm
Complain about this comment
" Developing countries should concentrate on economic growth first, then use their wealth to repair any damage caused; they have more to gain by ripping down their forests and selling the timber than by protecting them"
While any attempt to stand in the way of such behaviour is little more than imperialism this statement is too simple to explain what is actually occuring.
Look at the UN World Conservation Monitoring Centre website they encourage and monitor protection of global wildernesses and have produced numerous publications. Their data shows exponential growth (from a very low base) of global protected areas. A country like Brazil already has 40% of it's rain forest protected as wilderness. This is a far greater amount than any western country ever protected its own forests. And if present trends continue we can only expect further land to become protected. Why bash these countries when we should be applauding them.
It's decadent to expect that poor countries will not exploit valuble land to improve the living standards of their people. But its ridiculous to think that peoples and countries around the world, even the poorest, don't put some value on protecting some of their wilderness areas.
Complain about this comment
@RobWansbeck #81
@FergalR #19
Another point about "lazy".
Some of the big cats sleep 20 hours a day. If a panda slept that much it would starve. Which would you consider the more "lazy"?
Complain about this comment
Hi davblo2 - welcome back!
Just thinking out loud here - trying to break the impasse.
First we learned to walk upright on two legs, and our brain began to grow. That was several millions of years ago. I can't remember the number, and I can't remember which came first, the walking upright or the enlarging brain. I'm not sure anyone really does, and it is not central to this post.
We left Africa repeatedly during the Pleistocene Ice Age (say the last ~ two million years), but were never overly successful in the sense that we outcompeted all other species and drew ever more of the natural resource base into our immediate orbit.
Then, ~ 200,000 years ago, homo sapiens sapiens evolved, and later, we left Africa.
This time it was different.
We encountered Neandertals in Europe, for example - soon Neandertals were extinct. Before that, we colonized Australia and area. Extinctions followed.
This story is repeated, and repeated. We arrive in North and South America - we sail to almost every island group in the world well before Columbus - always extincions follow.
When I was born, there were 2.5 billion of us - now it is 6.8 billion, and half of us live in cities.
Wherever conditions favored it, we became civilized and built immense hierarchial systems, the 'wonders of the world.'
Our most brilliant scientists are now telling us that we have crossed three planetary boundaries and may soon cross more, and that there are probably planetary boundaries we are unaware of, and that all are probably synergistic, and that probably the amplification which this implies is net negative for us and many millions of other species.
These same brilliant scientists assure us our brilliance is a value judgement, and unwarranted. We actually know almost nothing about ecosystems, and bacteria and archaea always have and likely always will rule the world, which, they point out, is another value judgement, but is nevertheless true and meaningful in many senses, not least of which is their demonstrated capacities - they can survive almost anything, three rocks away from a class G Sun like ours, they were here first, and will likely be here until our brightening star renders life here, at least as we know it - impossible, perhaps a half billion years from now.
The pace of change has been most pronunced in the last two or three centuries, tied to and probably caused by the industrial revolution, which has seen us move out of wooden canoes into spaceships, unravel the DNA complex, and figure out how to capture, if only momentarily, the power which drives the stars, i.e., a thermonuclear explosion, or Hydrogen Bomb.
Every major national academy of science is agreed on the basic tenets of the above monologue, I would hazard that guess.
And every major national academy of science is telling a united and very scary story on manmade global warming, but it is not my purpose to hijack this post with AGW. I am simply continuuing the monologue.
The gap that now exists, that our collective history has produced - to date - between rich and poor, educated and not educated in terms of the first world, of the gap between what the last worlds deem true wisdom and the first world, these gaps appear at this time staggering and irresolvable, while at the same time, what we call business as usual continues its inexorable consumption of an ever diminishing resource base.
We 6.8 billion are now virtually entirely dependent on a few agricultural crops for our survival - and not one of these crops is the natural food of homo sapiens sapiens.
Increasingly, we are turning to monoculture - providing quantity at the certain expense of quality.
Most of the 6.8 billion members of our species are religious or superstitious, same thing, ritual oriented hunter/gatherers, eating unnatural foods and living in marginal environments for hunting and gathering. It is only technology which enables us to keep alive our vast and still increasing numbers.
Our energy souce of choice is sequestered fossil fuels, which we have un-sequestered at a rate which has no known precedent in the history of our planet, save for a major bolide impact event, such as occurred last 65 million years ago, an event which ushered in not only a new geologic period, the Tertiary, but a new era, the Cenozoic, one of only three such boundaries in the last six hundred million years.
We need to assess the situation and we need to act. The assessment is only partially done, and it is terrifying. Human beings are easily scared, which is why we have leaders and hierarchies.
How to 'act' given the above monologue, both quickly and effectively, for the preliminary assessment indicates the need for both, is a task better suited to a mythological god than to anyone I have ever known, seen or heard of.
Perhaps our instincts are more useful in the situation just described than our newly minted reason. Our instincts are at least tried and true - we are symbionts - and our partners are doing just fine over the last four billion years.
The new kid on the block is multicelluar us - a technofreak - by the look of it.
Maybe the internet can help.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
manysummits #112: "...trying to break the impasse"
Thanks for putting things in perspective again.
All the best; davblo
Complain about this comment
@HumanityRules
"imperialism" / "why bash these countries" / "ridiculous to think that peoples and countries around the world, even the poorest, don't put some value on protecting some of their wilderness areas"
Firstly there's the problem of outsiders illegally exploiting a country's resources. And this is a very big deal in places like the Amazon.
It is a basic law of economics - all but the pettiest thieves need customers. We can make law enforcement cheaper if we don't buy stolen goods.
If you think that's imperialism, tell it to the pensioner couple who had their television stolen "to order".
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/forests/threats/illegal-logging
Even when the exploitation is legal, the outsider's interpretation of any agreement doesn't necessarily match what you or I might expect.
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/news-and-events/media/releases/deforestation/greenpeace-exposes-broken-prom
All this is made worse by the need to service debt often acquired in unsavoury circumstances.
(Note positive references to income from palm oil, logging and mining in this WTO report)
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/s215-01_e.doc
"In the year 2000, Indonesia has to pay US$ 3 - 5 billion (around 34 trillion Rupiah) for servicing debt. In the year 2001 and 2002 this will increase to around US$ 5 - 9 billion (63 trillion Rupiah). For the next five years, economists warn that the level of debt servicing will rise to up to 50% of the state budget."
http://dte.gn.apc.org/Af10.htm
"A significant change in the oil palm industry has taken place during the past season, as Indonesia surpassed Malaysia in production of palm oil and is now the world leader."
http://www.pecad.fas.usda.gov/highlights/2007/12/Indonesia_palmoil/
""I went to my land one morning, and found it had been cleared. All my rubber trees, my plants had been destroyed," he says, fighting back the tears. "Now I have to work as a builder in Malaysia, so I can feed my three children.""
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6927890.stm
"Lula's administration is facing a fundamental contradiction: to fight Amazon deforestation or to promote the expansion of agribusiness to pay the Brazilian external debt."
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/second-largest-rate-of-amazon
Complain about this comment
...and I just noticed...
poitsplace #106: "Instinct is good for some things..."
...which must surely qualify as one of the biggest understatements ever, seeing as how most living organisms depend on it for survival, including homo-sapiens.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
The false economies of human beings continue to presist. Short term money in the pocket exchanged for something more valueable at a later time or for a continued time. The English went to America because it had stripped all the English forest to build and maintain the navy and commerical shipping interest. Virgin forest (all gone now) and pitch to seal the lumber. The investment companies of course promised the investors a share of the gold that would be found. When none was found ships could be built to rob the Spanish ships from South America that did have gold. As nations despoil their own lands they tend to look at weaker nations as a new "market" and also rationalize this with professing a better life for the natives, for which there is little evidence that this actually occurs. There have been and continue to be scientific descoveries related to medicine from creatures and plants that most have little or no knowledge of. Who knows what diseases can be cured or people saved but the future is promising if they do not disappear. The elimination of species and biodiversity is simply another selfish act of human beings that is not in the long term interest of the human species. The companies selling lumber only see the trees. The constant seeking of resources for quick economic gains deprives everyone else of potential advances and security. As medical science has proven over and over, what is viewed for one purpose may through research provide a much more valuable product. There are consequences to decisions and we live with those of the past and will leave ours for future generations.
Complain about this comment
In answer to bowmanthebard, yes biodiversity does matter. You are biodiversity. Most of the oxygen you breathe comes from plankton in the oceans of the world and lush forests around the globe. The fruit and vegetables you eat were likely pollinated by bees, and the water you drink is part of a huge global cycle involving you, clouds, rainfall, glaciers, rivers and oceans.
Your diet depends almost entirely on the plants and animals around us, from the grasses that give us rice and wheat, to the fish and meat from both wild and farmed landscapes. Your body contains up to 100 trillion cells and is connected with everything around you and the wider world in a wonderfully complex and timeless system. Biodiversity is life, your life is biodiversity and biodiversity is you.
You share the planet with as many as 13 million different living species including plants, animals and bacteria, only 1.75 million of which have been named and recorded. This incredible natural wealth is a priceless treasure that forms the ultimate foundation of your human wellbeing. The systems and processes these millions of neighbours collectively provide produce your food, water and the air you breathe – the basic fundamentals of life.
The systems and processes also supply you with timber and plant materials for furniture, building and fuel, the mechanisms that regulate your climate, control floods and recycle your waste and the novel compounds and chemicals from which medicines are made. You may take biodiversity so much for granted, and it is so obviously all around you, that it is sometimes easy to forget it’s there - that you are a part of it and can’t live apart from it. If you want more information you can visit www.biodiversityislife.net
Complain about this comment
Biodiversity is the diversity found in genes, species, ecosystems and ecosystem processes. It is vital to sustaining life on earth. F.e. genetic diversity enables life on earth to adapt to and survive dramatic environmental changes. Ecosystems are storehouses of genetic and species diversity. If we destroy ecosystems, f.e. by urban development, deforestation or monoculture industial agriculture, we loose biodiversity.
Biodiversity is a vital part of the natural capital that keeps us alive. It supplies us with food, wood, fibers, energy and medicines (f.e. 62% of all cancer drugs were derived from discoveries of bioprospectors), provide natural pest control, cleans air, soil and water. Who will clean the air for us if there aren't enough trees left to do it? Ecosystems with high biodiversity are more productive than ones with low biodiversity. This has direct implications for food production.
(from: Living in the Environment; Tyler Miller & Spoolman, 2009)
Complain about this comment
Several bloggers have mentioned population as being ‘the elephant in the room’.
I believe them to.
Until such time as the expanding population issue is addressed, discussion regarding pollution, CO2 and biodiversity are likely to be fruitless.
And who’s going to attempt to control the number of children a family may consist of?
However the planet is self regulating in a way. Over-crowding and disasters go hand in hand. An unannounced tsunami here, or an earth quake there, perhaps the sneeze of a volcano.
Most things come with a price, and overcrowding’s price is impromptu death for many as opposed to a few.
Complain about this comment
#118 IYBUK wrote:
"In answer to bowmanthebard, yes biodiversity does matter."
No one denies that it matters -- it's why it matters and how much it matters that concerns me. Really, it ought to concern anyone who doesn't just swallow religious dogma without question.
Complain about this comment
#118 IYBUK wrote:
"Biodiversity is life"
And as the example of smallpox illustrates, biodiversity is also disease and death.
Complain about this comment
Davblo 100 103 etc. You are going to go and educate or re-educate them are you? So that they can learn again all the things they use to do before we got their. So colonism again is it run along little chap in your grass skirt and live in your mud hut. now don't cut down those trees or we will take 20 of you and have you shot.
I have already said it, they will extend their middle finger their needs, dreams and out look are far different to yours and you will achieve nothing by commitee the UN or any nice little junket.
As already stated no more biofuels ban it. You do create nature reserves with tourist appeal this brings in local monies to these people. You even start species re-introduction and yes game sport to go with it massive revenue there. No it does not go it to some overlords pocket it drains down to the ground and is far more efficient than the discredited aid agencies (only 20% reaches the field).
Now the utopian maxist/socialist republic of the EU, why do you pay farmers not to grow anything? Why does the EU have a sugar mountain (whilst destroying the Carrabian nations)? Why do you have quoters on milk etc. when over production would cause prices to fall? Why restrict EU beef farmers with yet another scare so that their costs make importing beef from South America cheaper? Why does the EU have size and totally meaningless quoters and quality control on fruit and veg meaning that some crops loose 80% to waste before reaching market?
First step get rid of the Common Agricultural Policy pay your EU farmers to produce food for the EU, not in third world countries. That step alone will reduce biodiversity distruction by at least 50%
Complain about this comment
LabMunkey at #113
I believe his post is defamatory or libellous.
The dubious blog linked to makes unsubstantiated allegations and denies natural justice.
Are there no limits to the depths ‘sceptics’ will plumb?
Complain about this comment
Okay the tree huggers are here are they. Look you do not and will not achieve anything with the way you people are thinking, nature does not give a damn about some campaign etc. The locals you are appealing to in these countries don't give a damn about you. Also the people putting up objections or alternative points are actually correct.
Example: I have been threatened with court action for failing to supply car parking space off road for my building. They say that I must provide parking for 9 cars not for my building but my neighbours as the law has been changed. As for the 6 trees I have planted and the flowers etc. these have to be removed and concreated over.
Bring it on I say but you lot need to consider the mentality of the people you wish to stop destroying biodiversity and no they are not all criminals.
Complain about this comment
Kamboshigh #123.
"So colonism again is it run along little chap in your grass skirt and live in your mud hut."
crikey.
if you're really so upset about this issue, why not rant/rail against the policies pursued by the US of A?
totally bankrupt -- financially and morally -- and a military presense (and the threat of nuclear weapons) to reinforce their control in more than 130 countries around the globe.
Complain about this comment
JR got the name of the plant "Phlonis Brevibracteate" and also "Bupleurium Sintenisii".
First one I googled and it is on a EU list for something so no sub-species or 70 idiots will turn up and probably step all over it killing it or tell me to knock the house down. The seed pods are not poisonous that is local BS and it is easy to culturvate so I'll do that next month.
The second I'm not sure about as it is a strange thing and I might have not identified it correctly. There is also a third "Onobryehis Venosu" again sub species which 1 of 3 I have no idea.
What I really need is a good website with real pictures and description, oh sorry eastern end of the med varieties
Complain about this comment
124 shame you don't act like your handle maybe if you did you would realise what is actual currently happening and what has happened in the past.
I'm sure you are cheered by news even reported on the BBC that Bin Laden is also a beleiver in AGW and all the responsiblity is on the US and the west.
What pleasant company you keep.
Complain about this comment
"No one denies that it matters -- it's why it matters and how much it matters that concerns me. Really, it ought to concern anyone who doesn't just swallow religious dogma without question."
precisely Bowman, a different way of putting my question in 60, although I call it cultural rather than religious. Pointing out that wetland systems around the world purify our water as has been done here a number of times isn't actually helpful or perusasive in that debate: wetland systems around the world are highly diverse, so following that logic there are many ways of achieving the same thing - do we need them all? If the crunch is preserving life as we know it, yes absolutely without a doubt. But if the question is (biologcal) life in general... I have yet to see a coherent argument on that score (and I do hope there is one because I actually ENJOY our diversity which alone is good enough for me, but I strongly suspect the debate is cultural rather than scientific factual at least at this stage)
Complain about this comment
JR see the next post, this is how these people think they are sick to death of being told what to do, how to live their lives, when to work and play. They want to do it their way they desperately want fast cars, TVs, education for their children, light warmth, security and roof over their heads be it 1 room or 20.
They cut down the forests to supply the west with product cheaper than can be produced locally because they are not subject to same stupid red tape. For petes sake Defra slaughtered the beef herd in the UK not for Foot and Mouth but because it was socially acceptable. You cannot have roast beef on Sunday because it is seen as upper class.
Got to go Beef tonight again at €3.25 a kilo from Argentina, and think about that.
Complain about this comment
Another uncaring commenter at # 120. Can these people never reflect on the callousness of the things they say?
Try thinking in these terms with your casual throw away remarks: It’s you, your friends or family when you say (at #120):-
‘…An unannounced tsunami here, or an earth quake there, perhaps the sneeze of a volcano….’
Cold or what!?
As for population growth, we’ve covered this a million times before on here. Without global sterilisation (and that includes you and me) the Earth’s population is unlikely to peak below 9 billion because of ‘demographic momentum’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_momentum.
Limiting population by draconian means is immoral anyway. Who chooses? It would also leave a huge amount of social, economic and psychological problems in its wake. No politician is ever going to get elected with that in his/her manifesto.
Most of this whole ‘sceptical’ position of planetary stewardship seems to be about doing nothing, blaming someone else and business as usual.
Complain about this comment
How many of the "biodiversity lovers" here love the biodiversity created by humans through genetic modification?
If you don't love that sort of biodiversity, you don't really love biodiversity, now, do you?
Complain about this comment
Hello Ghost!
Indeed there are consequences.
We are so fat here in the West.
Surrounded by wealth, both manmade and natural, if not in possession of it; security a given; militarily untouchable. Great universities, brilliant men and women of science and the arts - same thing; gadgets galore; entertainment at a whim - John Kenneth Galbraith's "Affluent Society," the 'First World.'
The last world is hard to contact. Wade Davis attempts to do so in his book "The Wayfinders", from the Massey Lecture Series.
We are regarded by some of the last world as 'younger brothers,' adolescent and foolish.
Much of the world, I presume, from the news reports which filter through, is simply trying to survive in the literal and physical sense, and do not have the luxury of contemplation from afar as evidenced on this weblog. Why would they, when your immediate family is at risk?
Or do they?
Is anyone other than the 'First World' concerned about our collective future?
Or aware that there is a problem of planetary dimension?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
A friend, a very good friend, just sent me a poem. As it is English, I thought to share it and its theme, as it bears directly on the religious/agnostic theme being discussed, which impacts biodiversity, and indeed all that we do, or don't.
"Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night."
http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~keith/poems/dover.html
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
#60 paulvanp wrote:
"I think biodiversity is important for various reasons and that it should be maintained is without question for me"
But most diseases are caused by parasites, which (often literally) worm their way into our lives by virtue of their diversity. They catch our immune systems off-guard through being "not previously introduced", which is just a form of biodiversity.
Many of these diseases (such as river blindness) are caused by perfectly horrible, disgusting life-forms that we rightly regard as our enemies.
Swine flu was another expected-apocalypse-that-didn't-happen, but sooner or later some genuine mass killer will emerge -- thanks to biodiversity.
Let's be honest. There's nothing good about biodiversity in itself. We find some life forms agreeable (such as cuddly pandas when they aren't drooling blood), and some life forms hideous -- with good reason.
Sorry for going on and on about it -- it's just that I hate self-delusion and I think a lot of us are deluded about nature, and about our own powerful religious impulses.
Complain about this comment
Ghost!
I'd like to rephrase that last question in #133.
Is anyone other than a minority of the First World's citizens concerned about planetary boundaries.
And is concern not a word with a double meaning, for it surely implies a prelude to action, rather than what is needed, which is action itself?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To bowman #132:
"If you don't love that sort of biodiversity, you don't really love biodiversity, now, do you?"
---------
Phrased as a question, you underline your own doubts.
Do you love that sort of biodiversity - bowman?
For myself, I feel mostly compassion. Don't get me wrong, I am no saint. But when I see monoculture, or a German Shepherd with his genetically induced back problem, or my cat living the civilzed life like me, and Underacanoe, and Cloudrunner, I see all of us in the same boat, sailing the same troubled seas.
A more concrete example, from my nineteen years in the Canadian oilpatch:
The rig was on a hill on the grassland prairie, in a wild-looking area, a rare change. Usually you drive through a farmer's field to get to a heavy oil drill site, and you are surrounded by miles and miles of neat and orderly rows of crops, all neatly arranged between grid line roads, north and south, east and west running.
Here there was none of this, just the prairie, the soaring hawk on the wing, and the murmur of the wind, contrasted of course, with the din of the rig's big diesel engines, and its mast towering into the night sky, strangely beautiful in its own way.
I remember this scene like yesterday, though it is a quarter century in my past. That is surely significant.
I do not understand the world bowman, and I am virtually certain that neither you nor your fellow contrarians do either.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
#133 manysummits wrote:
"We are so fat here in the West."
We are "fat" (I prefer the word 'zaftig') here in the West, because food is cheaper than it has ever been, and as humans we have human nature. All animals tend to get fat when food is plentiful, and there are good evolutionary reasons why, and humans are no exception. Incidentally, the fattest country in the world is not in "the West".
The human population has grown in numbers as well as girth because of a single, extremely agreeable fact: we have cheap, plentiful, healthy food. (Yes, "junk food" is much healthier than the low-protein, low-vitamin diets that our poor, short, scurvied and ricket-suffering ancestors used to eat.)
If anyone really cares about population growth, they will have to confront the "unpalatable" fact that the birth rate has overtaken the death rate -- which is basically a good thing. It is a good thing that humans are no longer "quite likely to die" as children. But how can population growth be reversed without extra work for the Grim Reaper?
I submit that population growth tends to go into reverse by itself when people compete with each other for things like educational, artistic and material status rather than sheer numbers and brawn. That's why richer countries have falling birth rates, without coercion. So if we want the population to start falling in a humane, non-coerced way, I'm afraid we had better let the developing world keep getting richer!
Complain about this comment
#bowmanthebeard
smallpox is a virus so is not a species. but it's a daft argument anyway. of course biodiversity includes death/disease without them life would be greatly diminished.
Complain about this comment
#124 thinkforyourself wrote:
"I believe his post is defamatory or libellous.
"The dubious blog linked to makes unsubstantiated allegations and denies natural justice."
I didn't get a chance to read the post or follow the link, but if it made unsubstantiated allegations, fair enough.
What worries me is your claim that "it denies natural justice". Is "denying natural justice" grounds for silencing someone's opinion? Do you count it as as "blasphemous" to "deny natural justice"?
The very idea of "natural justice" is pure horse manure, as far as I'm concerned. -- So burn me at the stake!
Complain about this comment
Kamboshigh at #130 says:
‘…They want to do it their way they desperately want fast cars, TVs, education for their children, light warmth, security and roof over their heads be it 1 room or 20.’
Do they want their children to play in the streets near the road with the ‘fast’ cars?
So selfish.
‘They’ need ‘education for their children, light warmth, security and roof over their heads’.
The fast cars, the TV’s and the 20 rooms are just ‘wants’.
Those ‘wants’ can never be satiated.
Complain about this comment
#137 manysummits wrote [with reference to artificial, genetically modified types of biodiversity]:
"Do you love that sort of biodiversity - bowman?"
Indeed I do. Most of the good things that enabled humans to live well -- and maintain the huge metabolic cost of the human brain, and support its products such as art, science, music, philosophy -- are the result of artificial genetic modification: wheat, rice, potatoes, farmed rather than hunted meat, and all the rest of it.
Complain about this comment
Here's one for RB to cover , sure he can bring his disdainful comments to bear the same way he did in October !
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/
Complain about this comment
Kamboshigh #127, #130.
just to confirm: I'll get you address details etc and you'll send the seeds to Kew?
re cheap beef.
yes, €3.25kg does sound (too) heavily subsidised.
Complain about this comment
Mannysummits:
Greetings. We are in a strange times where confrontation is viewed as solution. There is the bigger question of what we do not know. It is like the Greeks carving on the pyramids "the moderns were here." Arrogance is the deadliest of the deadly sins. We have seen great waterways polluted, lands no longer able to support argiculture and unbanization placing an ever increasing demand for fossil fuels. In every country the consolidation of wealth continues and the few view the many as weak. They are always surprised when the revolution comes. When you look at the economies of the West and how the banks hold them hostage to prevent regulations to protect the small investors, the future seems bleak. Vested interest in fossil fuels and elected bodies that only represent the interest of business will alienate the people until apathy is shaken, as the powerful never believe they have enough. Most who view the free market as free have no understanding of power and influence in this world. There is a Chinese saying: When one has power even his dogs and roosters can fly to the sky. One must wonder about those who argue that they will have a lower standard of living if fossil fuels are replaced. Why would not a new fuel continue the imporvement for people? There were sources before fossile fuels and there will be afterwards...oil is a finite resource. The propaganda of big business and banking plays to the fears of people. I would think that the living conditions of everyone can improve with an alternative fuel. It is certainly unfortunate that people have been convinced that their toys and appliances are necessary for a happy life when in fact they are usually a constant concern. The development of internal markets in China and India have kept the economies growing. The markets may shift and it will be the West selling to the East. The cycle of life continues. Both China and India have a new generation subjected to advertising telling them that their very being is determined by what they wear and what they own..it is all very sad. Political coruption is now a given and people feel powerless, this is always the quiet before the storm. The next time, and there will be a next time, the banks and government collude to betray the people things may become less parlimentary for resolution. Copenhagen was not a loss for the environmenhtal community, it was a win for fossil fuels and the corrupt government officals who do their bidding. Cap and trade will probably be revived as the money markets see it has another way to make money and it really does little to diminish the use of fossil fuels. They know they can count on the sceptics to carry their banner.
Complain about this comment
#137 manysummits wrote:
"I do not understand the world bowman, and I am virtually certain that neither you nor your fellow contrarians do either."
Well, I try to understand it, AND ME -- but I probably fail on both attempts.
But never mind that. I would rather focus on the word 'contrarian'. This is at last a word that I welcome! The word 'denier' always seemed tackily anti-Semitic to me.
So many thanks, manysummits, for describing me as something altogether different from the person who wrote this:
"Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
As long as I live, I will do my best never to become the sort of intellectual zero who would write -- or even think -- such a thing, or accept such a thing from one of his colleagues.
Best wishes from a contrarian.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
bowmanthebard #142.
"..the result of artificial genetic modification: wheat, rice, potatoes, farmed rather than hunted meat, and all the rest of it."
disheartening to see you lump GM in with selective breeding.
placing jellyfish genes in a pig (which makes its snout glow in the dark; we've all seen the pictures) is not -- repeat NOT -- the same as breeding/cross-breeding grasses to wind up with, say, rice.
you do know better, don't you?
Complain about this comment
#139 rossglory wrote:
"smallpox is a virus so is not a species."
Really? Why?
"but it's a daft argument anyway."
That's impressive! You clever chap!
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #140 takes up a contrary position, as ever. Dismisses the jury. Says:
‘ The very idea of "natural justice" is pure horse manure, as far as I'm concerned. -- So burn me at the stake!’
You prefer innuendo, smear and rumour?
‘….. Natural justice operates on the principles that man is basically good, that a person of good intent should not be harmed, and one should treat others as one would like to be treated.’
Sadly lacking on this weblog, hey, Dempster at #120?
Complain about this comment
When on an over-crowded sinking raft the discussion quickly turns to who get thrown off....usually the weak, never those in authority and often to no avail..
Complain about this comment
#148 jr4412 wrote:
"placing jellyfish genes in a pig (which makes its snout glow in the dark; we've all seen the pictures) is not -- repeat NOT -- the same as breeding/cross-breeding grasses to wind up with, say, rice.
"you do know better, don't you?"
No, I'm afraid I don't! What do you object to in one that you do not object to in the other , and why?
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #152.
should you succeed in cross-breeding pigs and jellyfish without resorting to technology more advanced than artificial insemination, I'll withdrwaw my objection to your post/attitude.
Complain about this comment
#153 jr4412 wrote:
"without resorting to technology more advanced than artificial insemination"
So your real objection is to technology?
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard wrote:
"Anyone who thinks there is something valuable per se about biodiversity, please explain what is valuable about it -- why it is valuable."
Daniel Quinn's argument (in his book "Ishmael") seems pretty strong to me: "Biodiversity is a survival factor for 'community'(of life) itself. A community of a hundred million species can survive almost anything short of total global catastrophe. Within that hundred million will be thousands that could survive a global temperature drop of 20 degrees - which would be a lot more devastating than it sounds. Within that hundred million will be thousands that could survive a global temperature rise of 20 degrees. But a community of a hundred (or thousand) species has almost nor survival value at all."
Of course, there is also a a bit anthropocentric/skeptic's counter-argument that biodiversity as we speak of it is limited just to warm, fuzzy, elegant and species visible to humans with naked eyes. No-one talks that biodiversity is needed regarding viruses, bacteria, microscopic algae etc. which would almost certainly survive much larger temperature drops or rises than 20 degrees. Plus the fact they reproduce at a frantic pace, making their mutations and adaptations to appear very quickly, thus making them even harder to eradicate (ask any microbiologist or flu vaccine maker).
So, if you're worried about the future of life on planet Earth - don't be. The planet is not in any danger whatsoever, and community of life has already recovered from much worse. However, if you're afraid for the future of 'homo sapiens sapiens' (future of our civilization), you should be somewhat concerned, but not that much. Mankind has adapted and recovered from much worse as well.
But if you're concerned about what kind of life will your grandchildren have, you should be very, very afraid (if we continue this way)...
Complain about this comment
Ghost at #145 says:-
‘…Cap and trade will probably be revived as the money markets see it has another way to make money and it really does little to diminish the use of fossil fuels. They know they can count on the sceptics to carry their banner.’
Agreed. I posted the following many weeks ago:-
Interesting how big coal and oil in Australia is trying to silence scientists who argue against ‘Cap and Trade’ and for a direct carbon tax. Pressure is being brought to bear on the Australian scientific research body the CSIRO. Some scientists have resigned.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/clive-spash-resigns-from-csiro-after-climate-report-censorship/story-fn3dxity-1225806539742
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/03/2761141.htm
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091204/full/news.2009.1126.html?s=news_rss
‘His paper questions the effectiveness of carbon trading schemes in industrialised countries and argues that a direct carbon tax might be more effective.’
Big business and finance sees money making in ‘Cap and Trade’ and so mobilises fear in the masses, against a carbon tax, through its ownership of the mass media. The average guy thinks its being done in their name.
If a carbon tax was neutral it could be environmentally progressive and wouldn’t hurt the little guy.
Cap and trade will do nothing for the environment but will ensure further concentration of wealth into the hands of the ultra rich.
Quote from University of California at Santa Cruz:-
‘…In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. ‘
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #140
(@thinkforyourself)
"I didn't get a chance to read the post or follow the link, but if it made unsubstantiated allegations, fair enough."
Looks like you've provided your own example of what might constitute "natural justice".
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #149
(@rossglory)
bowmanthebard it's partially a semantic point. Viruses as life are ... lacking. They're like super cuckoos, they need to use another organism's life to live. Without that host organism most of them are just a protein capsule with a bit of sequenced nucleic acid that does ... nothing. Less than dead.
Oh, and with your love of philosophy you would have a field day with the various biology based definitions of life.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #154.
"So your real objection is to technology?"
no, I 'object' to your lumping together GM and selective breeding, pretending it's one and the same. and to repeat, until you can demonstrate their equivalence (ie achieve the insertion of jellyfish genes into pigs using only the methods conventionally used in selective breeding), my 'objection' stands.
Complain about this comment
115. At 2:43pm on 29 Jan 2010, JaneBasingstoke
I have no problem with you describing the inequalities in todays societies but I don't see that external pressure on poorer nations to not exploit there own valuble resourses will make the situation any better. If you are worried that the wealth of these resourses goes to criminals then tell me how moving control of these resourses further away from the people (i.e. to international bodies) will give these people any more power or control over them? The Brazillian people can vote out their own politicians if they choose to do it, they can't touch the great and the good at the UN.
I read as many of your greenpeace references as I could take (one!!). As usual they can't help bashing the third world. "Weak governance and corruption in timber producing countries". Looks like the worlds poor can't look after themselves maybe they need to be taken under our enlightened wings, slamming nations governance gives moral authority to those who think we should go in and do a better job.
Finally you don't explain how these people are going to improve the quality of their lives. Romantic notions that this is not necessary would be squashed by a look at health figures for the rural poor. And don't suggest that they can all serve cocktails to eco-tourists, it is not the asperation of everbody.
Complain about this comment
Greetings from Calgary Ghost!
"Vested interest in fossil fuels and elected bodies that only represent the interest of business will alienate the people until apathy is shaken, as the powerful never believe they have enough. Most who view the free market as free have no understanding of power and influence in this world. There is a Chinese saying: When one has power even his dogs and roosters can fly to the sky." (ghostofsichuan # 145)
-----------
"Until apathy is shaken"
Well, we can always hope the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, or the Arctic Sea Ice Cap, do something dramatic or unexpected.
"The past year, 2009, tied as the second warmest year in the 130 years of global instrumental temperature records (Figure 2a), in the GISS surface temperature analysis." (James Hansen et al)
www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
(see "Jan. 26, 2010: If It's That Warm, How Come It's So Darned Cold? Revised essay on recent cold temperature anomalies.")
With the Sun turning back on, we can expect a climate forcing on the positive side eqivalent to about seven years of CO2 buildup in the atmosphere, within the next two to three years. The cold temperature anomaly over much of North America should subside and disappear with the presence of the current ENSO. (El Nino Southern Oscillation)
It is entirely possible the global temperature anomaly will reach record levels one or more times in the near term.
Will any of these possibilities allay public apathy?
I don't know.
Instead of waiting and hoping, is there anything that can be done?
Maybe!
Thoughts:
1) The International Courts and the United Nations Environment Program could 'speak for Earth,' perhaps by finally realizing Professor Christopher Stone's dream - "Should Trees Have Standing?"
2) The national academies of science around the world could state the political nature of the problem directly, and document unequivocally the threats inplied by the science, not in the typically overcautious scientific language of yore, but in future thinking precautionary principle type policy-based language - no holds barred, like James Hansen.
3) We could revolt.
- Manysummits -
PS to the contrarian contingent:
The GISS analysis linked to above is a revised edition, and is beautifully written to answer any and all legitimate contrarian concerns. Dr. Hansen has personally always distanced himself from the IPCC, and recently has made available the entire GISS global temperature data set, programs, instructions and all, for use by any and all.
In this analysis, Jim Hansen compares the Hadley's Center's Analysis to the GISS analysis by a variety of methods.
Dr. Hansen's track record of correct predictions is generally thought of as superlative, stretching back over more than thirty years.
What more could you legitimately want?
Complain about this comment
Just a little more.
There's a website I found that will give you country profiles for many different indices if you register for free ( earthtrends.wri.org ). The following are based on the 2003 UN data, although I noticed 2009 data has just been released.
So lets look at some countries and protected land as a percentage of total land area.
Lets start with USA that Richard points out hasn't signed the CBD.
USA 15%. Ok it's a start.
Lets look at some of those progressive countries.
Sweden 7%
Norway 6%
Australia 7%
UK 10%
Oh not so good.
How about those nasty poor countries we need to keep in line.
Brazil 17%
Indonesia 12%
So those dirty horrible Americans are actually doing a better job than the progressives.
And it seems that the poor nations are disproportionally contributing to wilderness protection yet it is these countries that we continually point at suggesting they need to be pressured, monitored and controlled. Seems like a familiar story only with an enviromental twist.
Complain about this comment
To thinkforyourself:
Regarding cap and trade vs carbon tax, or carbon tax and dividend, James Hansen has a recent article published on his website, and in it he relates how the New York Times effectively blindsided him in an op-ed piece he wrote recently for them.
I am not sure if you have seen this piece, but if you have, perhaps others with a financial bent will find it illuminating, or at least helpful.
"Jan. 12, 2010: The People vs. Carbon Traders: Essay on cap-and-trade vs. fee-and-dividend, in connection with protest at Carbon Trading Summit."
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
The posts on disappearing wild areas led me to look at Google Earth to check-out my own small part in preservation.
Many years ago I made a habit of dismantling any fences that appeared on common land. I was extremely pleased to find that my first effort from some 40 years ago has proved successful.
There have been other successes but sadly many failures.
It is a great annoyance to me that people can claim land that is a common asset merely by fencing it off and hoping that no one notices or threatening those who do.
Or has the law changed? It certainly should.
Complain about this comment
\\\ Wow!!! ///
This is worth a read
Excerpt:
"There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots."
Why do people often vote against their own interests?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm
------------
A must read - cerebral cortex/reason vs feigned 'from the gut'
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
“The US has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the US the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.”
James Hansen 1999 (pre Y2K issue)
Looking at some of the questions over the methods used to adjust temperatures there is a distinct possibility that the above may apply to most of the planet.
Early days but certainly a possibility.
Complain about this comment
\\\ The Heart of the story linked to in post #165 ///
"As the saying goes, in politics, when you are explaining, you are losing. And that makes anything as complex or as messy as healthcare reform a very hard sell." [or climate change, or biodiversity...]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm
And here we are routinely explaining to one and all, and the contrarians are helping us do this!
Bingo
Need to think about this.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@165, manysummits
Sad but true and nothing new.
Politicians are well aware of this.
From the UK taxpayer funded Warm Words:
http://www.ippr.org/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=485
“The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken.”
Complain about this comment
Or perhaps Bevan saying of Churchill that the prime minister had won debate after debate, and lost battle after battle?
Complain about this comment
HumanityRules #162.
a lttle puzzled by your reasoning.
do you not find it remarkable that Sweden, Norway and the UK manage these percentages in spite of having been exploited (agriculturally, etc) for so much longer than a mere 200-odd years (USA)?
btw, wanted to look up info on other EU countries but the site requires the Google Earth plugin (which I won't install), how do the remaining EU countries fare?
Complain about this comment
To Rob #168:
OK - then biodiversity is dead simple - and everybody is already aware, in the sense of
"all your eggs in one basket."
I'll buy that. When I think of JFK, I remember him as so human and quick to smile and joke. He didn't have to go into intellectual explanations - he told stories - his own and others. And he spoke at a high intellectual level - never dumbing down his dialogue, yet never displaying what Robert Pirsig once described as
"the eternal smugness of the professional academician."
Good - we're making progress.
I have no trouble with the concept. In 1994, my 'Year of the Pilgrim,' I wrote it down:
"Advice is a form of criticism, and a negative force in the world."
I like most to tell stories. They are a field man's way of expressing himself.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Kamboshigh #123: "Davblo 100 103 etc. You are going to go and educate or re-educate them are you? So that they can learn again all the things they use to do before we got their. So colonism again is it run along little chap in your grass skirt and live in your mud hut. now don't cut down those trees or we will take 20 of you and have you shot."
I really don't know what you are talking about. I didn't say anything like that. You are putting words into my mouth and not very nice ones at that.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
#159 jr4412 wrote:
bowmanthebard: "So your real objection is to technology?"
jr4412: "no, I 'object' to your lumping together GM and selective breeding, pretending it's one and the same."
They're not exactly the same, but why do you think the difference is relevant? Do you think "nature" is basically God's plan and that technology is interfering with God's plan?
Complain about this comment
#165 manysummits wrote:
"Why do people often vote against their own interests?"
Some of us would say that a person's vote is an expression of their interest.
Complain about this comment
@Kamboshigh #123 and @davblo(multiple)
Never thought that I'd ever leap to davblo's defence (I might have to have a little lie down after this), but the educate/re-educate stuff was down to me.
But I was cerainly not proposing colonialism, I was merely pointing out, that you can't just wash your hands of this problem. You can't merely say, look how wrong we did it the first time and then use that as an excuse for doing nothing.
If it comes down to teaching local populations to, or even rewarding them for protecting their local habitats, then that's what we should be doing.
This is the sort of thing that the green movement should be concentrating on, this idiotic fixation with Global Warming will damage the movement for years to come.
On subject of the much maligned virus, it should be pointed out quite loudly, to the more poorly educated amongsts us that if it wasn't for viruses (virii) you would simply not be here.
Much of your DNA is viral in origin, indeed the DNA of many interlopers are providing you with all sorts of useful things. If you want to take a quick spin over to New Scientist, you'll find a intersting article on this.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527451.200-i-virus-why-youre-only-half-human.html
Your cells also rely on mitochondria, I'll let you google or wiki that for yourselves - It seems that the education system in this country, is woefully neglecting science these days.
Finally, whilst I fully support every effort to preseve habitats and biodiversity, I have to distance myself(I'd prefer to be on another planet, quite frankly) from some of our nascent genociders - Honestly, I don't even have the words.............
If you all wish to preserve this planet and most of it's relevant bits and pieces, then I would humbly suggest(Yes, I know that no suggestion can really be humble) that you stop digging yourselves an even deeper global warming based hole and get back to protecting, preserving and managing the environment.
And before someone mentions it - Yes, I'm still working on my smuggness issues.
Complain about this comment
VIEWPOINT
Andrew Simms
"...you can also have "uneconomic growth", when it is jobless, socially divisive or environmentally destructive. A parallel in nature might be growth like that in cancer...
Are alternative measures of success available? Yes, many. But politicians and the business press remain uncritically spellbound by the equation "all GDP growth is good"."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8479508.stm
-----------------
In this 'viewpoint' article, the author talks of both the original "Limits to Growth" model of 1972, of its revisiitation and overall confirmation in 2008, and of the Stockholm Resilience Centre's "Planetary Boundaries" centerpiece paper.
We have discussed all these issues on this weblog.
Abraham Lincoln once said, "Public sentiment is everything..."
He also said:
"It has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits.
This is wrong, and should not continue."
-------------
Let's look at Richard Black's 'cosy cousin biodiversity', the 'viewpoint' article and Lincoln's sayings in a new light, informed by the idea discussed a few posts ago that people often appear to vote against their own self-interest because they hate being told what to do and how to live by a perceived rich, fat and disconnected elite.
Doesn't 'biodiversity' translate to a combination of:
'Variety is the spice of life'
and
'Don't put all your eggs in one basket'?
Meanwhile, amidst the endless intellectual discussion of 'climate change' and 'biodivesity' and GDP growth etc..., the working man and the working woman still suffer the daily insult which Abraham Lincoln spoke of.
Translation: Get real, or show me another way.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
When is the BBC going to report on the growing Rosegate Scandal?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_still_growing.php
Complain about this comment
@infinity #177
Not sure you can quite call that a scandal, you're going to need much, much more than that, if you want to deflect from some of the problems/scandals that you have with your own side of the argument. The world is changing, better start getting used to it.
Complain about this comment
#158 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"Viruses as life are ... lacking."
Seems like you're moving the goalposts so you can maintain something like "life is sacred" (apart from living things that are "lacking").
If viruses are "lacking", let us consider the parasites that cause river blindness. These are not "lacking", I trust. They are fully alive yet we rightly hate them.
We humans regard some things as valuable and other things as the opposite of valuable, depending on whether or not they promote our interests. Parasites that cause horrible diseases are the opposite of valuable to us, because they do not promote our interests.
We abdicate our responsibility of thinking if we say that "everything that belongs to life is valuable". Then we are liable to settle into the dogmatic slumbers of the religion of "natural = good, artificial = bad". I say it again: nature is no guide to morality!
Complain about this comment
#149 bowmanthebeard
"That's impressive! You clever chap!"
gee dat's weally nice of you......ahhh the joys of sarcasm.
actually i didn't say it was not life, just not a species. and it's certainly nothing like a parasite. why not just accept your oft quoted smallpox example (you've used it before) is a dud.....maybe stick with parasites.
but then we have the issue that some parasites of humans are extremely useful. so still a daft argument.
my contention is that you make some very confident assertions on this comment board and i'm not so sure you always have the knowledge to back it up.....just my humble opinon.
Complain about this comment
#180 rossglory wrote:
"some parasites of humans are extremely useful"
Which parasites? Tapeworms for losing weight?
Complain about this comment
#179 bowmanthebeard
"We humans regard some things as valuable and other things as the opposite of valuable, depending on whether or not they promote our interests."
don't include me in your group. i value things that are not necessarily in my interests.
however, i do agree with your 'nature is no guide to morality' comment (you can't get an 'ought' from an 'is', - david hume) but then you seem to be confusing ethics with religion.
and none of this argument gets us any nearer your assertion that biodiversity has no 'value' per se. your's is a pretty classic intrinsic/extrinsic argument but i think biodiversity demonstrably has worth that covers both.
Complain about this comment
#165 manysummits
many thanks for that link, quite enlightening. shows why the bish, bash, bosh here (typical of my exchange with bowman) gets nowhere but seems to be instinctive. i like your 'tell stories' rather than 'give advice' angle.
to give myself a little credit, when i first became convinced of the problems we were creating (agw, biodiversity, soil loss etc) i wanted to 'tell' everyone. of course most people didn't want to listen to me telling them, and i did suss that pretty quickly.
Complain about this comment
blunderbunny at post 175
re: virus and mitochondria
I am glad you have pointed these things out, 'cause it seems that we all need reminding about this ultimate reality.
We are being continuously being invaded and assimulated by viruses and the like, and this has been going on through time from the beginnings of life on planet. Prions look quite interesting too, the way they can fry our brains and yet still be useful in other ways.
Perhaps we are too narrow in our view. Us oldies were brought up to believe that there was no life on other planets in our solar system and no water on the moon. The more imaginative of us believed differently, and somewhere in between the two polarized views the truth which comes to visit us occasionally. Reality is the soup of the entire universe exchanging bit and pieces here and there, depositing some of it on earth and so on and so forth.
Is 'morality' a human invention? If so, what does 'morality' do? Is 'morality' embedded or innate? What would happen if 'morality' was absent? Morality appears to be a death sentence for some. A farmer in a tropical rainforest might consider it 'morally correct' to cut down a patch of rainforest to grow food to enable his family to thrive. There are those who manipulate this 'morality' thing to get others to do abominable things. If 'nature' is amoral should we be trying to impose our value system of 'morality' onto nature?
Complain about this comment
178. blunderbunny:
Don't worry, it was a tongue-in-cheek parody of all the conspiracy theorists who keep coming on here saying "Why isn't the BBC reporting (insert something here)"
Ironically my post has been referred to the moderators. The next step of my parody, in the role of the conspiracy theorist" would be to accuse the BBC of trying to suppress "the scandal".
On that note, the whole subject at the deltoid blog is a parody of the same thing. Including the use of the -gate suffix and claims that the scandal is "growing", faux attempts to escalate and spin the "controversy", etc.
Complain about this comment
#182 rossglory wrote:
"i value things that are not necessarily in my interests."
I don't mean to make the point that "we all act selfishly", but rather that we have basic values -- such as beauty, truth, relief from suffering, etc. -- that explain why we value everything else.
I agree that biodiversity is valuable, just that it's valuable in a secondary way, because it promotes some other things we value on a more fundamental level. For example, some people have made the point that man-made industrial stuff is usually ugly compared to living things, and I agree. But then I value biodiversity secondarily, because I value beauty primarily. Others have made the point that medicines often result from unexpected living sources such as mould or willow bark. I agree that medicines are valuable, but again I value biodiversity secondarily, because I value health primarily.
Please note that although much of nature is beautiful, some of it is ugly. And some of nature brings disease, not health. So my attachment to the basic values of beauty and health to some extent undermines my attachment to biodiversity.
What I'm objecting to is the unthinking, mystical, quasi-religious idea that biodiversity is valuable no matter what. There are people who regard biodiversity as "sacred". They assume there is a "way things are meant to be". Some of them are prepared to kill grey squirrels because "they're not supposed to be in the UK" -- in other words they use their religious attitude to nature to justify acts of cruelty to individual sentient creatures.
"and none of this argument gets us any nearer your assertion that biodiversity has no 'value' per se."
"Per se" just means "in itself". I think biodiversity is secondarily valuable rather than valuable in itself. Beauty, truth, kindness -- and a very few other things -- are valuable in themselves.
Complain about this comment
Lots of people are voting against reforms which would promote biodiversity; and voting against reforms which would halt climate change.
In the United States, even health care reform is being vehemently rejected by many:
"In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm
---------------
Why?
In a previous post I linked to another article which discussed why people often seem to vote against their own self-interest.
I've been thinking about this a lot - worrying it like a dog with a bone.
Here are a few thoughts:
1) Terrorists routinely blow themselves up these days in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, Iraq etc... Clearly they are in one sense voting against their own self-interest, and yet we all sense there is more to it.
Clearly they believe very strongly in what they are doing, even if we grant that they have 'gone off the deep end.'
2) Abraham Lincoln and his sayings are relevant here, I think:
"I have often inquired of myself what great principle or idea it was that kept this confederacy together... It was that which gave promise that in due time the weights would be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and that they should have an equal chance." (1861)
------------
"An equal chance."
What if you know, or think you know, that you have no chance. What if in addition you are confronted daily with the unbearable?
I am a student of history. All geologists are, but that natural inclination extends to everything I study.
What really allowed a few hundred Spanish soldiers to defeat and humble the Aztecs, the Inca?
I have seen a number of authors employ mental gynastics to explain this, but there may be an intuitive answer which is more accurate.
Perhaps the millions of Aztec and Inca 'subjects' were unbearably fed up with their servitude and position in life, and sub-consciously were only too glad to see their Sun God dethroned.
You could make the case that in not eliminating the Spanish, they voted against their own self-interest - allowing a heathen group from afar, dirty and smelly, to destroy their 'high civilization.'
But allow it they did.
Perhaps we have betrayed our real propensities in designating these civiizations as 'high', and according them status - wonders of the world...
We live in a 'high civilization,' don't we?
How many sub-consciously want to see this loaded system of special interest, of an affluent and uncaring middle class, brought to their knees?
But many of us are working for a better world for all - we say.
Yes, perhaps. But we speak, do we not, from the castle pulpit, not from the street.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
#187 manysummits wrote:
"Lots of people are voting against reforms which would promote biodiversity; and voting against reforms which would halt climate change."
That's because politics is a matter of compromise. We have to weigh the good of protecting biodiversity against the good of promoting other human goals, such as education and health, both of which require money, which has to be got somewhere.
Complain about this comment
To bowman #188:
I find your arguments ultimately unconvincing. Much of what you say makes sense, but then you undo all that - eg:
"We have to weigh the good of protecting biodiversity against the good of promoting other human goals, such as education and health,..." (#188)
Fair enough, on the surface.
But if the considered, concensus view of the scientific community is that crossing planetary boundaries at will is inimical to both 'education and health,' how are you winning?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
\\\ Is biodiversity and a Holocene climate in our self-interest? ///
I'm still worrying that self-interest bone.
Let's step into Afghanistan:
"The American Franks have every sort of advanced weapon... they can bounce messages off the moon and send out little mechanical birds to spy on us. They shower storms of fire from the sky, and blizzards of sharp metal darts...
We have nothing...except for our Din, our faith. The Franks do not understand that they cannot defeat a people who have nothing, nothing except faith and honor."
- from "American Raj", by Eric Margolis, chapter One.
--------------
Are these Pashtun warriors reading this blog?
Are they discussing biodiversity loss in their devastated land?
We could travel the real world, I imagine, and find analogues to this self-interest discussion in every land.
Any port in a storm - immediate self-interest trumps long-term self interest??
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
#189 manysummits wrote:
"if the considered, concensus view of the scientific community is that crossing planetary boundaries at will"
I don't know what you mean by "crossing planetary boundaries". But whatever it means, scientific consensus should not be the final arbiter when making public policy decisions.
Why not? -- Scientific knowledge is "special" because it "draws back the curtain" on hidden aspects of reality. Science explains things by referring to mechanisms that cannot be seen directly.
But its great strength -- explanatory power -- is also the source of its great weakness: uncertainty. Scientific theories are necessarily extremely speculative and "risky". Time and time again, well-established scientific theories have been shown to be false. Theories that are held as a matter of "consensus" are especially dangerous, because consensus about a theory usually entails that the theory gets tested LESS, not more. And it's tests that count, not agreement.
When decisions are made about people's lives, it's quite important that there be considerable confidence about the outcome of the various alternatives. That's why we insist that juries consist of non-experts, even though of course they should be advised by experts on both sides of the argument.
Complain about this comment
Biodiversity apparently is believed by some to be chaos. The anti-religion crowd fail to accept the role of religion in social development and how diet,organization, most great art and architecture, a counter to oppresive rule and rationale to overthrow despots, have served humans well. In China it was required to have the Mandate from Heaven, in the West it was the Pope or other church leaders approval, coerced or not. Human beings tend to corrupt everything so blaming the religion exempts humans for their behavior. I believe it was Darwin who was the champion of biodiversity. This page certainly speaks to biodiversity in mental processes. As the sceptics take the human goals rationale one would think that the "investigation of things", a fundemental of Asian philosophy, would support biodiversity and the investigation of things to determine benefits to humans before elimination or extinction. The humanist should be supporting what has the most benefit to humans, which is different than immediate gratification of wants and needs. The goals of selfishness and unselfishness meet at some point. People often demand a change or rejection of motivations when the goal has common ground. In the East this is called not being able to overcome "self" in the West it is called "ego."
Complain about this comment
#192 ghostofsichuan wrote:
"I believe it was Darwin who was the champion of biodiversity."
Well he explained biodiversity, but I don't think he had any great reverence for it. He was under no illusions about the ambivalence of nature, indeed he regarded it as "cruel".
Darwin belonged to a mostly English-speaking philosophical tradition that doesn't see God or morality in nature, and sees civilization as basically a good thing, because humans would behave in worse ways without it. This tradition would be opposed to Rousseau (who thought man was essentially good, a "noble savage" who is corrupted by society) and Heidegger (who had mystical ideas about the evils of technology).
Darwin sure killed a lot of animals himself!
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #161 who wrote...
"Well, we can always hope the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, or the Arctic Sea Ice Cap, do something dramatic or unexpected."
I honestly have no idea what you and other warming worriers (hmmm, is it just me or does that sound like a somewhat friendlier term?) preoccupation is with the arctic sea ice and permafrost for that matter. The arctic sea ice has been at far lower extents and sometimes even entirely absent during most of the holocene. In the northern regions of the continents the permafrost and glaciers do little more than hold back life. There is far less of your beloved diversity in these areas. They're cold inhospitable wastelands relative to the rest of the earth, restricting both man and wildlife.
I can at least see why you'd be a little concerned about the WAIS but it would take such an incredibly long time for it to do anything to sea levels that it's extremely unlikely it would ever be an issue.
and in #176 wrote...
"It has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits.
This is wrong, and should not continue."
"Meanwhile, amidst the endless intellectual discussion of 'climate change' and 'biodivesity' and GDP growth etc..., the working man and the working woman still suffer the daily insult which Abraham Lincoln spoke of."
The only reason you can even complain about biodiversity or social inequity is because of the incredibly good life you have...and that's all thanks to the system you're complaining about. If you were in one of the festering, overpopulated, undeveloped nations of the world and came across a wounded endangered animal...you'd eat it. If the only wood available to cook it was an endangered tree, you'd cut it down. And if someone offered you the equivalent of twice your previous yearly income to work 16 hours a day making shoes for spoiled rich kids in the developed world...you'd take it. All of the industrial nations went through this exact same phase. Its a part of the transition.
There is in fact another way...but we're not yet there technologically. Unfortunately, the only way I can see us getting there in a timely manner...is to keep the system we've got and just adjust to problems as they come.
Complain about this comment
Davblo and blunderbunny which ever one of you came up with re-educating etc. doesn't really matter. It is how the west UK,USA,France etc. are perceived in the eyes of the areas you wish to protect under biodiversity. If you run it like AGW, bird flu,swine flu or whatever else then whoever heads it up will be totally ignored as a puppet of the imperial powers and it is for the west finiancial gain. Forget the good intentions it just isn't going to wash.
To show how out of touch the west is, here we had a supposed foot and mouth out break. The EU tried to enforce the total herd cull policy with exclusion zones etc. After 4 farmers had their herds culled there were near riots outside EU offices and EU officials were chased back to Brussels after some rather unfortunate threats and a car bomb. You see Foot and Mouth is endemic and all the herds had it and the Eu wanted them all destroyed? The truth is F&M is not as dangerous as you are lead to beleive.
By the way I write from an EU country
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #193
Yep, that's quite true, biodiversity is not terribly Darwinian.
Survival of the fittest implies there were lots that weren't fit enough and as a result they are no longer with us. You can see natural selection in action in the UK with Grey vs Red squirrels.
Nature is generally not nice and altruism/altruistic behaviour is quite a rare thing.
So, why should we care? We are the planets top predator after all. The answer is simply because we can...... I don't think we should need a better reason than that.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #186.
"I agree that biodiversity is valuable, just that it's valuable in a secondary way, because it promotes some other things we value on a more fundamental level."
reading this makes me think that your reasoning is impaired in that you place the human 'values' at the centre, giving them the highest priority.
(#173)"Do you think "nature" is basically God's plan and that technology is interfering with God's plan?"
no, had you cared to read any of my numerous posts which mention religion, you'd know better than to ask this question; your view expressed in #186 does tie in though with Abrahamic beliefs (ie man created to lord it over the rest of creation), may I ask -- are you a believer?
Complain about this comment
#144 JR that would be great and thanks for the support as I would trust Kew over the EU and ICUN anyday. What I'll do is write in the first place providing photos, local area conditions etc.
If they want the seeds or even a specimum (hopefully I can get them to gerninate) then I can get that done.
Yep special offer week Argintina beef is €3.25 per kilo sirloin is €4.50 per kilo as are full "t-bone". You can have French beef for about €6.75 per kilo but it is aweful. I am writing from an EU country one that told Brussels were it could stick it's 30cm tasteless cucumber.
Complain about this comment
@Kamboshigh #195
With you on foot and mouth, not a bad disease at all, as far as domestic animal diseases go.
Total destruction of herds was daft and vacination/toleration of some diseases with herds would be much better.
My other half has had foot and mouth, and unless we have some sort of very major falling out, I'm not about to set fire to her ;-)
Still unsure as to why education of indigenous peoples would be wrong. As I said, just becuase you've done something wrong once doesn't mean you should stop trying. Indeed, one could argue that it makes you more responsible for fixing it.
Complain about this comment
There appears to be a better quality of debate coming out of this blogagoraforum. Why do we blog here? Do we blog for personal gain? I would say no, we blog to test our ideas, to see if what we believe or doubt is a shared view of others. It is so easy to go along with the group persuasion, it avoids conflict and humiliation. However, questioning others in this highly diverse anonymous space, helps us evaluate our own belief system, reform obvious errors and take aboard new ideas. If we are not changed by this debate then it is a worthless activity.
I don't know who you are ghostofsichuan but I find myself listening to your voice because it rises above group think and looks at the human verses biological condition from a broad perspective. Bowmanthebard, you remind us to use science as a tool to make the invisible visible, but warn against relying on it as the final deciding factor as science itself can be fallible. Manysummits, immediate self-interest appears to be the immediate goal in the grip of the 'storm'. However, I do believe that long term self-interest does triumph in the end. Maslow believes that as soon as our base needs are met, we start to search for higher goals which often involve searching beyond ourselves.
There are so many voices on this blog, all reaching out, all trying to find the path. I listen to xtragrumpymike2 and I worry about his close brush with.. I listen to you all and I hope you all listen to each other. None of us has the 'right' answer but collectively we get closer to some sort of answer.
I listened to a documentary about train drivers who kept the railways going during the war. These men were in terrible danger every day but still continued to do their service to their country. Some of the men were less brave and one or two ran for it. It came as no surprise to me that the ones who held their nerve and stayed on the job fared better than the ones who ran away, often loosing their lives in the process. Perhaps I am wrong but I truly believe that we have to maintain our resolve and work towards finding understanding and possible solutions, even if it means the occasional verbal kick in the face.
Complain about this comment
Blunderbunny you can educate them quite easily into preserving the environment but not the way of the EU, UN or any other activist group. These people are not stupid the first thing they think is money for today hence why no aid actually gets on the ground.
They need incentives which means as mentioned somewhere above is tourism, namely come and see our biodiversity, come and fish or hunt etc. I am just trying to start such a project and the locals look at me daft and say why would somebody come here? To which the answer is "the western idiots will love it" Guys and girls you will love it and you are not idiots
Complain about this comment
#197 jr4412 wrote:
"reading this makes me think that your reasoning is impaired in that you place the human 'values' at the centre, giving them the highest priority."
I would say that the only things of value are things that sentient agents regard as valuable. For example, the rainforests are valuable to the many sentient animals that live there, and to many humans who although they don't live there regard them as places of wonder and beauty. (And possibly think of them as the "lungs of the planet"!) But trees don't feel anything, because they aren't sentient at all, and it doesn't hurt a tree to cut it down. We can't thwart a tree's interests, because trees aren't agents, and they simply don't have interests.
...So I accept that I'm only considering the interests of sentient animals, but I reject your cliam that I'm being completely human-centered.
bowmanthebard: "Do you think "nature" is basically God's plan and that technology is interfering with God's plan?"
jr4412: "no, had you cared to read any of my numerous posts which mention religion, you'd know better than to ask this question; your view expressed in #186 does tie in though with Abrahamic beliefs (ie man created to lord it over the rest of creation), may I ask -- are you a believer?"
No, I've been a lifelong atheist, raised by atheists. I guess my "thing" is I keep meeting people who claim to have given up religion, but who really haven't, because they retain so many religious habits of thought. For example, loads of people believe in the "doctrine of original sin" -- they don't call it that, of course, but in effect they believe it, because they think people are responsible for what their parents and grandparents did, as if responibility and guilt were inherited from one generation to the next. Just think of all the people who think present-day white people should atone for what their ancestors did in slavery (and other sorts of racism). Think of all the people who routinely say, "they" did that to "us" -- meaning earlier generations of British people did bad things to earlier generations of Irish people, or whatever.
It seems to me that a lot of people who claim to have no religion in fact suppose that "nature is sacred", that we're "raping the planet" (which is holy in some way) and so on. I don't think nature is sacred, or the planet is rape-able or holy, although I think we should take reasonable care to avoid causing suffering or making things ugly.
Complain about this comment
#199 blunderbunny wrote:
"My other half has had foot and mouth"
Are you sure you don't mean "hand, foot and mouth" disease? I could have sworn that only cloven-hoofed animals could get foot and mouth disease!
Complain about this comment
#196 blunderbunny wrote:
"biodiversity is not terribly Darwinian.
"Survival of the fittest implies there were lots that weren't fit enough and as a result they are no longer with us."
One thing to remember is that Darwin was "against" natural selection in the sense that he thought it was evil, and its cruelties should be resisted by humans as much as humanly possible!
Complain about this comment
@manysummits writes:
Lots of people are voting against reforms which would promote biodiversity; and voting against reforms which would halt climate change.
In the United States, even health care reform is being vehemently rejected by many:
"In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm
---------------
Why?
In a previous post I linked to another article which discussed why people often seem to vote against their own self-interest.
--------------end of excerpt------------------------------------
I think this is more a condition of people voting against what YOU think is in their self interest. I live in Texas, I have no health insurance, I have been very ill for about fifteen months now. While the system is not perfect - there IS a safety net - you just have to go through the process. Most people here are against Obama's plan because they don't believe it will lead to lower costs, nor better care. Simple as that.
It is yet another in a string of very long pieces of legislation which have been (or tried to be) rammed through congress - without our congressmen even reading them.
The US and Texas has made great strides with regards to biodiversity - and it did not happen because of some giant sweeping bill, which was completely unintelligable (have you read the revised Health Care Bill? Please get a copy and see if you can make sense of it - especially the parts where for hundreds of pages it goes like..."replace lines 24 thru 53 in subsection 5.2 of Section 3 of Title V with...".
No, real and effective reforms come by making controlled changes and examining the effect (through defined metrics) and then making more measured changes...You can't just take the entire system and turn it on its head and shake it and expect it to work. America, believe it or not, is a world leader in terms of conservancy and biodiversity. We are number 3 in the world with regards to fisheries management - more wildlife santuaries (in terms of total area - and percentage of area) than any western nation - by far. This was not achieved because of one sweeping bill - but because of a multitude of both federal and state laws which came about over the last 20-30 years.
The process is not finished either, by far - we here in America still have a long way to go, and it is a process which will never be finished - there is no 'utopia' - the only constant is change. And the changes will continue. Our fisheries have improved significantly, and will continue to improve - the same with biodiversity in most every environment and habitat here.
I do find it amusing that someone in BC or the UK would try to tell me in Texas, what is in my best interest. Perhaps you should worry about your own best interest. How can you say that Obama's health care plan is in my best interest? or my neighbors? Have you even read it? Do you know what it says? If it had been passed two years ago, I believe I would be dead now, instead of still kicking. I think most of my neighbors would agree that we need a 'one price system' not a 'one payer system' - we also need tort reform and of course reforms related to pre-existing systems. [If you don't understand what I mean by a 'one price system' - then you don't know beans about american health care - those without insurance are charged six to ten times the 'negotiated price' insurance companies get - providers should be required to have a single price for each service, and that price should be published - they use this as a massive tax right-off - they charge ridiculous prices to those who they know cannot afford it, and then get to right off the loss...).
Thankfully, the "Energy Security Act" or whatever they are calling it these days is doomed for the same reason. It puts in place a system which will ultimately make a lot of money for a lot of very rich people, and the rank and file taxpayer and consumer will pick up the tab...
While we still have a long way to go with regards to land (and habitat) management, we are on the right track, and quite a ways ahead of most everyone else...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Kamboshigh
I mentioned it - ecotourism, in an earlier post, as one example of how a forest can be worth much more standing as opposed to clear cut for timber. Although I would limit hunting and fishing - limit it to culling specific species, I think many people would love to walk through the jungle or hang on a zip-line in the tops of the trees with a camera. Snorkling and diving (responsibly - i.e., look but don't touch - as just touching most corals will kill them...) will also bring lots of people. Catch and release fishing for big game fish - another great opportunity.
You build a few resorts, and that provides jobs and needed infrastructure, it leads to education (for labor market) and improved and more efficient agricultural practices - which leads in turn to better land management and more which can be preserved and restored...
Yep, like I said before, if not for the corruption and strife, Africa would be the number one tourist destination in the world, hands down. Think about it...its a win-win, all around, for the people there, the habitats and wildlife, for us, for all...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #203/204
Re: My other half having had foot and mouth.
I've asked her again and she's pretty insistent. I guess there's the possibility that something may have been lost in translation, as English is not her first language, but a quick google produced this:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/322/7286/565
The last UK human case was in 1966.
And I'm with Darwin on Natural Selection, though one could argue the only reason that we are in a position to have a discussion about it, is because of it.
As far as I can tell we mostly agree.
I don't personally have a problem with either ecotourism or hunting provided its sustainable(You've only got to look in the mirror and smile to see the canines of a predator).
What I don't understand is the problem that people seem to have with education..................
Complain about this comment
#207 blunderbunny wrote:
"I've asked her again and she's pretty insistent."
Fine -- I was a bit worried that your other half may have cloven hooves, like my ex-wife!
I don't doubt that she had foot and mouth disease at all. That funny (not ha ha) stuff is typical of diseases. I had chicken-pox twice, as one is not supposed to, and regard myself as lucky I didn't get shingles the second time around. Although adult chicken-pox was really quite bad -- possibly the worst infectious disease I can remember having.
Complain about this comment
I really resent your five bullet points at the end of the article. You are trying to imply that the parallel arguments used by sceptics of man-nade global warming are specious. The trouble is that when it comes to CO2, there is data, which is peer-reviewed, and there is the IPCC report, which, despite its stated standards, isn't.
The way for the proponents of biodiversity to make beleivable arguments is to use peer-reviewed data to demonstrate their points, and also to tell us why biodiversity is important. If they resort to hype, spin and unsicientific opinion pieces, they will lose their credibility just as the "warmists" are now finding is happening to them.
Complain about this comment
"Bee populations are plummeting unexpectedly.... All this culminates in a lack of Honey for you to spread on your toast.!
It is more fundamental than that. A large range of crops and fruit trees are pollinated by bees. Fewer bees = less food.
Complain about this comment
Kamboshigh #195: "Davblo and blunderbunny which ever one of you came up with re-educating etc. doesn't really matter"
Hey; it matters to me!
In fact, my thoughts are probably more aligned with yours on that subject; but if you can't see that, then...
/davblo
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey #205.
(manysummits)
"..another article which discussed why people often seem to vote against their own self-interest."
new series on BBC Radio4: Turkeys Voting For Christmas
bowmanthebard #202.
"But trees don't feel anything, because they aren't sentient at all, and it doesn't hurt a tree to cut it down."
it seems the jury's out on this one (will supply only one link, googling "plants have feelings" produces plenty hits, many cranky).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/apr/13/johnhooper
I think our perspectives differ, but given that the human sensory equipment is quite poor by comparison, I would not be surprised if we were to discover sentience (== "the ability to feel or perceive subjectively") in all sorts of other flora and fauna where currently we suspect none.
"It seems to me that a lot of people who claim to have no religion in fact suppose that "nature is sacred", that we're "raping the planet" (which is holy in some way) and so on. I don't think nature is sacred, or the planet is rape-able or holy.."
made me think because I do use the 'raping the planet' metaphor; holy or sacred doesn't come into it though, I think that all life has a right not to be interfered with (until it becomes food/shelter/life-support for another; which is why much of the GM stuff is unpalatable for me).
"..although I think we should take reasonable care to avoid causing suffering or making things ugly."
very much in agreement here, I suggest that 'reasonable' in this context would need to be discussed.
Complain about this comment
Kamboshigh #198.
will make a few phone calls Mon/Tue, and get back on this.
Complain about this comment
blunderbunny #175: "Never thought that I'd ever leap to davblo's defence (I might have to have a little lie down after this), but the educate/re-educate stuff was down to me."
Thanks for that.
I'm glad you recovered from the shock.
Good you brought up the mitochondria (etc) points. I'd already thought about that but wasn't sure where to begin.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
@Richard Black
Hi Richard,
Still reading your stuff and still (mostly) disagreeing with you and most posters. I thought I'd chip in with an update on my newt problem:
Newts are plentiful in my neck of the woods, but i have had to undertake extensive mitigation measures for a planning application that i am involved with - it's costing a fortune and we haven't even spotted a newt yet, just a potential for newts.
I've finally got planning permission for my new lab (soil emissions / AGW tests) and the site is cleared ready for mitigation measures to begin as soon as spring arrives and the little darlings awake from their winter slumbers. The newts will be moved to new foraging areas and i'm building a hibernacula for future winters. Work will start proper in May, almost 12 months late due to the newt problem. After that the climate scientists can start finding out which came first, the chicken or the egg - ok, the temperature rise or the CO2 / CH4 release from the soil
On another note, I've just received planning permission for an experimental wind turbine in the same area
I'm still sceptical about AGW, even more so following the recent revelations, but hey, it pays well!
All the best
Complain about this comment
I started this comment much earlier but then many things happened (as they do) and when I came back to it I had to reboot and start all over again. In the meantime, the comments have continued, mostly (but not all) in keeping with the topic.
Sensiblegranny....when I first read #200, I totally misinterpreted something you wrote and was keen to reply (detail irrelevant) however, on re-reading, your meaning became crystal clear with no need for comment from me at all.
This, I believe,is important in this context of communication/listening. Too frequently we do not listen intently. We then misinterpret what we "hear" (read) and rush into print particularly if there is an emotive word or issue raised.
Which brings me to the point.....EDUCATION> and Blunderbunny # 207
"What I don't understand is the problem that people seem to have with education."
In my book, that depends entirely on what you mean by "education", who you intend to "educate" and to what purpose.This topic can become a "blog" in it's own right so I will try to keep it simple.
Here is an interesting link
http://www.teachersmind.com/education.htm
What concerns me is that the original meaning was along the lines......."to lead out" or........"to draw out" but now it is more usually along the lines ..........."to teach", or in other words.."to pump in". This can easily become twisted to "indoctrinate".
Ever considered what the original purpose of our (Western style) education system was? Try it sometime.
So, Blunderbunny, before I can give you a rational response to your query I really want to know who you want to indoctrinate and for what purpose. When you consider these questions, refer to LarryKealeys comments on American Health Reforms.
Now Mum wants the computer before she goes to work so I will debate the value of Eco-tourism later.
Complain about this comment
To sensiblegrannie and Larry Kealey:
Thoughtful replies - thank you.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To ghostofsichuan:
I don't know who I am anymore.
Climbing mountains is an honorable devotion.
Attempting to be green in an inhuman world is difficult.
Science is so easy. It has an innate integrity, and a resonance with the questing human spirit. It is fun. However, devotees are few - as rare as artists.
Outside the ivory gate or the mountain gate the world is very different.
I am reading Eric Margolis' "American Raj," and it brings one back to reality with a resounding thud.
The best military in the world providing 24/7 air cover over Afghanistan at a cost of $2 Billion per month.
For what?
To secure the supply of a diminishing and ever increasing finite resource?
Or to secure power - raw, naked power? Hegemony.
--------------
"The United States, as everyone knows, will never start a war."
- JFK, June 10, 1963, at American University 'Peace Speech.'
Much has changed since that day in Dallas a few months later.
If I were to look ahead, I would probably see Cormac McCarthy's "The Road."
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Addendum to #218:
I should have said an ever more expensive finite resource.
-----------
To jr4412 & davblo2:
How are you both doing?
As sensiblegrannie asked, why do we continue to blog? Sensiblegrannie's thoughts on this seem to be very close to the mark. (#200)
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
"One way you might look to do that is by reducing deforestation...So you might choose to campaign among Western consumers"
If Brazil owns the Rain Forest and they don't want it deforested, then why doesn't Brazil just make deforesting illegal. Is that not much easier and more efficient than wasting your time pan-handling and shaking down foreign govs. There must be some other agenda at work here...
Complain about this comment
@107, JaneBasingstoke
Please don't take my comments on pandas too seriously; it is not their fault but that of panda society.
To break the downward spiral I believe that panda cubs should be placed in care at an early age. Experts could work out an exercise regime to improve their hunting abilities and a celebrity chef could be brought in to improve their diet.
Complain about this comment
@jr4412 #212
The article manysummits links to is a transcript of much of that programme.
Complain about this comment
I got really upset reading some of these posts. Why? Simply because we as a species THINK we know entirely more than we DO. Why is Biodiversity important? I personally don't know. There are some posts that state that it (unknowingly) contributes/contributed in many ways to our evolution as a species - but for arguments sake lets just say we don't know. However, would it be such a bad thing to try to preserve our natural habitat as best we can? Or should we just ASSUME that we don't need Biodiversity??
What is a weed? A plat whose virtues have not been discovered.
-Ralph Emerson
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #178
"Lacking" as in no action of its own. Nothing happens until it finds a host cell. Nothing.
The word "lacking" isn't a value judgement. I used it as part of an attempt to show how weird viruses are.
Perhaps I should have worded it differently. A virus on its own is like a computer backup tape. A virus infecting a host cell isn't two organisms. It's one organism. A cell hijacked by a virus becomes the body of the virus, with the viral DNA (or viral RNA) running the show and the original nucleus of the cell no longer in control, downgraded to a limb of the virus.
And I told you. There is a debate in biology about what constitutes life. And you, with your interest in philosophy would have a field day.
(PS, river blindness is caused by a nematode, a multi-cellular animal.)
(PPS, check blunderbunny's New Scientist link at #175)
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #165 #167
On these threads sceptics also explain stuff to us. And most of us, including you, appear to listen.
Sort of evens it up a bit.
However it does mean at least one major environmentalist group need a big rethink. And it does mean the IPCC has to do more than just clean up its act.
Complain about this comment
"You can see natural selection in action in the UK with Grey vs Red squirrels."
You might want to be a bit clearer on that. There are people here that might write off red squirrels as being intrinsically unfit and therefore not worth saving. Red squirrels are not intrinsically unfit.
It isn't the only factor involved, but many of the red squirrels are dying of squirrel-pox, to which the greys have had an opportunity to build up tolerance before the two species came in contact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squirrel_parapoxvirus
So there is a bit of a random element. It could have been the red squirrels with first exposure and therefore tolerance to a problem disease. It happened to be the greys.
However greys acquired their tolerance through natural selection. If they are given the right opportunity red squirrels might also acquire a similar tolerance through natural selection.
And then we may find that red squirrels do better than greys in some types of forest. That would make the greys different rather than better.
Complain about this comment
Whoops
@blunderbunny #196
My #226 was based on your comment #196.
Complain about this comment
@RobWansbeck #221
LOL
Complain about this comment
Manysummits:
It is always best to smile. The destressing world of politics and influence is a burden to us all. Enjoy your condition and clear your mind. The Hindus believe it is all endless cycles of creation and destruction and it is pointless to add any meaning to this existence except in obtaining an understanding of beyond this existence. I think that is why they sing and dance so much. Do not judge your effort by results. In the East mountains are holy places. It may be why the Asian hears rain in the part of the brain that processes music and in the West it is the part of the brain that processes noise.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
Thank You, very gracious.
Climbing mountains is an honorable devotion. I must agree, there is much peace and satisfaction to be found (and one's self) atop the summit.
There are also consequences. Take a look at Everest or K2, from the base camps up - littered horribly. While the view afar brings a peace to the mind that can only be found in very few places, the view up-close offends the sensibilities. How does one reconcile that peace and -I don't know the words for it- but that which one feels inside their inner-self - standing there, with the effects of those who have come before? To that I don't know the answer, but it has made me ponder quite a bit...
...take only memories, leave only footprints...
Kindest.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@JaneBasingstoke #226
Well said; however, one must consider that we, as a species, have made the world a lot 'smaller', not only for ourselves, but for many many other species. Aside from all the different species whe have introduced on purpose, consider all the 'tag-alongs', like the zebra mussel, various species and sub-species or marsupials, add to that our living bodies - and those of all the food we transport around the world.
Consider (@bowthemanbard also, please) that there are more individual living bacteria within our bodies that actual living human cells - we carry more DNA with us that is not our own, than we do of our own.
These are things which cannot be 'undone' - no matter what we do. We can't undo the invention of the ship, nor can we stop using them. The best we can do (IMHO) is to preserve and restore as much 'natural' habitat as we can, and let nature do its harsh business - some will thrive, some will die, it is the way of the world.
We certainly have an effect - an evolutionary effect on many species - but I don't believe we can know the effect of our actions, except in hindsight.
I don't know if that makes sense, but I hope it does...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Richard
Regarding post #231, perhaps this might be a good topic for an article on biodiversity - if you think about it, we transport massive numbers of life forms around the world - from all the stuff inside of logs (from fungi to bacteria to 'higher' life forms), food stuffs, our own bodies - not to mention all the trade in exotic animals, many of whom are set free by owners who 'don't know what they are getting into' when they buy them...hmmm
Just a thought.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Richard has mentioned “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity” (TEEB) project in earlier posts. Maybe it is worth mentioning again…
From the project’s web-page, TEEB “… is a major international initiative to draw attention to the global economic benefits of biodiversity, to highlight the growing costs of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation, and to draw together expertise from the fields of science, economics and policy to enable practical actions moving forward. “
See: http://www.teebweb.org/
Complain about this comment
Thank you Larry for that one....."take ONLY memories.........."
Enough said!
Kindest regards........not so "grumpy" Mike
Complain about this comment
Hello Ghostofsichuan!
As I read your post #229, I did smile, and at least one reason for blogging returned to my 'clearing' mind.
"Do not judge your effort by results."
Indeed. That's pretty interesting about the sound of rain being processed in different parts of the Asian and Western brain.
Here is something Robert Louis Stevenson said in his book "In the South Seas," a true life travelogue written in 1888:
\\\ The Artist ///
"He sees the limitations of his aim, the defects of his practice; he smiles to be so employed upon the shores of death, yet sees in his own devotion something worthy."
I shall 'enjoy my condition and clear my mind.'
Manythanks,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
#231 LarryKealey wrote:
"there are more individual living bacteria within our bodies that actual living human cells - we carry more DNA with us that is not our own, than we do of our own."
Er... I don't agree with that. If you count the contents of the bowel as part of our bodies, then there are large numbers of individual bacteria living "within us", but even then their volume is much smaller than that of the human body proper. Almost all of the other bacteria live on the skin or in the lungs, mouth and throat. The volume of bacteria living litrally inside the cells of a healthy human body is minute.
Complain about this comment
#231 LarryKealey wrote:
"The best we can do (IMHO) is to preserve and restore as much 'natural' habitat as we can, and let nature do its harsh business - some will thrive, some will die, it is the way of the world."
There are two unwarranted "nature is good" assumptions here. The first is that we should preserve or even restore "natural" habitat. But why? (I am not saying we shouldn't, I am looking for an explicit reason here.) If humans created the rainforests, where there was savanna before say, would it be wrong to preserve them? Should we cut doiwn the trees and make savanna again? If humans did not create the deserts, would it be wrong to irrigate them?
The "way of the world" is not something that we should take moral guidance from. Nature is indifferent or even cruel at times, and we would do well to make sure that we break with its cruel ways as much as humanly possible. For example, we should try to cure disease, and protect the weak, I think.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
This is a special post for you - please read:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/reflections_in_a_confusing_cli.html#P91759066
/mango
Complain about this comment
To LarryKealey #230:
On Mountains:
Much depends on definition.
What 'is' the climbing of mountains?
What 'is' a mountaineer?
When Reinhold Messner decided to climb Everest in 'his' style, he did it alone, from the North, without oxygen or radio, with only Nena Holguin, a travelling companion whom he had met by chance a few months earlier, and impulsively asked to accompany him to his base camp, for company.
There were no fixed ropes or ladders or Sherpas, and on his final ascent, done for the first time ever 'during the monsoon', his route of choice, quintessential Messner, was a 'variation' of his own creation.
Naturally we are not all Messners, but it seems to me his climbing motto, "by fair means," is a legacy to which we can all aspire.
To Wit:
A mountaineer would not leave an unsightly mess, nor would he follow in another's footsteps, nor would he desire to do so, except for historical reasons. Climbing with a guide is not climbing, but a sort of rented thrill.
On the other hand, planning and executing a route up a perhaps very small mountain, at one's own pace and in one's own way, especially if at one's limits, places you in company with climbers of gifted ability, for to climb mountains is free the spirit.
All the best,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
To JaneBasingstoke #225:
Yes, I suppose it does: ("Sort of evens it up a bit.")
On the IPCC and the 'big environmentalist group':
I just yesterday learned of the existence of the "InterAcademy Panel on International Issues"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterAcademy_Panel_on_International_Issues
Apparently there was a meeting at the Royal Society in London just recently.
Here is an excerpt from the magazine 'New Scientist,' Jan 16, 2010 issue:
"The world now faces challenges on an unprecedented level, which we are unequivocally failing to address."
- Lorna Casselton; foreign secretary of the Royal Society.
------------------
I would agree wholeheartedly with Lorna Casselton.
Since the 1972 'Club of Rome' report first made its way into my then much younger consciousness, so long ago, I have watched in a sort of horrific fascination as our planet crossed the 'Planetary Boundaries' so summarily documented by Johan Rockstrom and colleagues at the Stockholm Resilience Centre.
And this paper did not address population, which the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues apparently does, and it left us with those 'Here there be Dragons' as regards aerosol loading and chemical pollution, i.e., insufficient information.
I haven't had the time to look further into this InterAcademy Panel, but it may be that you have some thoughts on this?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
\\\ IAP Conference on Biodiversity, Jan 12-15,2010, Royal Society ///
http://www.interacademies.net/CMS/4017/generalassembly2010/9174.aspx
--------------
I see one name that I recognize - David Schindler, Professor of Ecology at the University of Alberta, Canada, and co-author of "The Algal Bowl," which I have read.
http://www.interacademies.net/?id=9854
http://www.interacademies.net/?id=9852
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
hI many summits,
I noticed, a very small article, but a significant article, which warns that some sort of disease is destroying rice plants. The disease destroys up to 50% of the plants. This article concerns me, as there is such competition for the finite amount of rice available for those who rely on rice as their staple food. Any comments? This to me is an example of the dangers of monoculture.
Complain about this comment
#241 manysummits
reminds me of jeremy jacksons's 'rise of slime'. maybe one day all seafood restaurants will have a menu consisting in algae for starters and jellyfish for mains :o(
who needs biodiversity.
Complain about this comment
#205 larry kealey
i can see your point about non-americans views on usa healthcare.
last year a colleague of mine from austin was on a one-year secondment in the uk. the first week his son was quite ill and he took him to a local nhs hospital that we locals regularly whine about (an english sport!). for weeks he kept telling us what an incredible and wondeful system we had and it certainly made me look at it with fresh eyes.
so i'm guessing he's pro-reform (but maybe not necessarily these reforms, which is the point).
however, given how the political process works both sides of the atlantic now, i'm not sure (m)any reforms of any kind are working primarily in the interests of the average citizen.
Complain about this comment
Manysummits at #163.
Thankyou for your reference at:-
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
I had not seen it but it is a concise summary of this issue.
I recommend reading it to others and also reference to posts #145 and #156.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps I should explain finite in this context. As far as I am aware, most seed crops are genetically modified to be resistant to disease and climatic conditions. However, these genetically modified seed do not have the ability to produce more seed. A poor farmer who looses 50% of a crop to a particular disease is not going to be in the position to pay for the next batch of seed, as his profit has been lost. How does the farmer cope with this situation and how does the shortfall of crop affect the population dependent on it?
As the manufacturers of resistant seed have created seed that is not fertile for the next crop, surely they are responsible to compensate the farmers for a product not living up to expectations? Perhaps I have got this wrong and the crops developing the disease are of the old fashioned sort which have the capability of producing the next generation of seed.
The area I have been looking at is in the region of Vietnam and I found the information on the world health map today.
Complain about this comment
Manysummits at #176 says:-.
‘….Meanwhile, amidst the endless intellectual discussion of 'climate change' and 'biodivesity' and GDP growth etc..., the working man and the working woman still suffer the daily insult which Abraham Lincoln spoke of.
Translation: Get real, or show me another way.’
Excellent summary!
This comment from journalist and publisher David Barsamian sums the situation up nicely:-
"One of the intentions of corporate-controlled media is to instill in people a sense of disempowerment, of immobilization and paralysis. Its outcome is to turn you into good consumers. It is to keep people isolated, to feel that there is no possibility for social change."
Another way that income can be used as a power indicator is by comparing average CEO annual pay to average factory worker pay, something that Business Week has been doing for many years now. The ratio of CEO pay to factory worker pay rose from 42:1 in 1960 to as high as 531:1 in 2000, at the height of the stock market bubble, when CEOs were cashing in big stock options.
It was at 411:1 in 2005. By way of comparison, the same ratio is about 25:1 in Europe.
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. Only 15% of the wealth is left for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).
In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.
Complain about this comment
Blunderbunny says at #178:-
‘… The world is changing, better start getting used to it.’
Would it were so blunder’. See the second paragraph at #247.
Plus ca change. Plus c’est la meme chose.
Maybe you’re part of the 1%?!
Complain about this comment
To rossglory:
Hello from Calgary!
Re 'rise of slime' - providing there are restaurants!!
Just kidding - or am I?
-------------
Re 'Health Care:
Canada has universal health care, I seem to remember most first world countries do, with, if I am not mistaken, the sole exception of the USA. So it is natural for those of us with health care to puzzle over the US attitude.
Of course, puzzling is not the same as criticism - each to his own.
But I have travelled extensively in the States on climbing and just plain travel adventures. There are many who want universal health care, I know that.
Perhaps the distrust of 'the system' is now so widespread that the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater?
Watching, as it were, from the 'true North,' yet with many relatives in the USA, both past and present, I can scarcely recognize the current USA when compared to that which I knew in my youth. (1950's/early sixties)
I can only imagine what such a shift has felt like for the citizens of the United States of America!
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To thinkforyourself #245:
You are most welcome.
In some ways I hate to keep bringing up James Hansen, as it can wear a little thin. But he is so right, so many times, he has I think a rather unique perspective, and speaks out forcefully and I would say courageously.
Jim (as he signs his communications) is a US citizen, a planetary scientist, a NASA model inventor who believes most in the paleoclimatic record and the geological record, he has remained aloof from the IPCC, he is in charge of the GISS global temperature record, yet has been arrested in the streets protesting the destruction of land and habitat (coal), has repeatedly testified before both Congress and the highest select and powerful committes in the US government - all over a period of some forty years.
And I just plain like him.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To sensiblegrannie re monoculture and genetically modified crops:
Biology is not my strong point, but there are other ways of assessing a situation.
I look at the character of companies like Monsanto - their 'actions', if you will, and the results of their actions - net results.
What I see is the proverbial 'wolf in sheep's clothing.'
There is also an innate love of what we intellectualize as biodiversity in the human being, with this caveat: The human being is supposed to be in balance - i.e., not overtly neurotic, or stressed beyond the snapping point.
I would suggest there are many out of balance people alive today, by this accounting. Perhaps most! There are, after all, 6.8 billion of us, and a distinct lack of elbow room.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
What we are asked to believe. They - climate change deniers are pretty desperate aren't they? The One O'clock news and the first speaker. Didn't catch his name but say what?
I have just been chuckling at the second piece is it of allegedly tainted evidence being cited as undermining the whole of the pro man made Global warming scientific research. How odd how little it takes to get vested interest to shout leave us be to get on with Business. Forget the evidence of our eyes - look at this bit of paper. I would laugh but it is not funny.
Better luck next time Andrew Murray.
Subject: federer crushes murrays dreams
Anagram: Red faces readers - rushers rummy
This quote came to mind and I aim it at man made climate change deniers too.
Lancey Howard to the Cincinnati Kid] You're good, kid, but as long as I'm around, you're only second best.
No offence, first speaker. Who was that masking man? lol
Complain about this comment
To thinkforyourself #247 re 'corporate controlled media':
Noam Chomsky has written of this.-, for example, "Hegemony or Survival."
In the book I am currently reading, "American Raj," by Eric Margolis, he is coincidentally talking about the US media.
According to Eric:
"Scholars have uncovered the fact that almost all of the 400 or more major stories about Iraq run by the mainstream media in the lead-up to war [Iraq] actually originated with the Bush administration. Senior White House officials would plant false stories in major US newspapers, then cite these same stories as irrefutable evidence of fact."
- from the chapter 'Debacle in the garden of Eden'
------------
There is much, much more in this book, from what I consider a unique and high quality source. And those in the UK may want an American/Canadian perspective on former Prime Minister Tony Blair's involvement. (not good)
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@247, thinkforyourself
I think your 42:1 figure refers to 1980 not 1960 although it makes little difference as the gross increases started in the 80's.
A good illustration of wealth distribution in the USA:
http://hoenir.himinbi.org/2009/06/01/l-curve-updated/
Complain about this comment
Larry at #205 says:-
‘….I think this is more a condition of people voting against what YOU think is in their self interest…………. Most people here are against Obama's plan because they don't believe it will lead to lower costs, nor better care. Simple as that.’
Larry aren’t you forgetting that a little over a 12 month ago you had an election in which …
’throughout the campaign, Obama emphasized the issues of ………
…… increasing energy independence and providing universal healthcare’
Then, in November, under the US electoral system, Obama won the presidency by winning 365 electoral votes to 173 that McCain received, in the process capturing 52.9% of the popular to McCain's 45.7%, to become the first African American to be elected president. Obama delivered his victory speech before hundreds of thousands of supporters in Chicago's Grant Park.
Maybe you didn’t like the outcome – fair enough, that’s democracy, somebody wins, somebody loses –
or maybe you don’t believe in democracy?!
Which is it?
Complain about this comment
thinkforyourself #255.
the problem with our democracies -- the power does not lie with the voter, the power lies with those who select the candidates we're allowed to vote on.
manysummits.
thanks bro, trying not to give up.
Complain about this comment
@thinkforyourself #255
Regarding the election, perhaps you did not follow the election closely. Mr. Obama promised everything to everyone - in the coal states - he promised 'clean coal', in California - it was 'no coal'. His first action was to ram through the stimulous bill - a massive piece of legislation - which no one even read - I recall the outrage, two weeks after it was signed into law - as it gave massive bonuses to executives in those firms that were 'bailed out'.
Right now, Obama's approval rating has dropped to 47%, from over 70% just prior to taking office. Over 44% would rather have his predicessor back in office right now...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30413.html
(you can also check Gallop if you like - you will find the same thing - nosedive...)
Now we have an annual deficit of over a trillion and a half - ten times what it was in 2007. America is becoming disallusioned with Mr. Obama - Nobel Peace Prize or not (and, please remind me - what did he do to deserve such an honor?)
People are still outraged that their tax dollars went to pay massive bonuses on Wall Street - and little has been done for Main Street. His 'foreclosure plan' is a joke - 85,000 people have benefited - the crisis continues. He has time to make the talk show circuits, vacations, nights out in Georgetown, but doesn't seem to have time to do his job. For that, many are thankful. Thanks to Obama, we expect the republicans to make significant gains in Congress during the mid-term elections. Many here prefer the executive and legislative branches to belong to different parties - that way, only what must be done, gets done...
And what has he done for biodiversity? Nothing...Bush (the younger) made the greatest expansion of marine santuaries in US history as I recall.
Unless he makes some significant changes, I think he will be a one-termer. He doesn't have the teflon that Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton had. He is floundering. His health care bill is DOA - as is his energy plan...thank goodness for small favors.
Please, have you even read the health care bill? It does not appear to be in my self interest, nor in the self interest of most. Perhaps we would all have more faith if the president and congress had to use the same health care system as the rest of us...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
no comment on the story that the IPCC used material from a climbing magazine as peer reviewed?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/reflections_in_a_confusing_cli.html#P91759066
or is it just another inconvenient truth?
/mango
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #239
Regarding mountains - I agree. There are other places where on can find that same inner peace - like in heavy weather, on the ocean, alone and far from land, no radio, no transponder, only a compass and stars when you can see them... - and a look over the side of the boat reveals trash in the water.
But I think you got my point...and believe we agree upon the subject.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@258, MangoChutneyUKOK
Maybe everyone is too busy reading Pachauri's new novel.
Best laugh I've had in a while.
Complain about this comment
@bothemanbard #236 & 237
First, regarding bacteria - you should look in your intestine, rather than your bowel - where lives a multitude of bacteria, without which, you could not live as you would be unable to digest food. It is a symbiotic relationship. Yet a simple mutation can turn these 'good bacteria' into killers. I believe the number is ten times as many living bacterium as human cells within the body.
Second, regarding Nature - I am not 'altruistic' - but rather selfish perhaps. First, I recognize that - at least on this planet - life cannot live in isolation. We need nature to survive - as harsh as she is.
I also suppose I am selfish in that I am still awestruck by a walk in the woods in spring - or a summer's day on the ocean. I find a certain peace in exploring the natural world around me, and observing. I like to explore unspoiled places. I enjoy a vista that is unspoiled by the trappings of humanity. The wonder of diving under the waves and exploring a reef is the same for me, as it was 35 years ago. I think many others are as selfish as myself and enjoy the same - and would like for their children's children to enjoy the same explorations.
Call me selfish if you like - I'll accept that - its fair. It is the wonder of life that amazes me. If I should die from an attack by a Grizzly Bear or a Tiger Shark, so be it - in the scheme of things, I am insignificant, and that is nature's way.
As successful as we have become as a species may seem remarkable - but it also makes us more of a 'target' for other species. The 'harmful' bacteria and viruses will continue to adapt as we decimate their 'current natural' hosts - and adapt to attacking us. Ultimately, nature will continue, while we will not.
As for creating a rain forest from savannah - I don't believe we possess the prowess for such a challenge - I have never heard of it being done. I have seen desertification as a result of our (mis) use of land. While there is beauty in the desert, I would not like to live on a desert world. Where we have cut the forest, we can let it expand, and over time, it will reclaim and regrow.
The issue here for me is sustainability - how to balance the needs of billions of people with the finite resources of our world. Do we burn wood for heat and cooking - or do we burn coal in a plant to provide those needs? At this time, it seems to me that coal is the better option. I would rather see a coal plant on ten acres providing heat and power to a million-plus homes, than all those people chopping down the forests to burn...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
The giant ox has shifted the earth on his shoulders again. Sichuan shakes as it has done for centuries.
Complain about this comment
#261 LarryKealey wrote:
"As for creating a rain forest from savannah - I don't believe we possess the prowess for such a challenge - I have never heard of it being done."
I'm not suggesting that it actually has been done, or that we should do it, just that if humans had done it, we wouldn't be obliged to undo it! My point is to undermine the implicit religious conviction so may people seem to have that "natural = good, artificial = bad"!
Complain about this comment
@Many
I was going to launch into a big defense of education as a whole, but what's the point?
I would assume that you've all benefitted from one and now like petulant children/teenagers, you would seek to deny similar benefits for those around you. On the simple basis that education may or may not turn into indoctrination.
As I've said before, having done something wrong once is not and never will be an excuse for inactivity.
Turning to squirrels and natural selection - As Jane points out there are many reasons why grey squirrels are out competing red ones, some of which comes down to changing habitats, some to disease and some to other factors. But that's the selection process in action it's not and never has been a nice one. Nature is on the whole violent and it's many clashes are normally terminal.
As far as we know, we’re the first animal that's been, in any major way, able to rise above this and as with any elevated position this comes with responsibilities. We understand what we are doing and what we are losing - we're not just a blunt instrument of natural selection any more.
So, from this privileged position what should we choose?
Should we save the cute and the fluffy?
Should we try to save everything?
Would people actually try terribly hard to save the cockroach or the worm?
The answer to all these questions is that you shouldn't concentrate on specific animals or orders of animals. What you should be doing is preserving their habitats, you need to let cruelties of natural selection look after itself.
Finally, to thinkforyouself, well it’s too difficult to think of others isn’t it?
You seemed to want to know where in terms of percentage of income I rank in the world, not sure why that’s relevant?
Does my typing sound particularly well off?
Is an education the sign of a privileged background?
If so, why deny one to others....
You all might be quite surprised at where you come in the order of things, so here’s a link that will tell you:
http://www.globalrichlist.com/index.php
I think you can safely say that if you can afford to be blogging here then you’re part of the problem, as some of your fellow bloggers seem to see it.
Given, either this amazing lack of intelligence or great grasp of irony on their part - should you really be listening to them?
I’ll leave that with you ;-)
Complain about this comment
#264 blunderbunny wrote:
"you need to let cruelties of natural selection look after itself."
Why? If you came across a gang of bullies beating up a child, would you let this "cruelty of nature" look after itself?
More "nature worship", I suspect!
Complain about this comment
Blunderbunny:
for not wishing to defend education you make a good case. Unfortunately human beings tend not to learn except by experience and the knowledge gained is not always used as a positive benefit. The same cycles of wars, greed, power and abuse....reform..and the cycle begins again, generation after generation...each needing to fail in the same ways. It is who we are and what our capabilities are..a half step out of the cave. There is a common story in religions..the banishment of humans from paradise, in each culture the woman convinces man to partake in knowledge..been having problems ever since...men don't do so well with knowledge... she thought he would make her shoes and he started thinking about sex.
I do agree that education is needed and will help many leave poverty as this world is structured. All the things you do not like are also a result of education.
Complain about this comment
@my own post
Should be "the cruelties of natural selection look after itself", missed the, 'the'.
Indeed it's a good case in point, as in the past education has helped me greatly with both my word blindness and dyslexia. There would have been a time when I'd have been sidelined because of those things, so I'm always going to stand up for it.
As I've stated ad nauseum, you cannot use the reason that we did it wrong the first time or even subsequent times as a excuse for inactivity.
As to us/humanity and natural selection. Of course I would not stand by and let an act of bullying/violence take place. As pointed out in my previous post, we are no longer subject to same selection processes that we once were and with that slightly elevated position comes responsiblity, interceding on behalf of the child is part of that.
BTW: I'm definitely not a nature worshiper, I'm very happily aetheist and whilst I'm green in my outlook, I'm also a scientist and a Global Warming Sceptic.
There are perfectly logical reasons for seeking to preserve biodiversity and habitat, some of which have been made quite eloquently here on this blog. But, I would choose to preserve these things simply because we can and because the act of doing so would make us better, it's mostly an evolutionary selfless act, its like 'flipping the finger to the man' to steal an American expression.
Anyways, this is all making me dangerously philosophical/artistic, so it's time to step away from the keyboard.........
Complain about this comment
#267 blunderbunny wrote:
"we are no longer subject to same selection processes that we once were and with that slightly elevated position comes responsiblity, interceding on behalf of the child is part of that."
I agree -- but I include curing diseases of animals, and other sorts of intervention like that.
It brings me back to my childhood. One day we were walking through the Irish countryside, when we saw a rook in a field, cleary disorientated and unwell, flopping about and unable to fly. My father could see that it wasn't visibly injured, so he carefully picked it up and put it into a basket that we had in the car. For a few days we gave it food and water, wearing sunglasses, because that seemed to make it fear us less. (As well as offering us protection from its rather sharp beak!) After a few days it seemed a lot better, so we let it go in the garden, but it really wasn't quite able to make it up to the trees. So we caught up with it again, with difficulty, put it back in the same basket topped with a dome of chicken-wire, and kept it safe for another few days.
By then it was much better. We let it go again, and it really took off this time, looking very vigorous and healthy. Off it went, to everyone's delight, especially its own.
Surprising news: this story does not have a sad ending!
Now, this bird was probably poisoned by farmers. But even if it had been sick with a disease of rooks, or attacked by a predator, or attacked by another rook, it is often better to intercede.
"this is all making me dangerously philosophical/artistic, so it's time to step away from the keyboard......... "
No, this is the time to throw yourself in at the deep end! Carpe diem!
Complain about this comment
RE:-
256. At 2:03pm on 31 Jan 2010, jr4412 wrote:
thinkforyourself #255.
the problem with our democracies -- the power does not lie with the voter, the power lies with those who select the candidates we're allowed to vote on.
I have so much I should be doing this morning, I vowed not to get involved until I had done most of it......but I couldn't let this one go!
JR........so true so true, and yet we still fall for it every time there is an election.
How is this relevant to Biodiversity? Because it is the root cause for ALL perceived Government inactivity.
Remember my #1 Bitch?
"Remember what they promised to do,
Back in Rio in 1992?
What have they actually done?
Nothing but sit on their.....posterior!
(note to myself..mustn't upset the moderator!)
However, as much as I would love to debate this issue..........maybe we will get a better opportunity at some other time.
Will now go and do what I have to do and come back later to "join the fray"
Complain about this comment
To mango #258:
258. At 2:59pm on 31 Jan 2010, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
@manysummits
no comment on the story that the IPCC used material from a climbing magazine as peer reviewed?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/reflections_in_a_confusing_cli.html#P91759066
or is it just another inconvenient truth?
/mango
-----------
Actually, I followed your link in a previous post and ended up at Richard's "Reflections..., with 628 comments.
I didn't know where to start.
You still need to provide a reference for your question.
As far as I know, the IPCC itself, i.e., their report, is not peer reviewed.
And I still don't know what climbing magazine or articel you are referring to.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To sensiblegrannie re genetically modified seeds etc:
I thought of something after I sent you my previous reply.
The voice of the environment in Canada is David Suziki, a microbiologist. He has a foundation, and I am quite sure has an opinion on genetically modified seeds and crops.
Here is the link to his foundation:
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #270
Oh! How strange, the link should have taken you to my comment.
OK, here it is:
I thought you would appreciate this one, manysummits. It's the story of how the IPCC's peer-reviewed science includes articles from "Climbing Magazine" and a students dissertation
Unbelievably that the world is expected to change policy and redistribute wealth based on the rubbish contained in AR4
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html
/mango
Complain about this comment
Larry at #257.
So you’re a Republican stalwart. So you would say those things. No surprises.
But Larry, at the end of 2008 the US banking system came within a whisker of total meltdown and the housing market and car industry collapsed - all after Bush’s 8 years in office.
And on 12th January 2009:-
‘At his final news conference on Monday morning as commander-in-chief, President Bush stood by his decision to support the U.S. Treasury Department’s injection of billions of dollars into the economy to unfreeze the financial markets.’
As long as billionaires control the mass media, fiction will be repackaged as fact and the average person will remain confused, disenfranchised, disempowered, working longer for less, with poor employment security and healthcare options and in an increasingly degraded environment.
Bush was very happy to allow the outsourcing of American jobs, as this article from March 2004 says:-
Quote:-
‘…..The Treasury secretary, John W. Snow’s comments, published on Tuesday, reflect a growing willingness by the Bush administration to defend global free trade even in hard-hit industrial states like Ohio that have lost tens of thousands of factory jobs and where many voters blame competition from countries like China and India for the loss. ‘
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/31/business/treasury-chief-defends-outsourcing-of-us-work.html?pagewanted=1
Anyway, Obama won the election, so have the good grace to allow him his four years to clear up the mess left by his predecessor. I personally think he’s the best bet that middle and lower income Americans (i.e. the vast majority) and the environment have had for a very long time.
Maybe hard-pressed American workers will get a more sympathetic hearing with this President than the last.
Maybe, also, it would be a good idea if they just switched off Mr. Murdoch’s Fox News. I think the rights of ordinary Americans are very low on the list of priorities in his corporate strategy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/09/murdoch-google
He’s been trying to switch off the BBC for a very long time.
And they say a week is a long time in politics!
Complain about this comment
\\\ 29 Palms /// (Story Time)
To Larry Kealey and his fellow Americans:
---------------
If I have been pretty hard on the USA in some of my posts, it's because I expect so much from your country - on climate change, on biodiversity loss - on everything.
I thought on this Sunday to add some balance, some perspective, with a few very short stories from the U-S of A.
1)
29 Palms is the largest Marine Corps training base in the world, if I am not mistaken, and I discovered it along with Joshua Tree National Park back in 2002, when I threw my tent in the desert, at a large RV campground owned by a retired Master Sergeant of Marines, air traffic control, and his wife. (K & S)
I have camped there repeatedly ever since, and regard K & S as my friends. My father was a Marine during the Second World War, and I very nearly signed up for Vietnam, though I was born and raised in Canada.
K. thought it ill-advised for me to enter Baja entirely alone, to climb a remote mountain there. Naturally, I went anyway. I was greeted on my return warmly, perhaps with a new respect, and in 2005, when I had somehow gotten married and had a son, we three returned to K. & S.'s campground to see old friends. The campground is situated more or less on top of one of the great transform fault systems on land in the world, and is approximatley five miles due north of J-Tree National Park, and west of the Marine Base 29 Palms.
-------------
2)
VLA - Soccorro, New Mexico, 1996:
The Very Large Array is one of the world's great radio telescopes. I took pains to visit it in a month long half-ton solo excursion down there, and later ended up 'discovering' one of my favorite places in the world - Anza-Borrego Desert State Park.
The VLA is anyone's for the asking. Just submit a proposal, and if it is accepted, the facility is yours, typically for between eight and twelve hours, and your chances of making a new discovery are almost assured.
Cost - for free, except you are expected to buy your own lunch at the local cafeteria.
-----------------
3) Dryden Space Flight Center, Edwards Air Force Base, California, ca 2001:
Man I wanted to see Edwards. I'm a pilot.
You need to arrange a tour in advance - security. Before the tour began, we were told to stay close to the tour leader and go to the bathroom, because there would be no leaving for any reason once the tour began.
With a few minutes to kill before the tour, I decided to test their security and go a'wandering.
I was soon accosted by a man with a gun. I smiled and told him I was checking out the security. He smiled, and let me return to the building.
-----------
4)
Just a few hours outside of Salinas, California, where I had been visiting the John Steinbeck Center on John's centennary, 2002.
The Sun is setting, and I'm in my half-ton again, cruising along. I see an American flag hoisted high on its flagpost, over a facility offering tours of the nearby dam and artificial reservoir, as I remember it.
I pull in.
Two women are working there, but they are about to close down for the day - no tour.
I chat with them awhile.
They inform me that they would appreciate it if I would lower the flag for them and bring it inside - I think one of the women said she had a bad leg, and it was windy.
There was no way in the world I would have let that flag touch the ground. Manysummits is as ritualistic as any of his 6.8 billion fellow humans.
Reverently, I bring the flag inside, my eyes burning.
------------------
We all need you Americans to stand up for this planet and all its varied lifeforms.
According to Eric Margolis, one of the twentieth century's greatest military thinkers is your own Major General J.F.C. Fuller, who said:
"The object of war is peace, not military victory."
----------
Sheath your weapons - stand up for Earth.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To mango #272:
First - can the insults.
Second, the IPCC is not peer-reviewed, as far as I am aware, though of course the scientific studies which form the basis of the report are.
Third - the 2035 Himalayan Glacier dissappearing act:
- I doubt anyone got dyslexic, eg 2350.
- Both 2035 and 2350 are equally unlikely, to any glaciologist or student of climate change. It is an error, to be sure.
- Perhaps you will be less hard on actual peer-review in your future posts?
- Given what I have said:
No competent scientist who knows about glaciers would have bought that number, not for a minute.
So you are talking about an error in the report itself, and certainly, someone should have picked it up - and didn't.
Its impact on climate science - nil. As pointed out in your link, it was allegedly from a climbing magazine and a Master's student in geography. Are you in the habit of mixing up these sources and a peer-reviewed science article, or an official statement from a national academy of science, or from a distinguished scientist?
Its impact on the politics of climate science - larger, but not by much.
Your question, and its manner of address, suggests you are taken aback by all this.
You are therefore naive in the ways of both science and glaciers, and of distinguishing between an error of little consequence and one of import.
However, the IPCC appears to be unwieldy - much like its parent, the United Nations. Yet both are arguably the only way forward.
Why not streamline and improve - rather than just criticize?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke #222.
yes, missed the link in the sidebar, sigh..
bowmanthebard #265.
"If you came across a gang of bullies beating up a child, would you let this "cruelty of nature" look after itself?"
not a good example perhaps, I think bullying is a result of social conditioning (a tribal thing) rather than inherent in the nature of social animals.
xtragrumpymike2 #269.
"..the root cause for ALL perceived Government inactivity."
yes, unless a person can be relied on not 'to rock the boat', they'll not be allowed near the levers of power; in recent UK politics we all 'enjoyed' the spectacle of MPs (all parties) finding no wrong in their own and their collegues behaviour re the expenses scandal -- 'safe hands' one and all, and such creative (mis)use of the English language.
thinkforyourself #273.
sure President Obama is charismatic, but so was Tony Blair in the late 90s; I've heard Obama use 'stake holders' in an interview and have little doubt that he'll be as unable to deliver 'the goods' as Blair was (remember 'Education, Education, Education'? literacy has not improved; remember 'we will get rid of child poverty'? have you seen this week's reports? (19% in London!))
Complain about this comment
@MangoChutneyUKOK #238 #258 #272
(@manysummits)
Mango, the reason why the link doesn't work is it links through to page 1 of that article. But the relevant comment and its position marker is on page 2.
Complain about this comment
@blunderbunny #264
"Would people actually try terribly hard to save the cockroach or the worm?"
Darwin would. The earthworm that is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Formation_of_Vegetable_Mould_through_the_Action_of_Worms
And the earthworm in the UK is under threat, although the situation is not yet serious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Flatworm#Invasive_species
Complain about this comment
#275, manysummits wrote:
“ ….......
No competent scientist who knows about glaciers would have bought that number, not for a minute.
So you are talking about an error in the report itself, and certainly, someone should have picked it up - and didn't.
…...... “
Several competent reviewers picked up the 'error' before publication but although they were led to believe that alterations would be made their concerns were ignored.
Complain about this comment
Just been watching an interesting news clip on our local TV program "Closeup". A farmer has reckoned that the best way to preserve an "endangered" species is to commercially farm that species. Discussion centered around one of our native birds predominantly. Naturally our Department of Conservation were dead against the idea. Apparently China is considering the same solution for Tigers.
The program invited the viewers to vote on the issue.
How would you vote?
Complain about this comment
blunderbunny #264: "Would people actually try terribly hard to save the cockroach or the worm?"
JaneBasingstoke #278: "Darwin would. The earthworm that is."
Darwin recognized the great importance of earthworms for other forms of life. Even the cockroach might be of some benefit, perhaps as a scavenger.
People are often hostile to scavengers, although some scavengers are much better than others. For example, red kites were considered filthy animals when they used to pick rubbish off the streets of London. It's amazing how much hostility exists nowadays for seagulls, which are beautiful flyers, and much cleaner than alternatives such as rats.
But as for the specific nematodal worm that causes river blindness: whatever uncertainty may exist about its possible "good" side (which I assume is as yet unknown) I think it would be worth takking the risk of eradicating it.
That's because there's nothing intrinsically valuable about biodiversity!
Complain about this comment
#276 jr4412 wrote:
"I think bullying is a result of social conditioning (a tribal thing) rather than inherent in the nature of social animals."
I think nature works "through" nurture (rather than against nurture), but I guess that's a big Other Topic!
Complain about this comment
@JanefromBasingstoke and bowmanthebard
That's exactly why I picked the worm as an example - Glad that others feel the same, the earthworm is a very important chap ;-)
As to the particular worm that causes river blindness, I guess you're looking at something that to us and other animals is just a pathogen, so I wouldn't have a problem with its eradication(not sure how easy that would be - some sort of vaccination) - You could place it in the same bracket as smallpox.
As to the farming to preserve it/them argument, if that's what it takes to preserve those still in the wild then I'd probably be okay with that, I would need to be assured that the farmed animals were well cared for though.
Complain about this comment
#281 bowmanthebard
there is something 'intrinsically' important valuable about biodiversity. in saying that. i don't mean every single species is critical to the planet (previuos mass extinctions have shown that) or humans, but ecosystems just function better with higher biodiversity (on the whole and a loose definition of better......just because you may be able to create a rare, specific counter example does not invalidate the main concept).
one of the key intrinsic values is provided by redundancy (and not even direct redundancy, there may be an apparently useless species that could evolve fairly rapidly because it has a huge redundant gene pool to fall back upon and fill a niche that is impacting the ecosystem as a whole.
to my view, the biggest issue is we don't know enough to say what are key species, where ecosystem vulnerabilities are, what a backup species may be etc. therefore we try to keep the lot (notwithstanding a few disease bearers that we could take a risk of elimiating......especially as humans have probably created an artificial ecosystem for them to thrive in anyway).
in fact introduced species that are causing a problem are an axample where i would support eradication (have even helped to remove rhododendron and japanese knotweed).
so i think i take a practical rather than religious approach to this but still believe there is an intrinsic value to biodiversity (unless you're saying ecosystems have no value.....).
Complain about this comment
To extragrumpymike #280: re farming 'endangered' species:
I imagine it's worth a try, but I have little confidence in the outcome.
We farm the world ocean, or hunt it, or over exploit it. Everyone knows how important the world fishery is, how many depend for their livlihood on commercial ocean fishing.
Yet we are at present fishing the entire world ocean commercial fishery to collapse. Projected date of collapse: 2048.
I could cite the paper, but I think I won't unless asked.
If you actually stop and think about it, this unbelievable approach to the management of our food supply is just one in a long litany of unbelievable stories about the prescience of the modern human super-civilization.
Right outside my door, metaphorically, Calgary is busy paving under excellent ranch and farm land for yuppie suburb condo-type complexes, right on the banks of one of the two rivers which supply us with our drinking water.
Were it not for the Indian Reserve on the other side of the river, instead of a forested hill top (Sarcee Hill), I would see million dollar homes built in the direct path of the Chinook wind, where energy costs are highest. I was an apprentice framer of these house for almost two years, houses with eighteen foot walls, and giant windows facing all directions, including north, where energy loss is greatest. Not one solar panel did I ever see installed, here in Calgary, one of the sunniest places in Canada.
The result of all this sub-urbanization is unaffordable infrastructure, so city council cuts back on snow clearance - you all know the story.
President Obama is about to scrap plans for the Moon base, by all accounts, and gut NASA further, as the US spirals into bankruptcy.
Trouble is, for those free spirits like myself and John Lewis, we believe the models which tell us that going to space and finding new resources there is the only, I say again, the only input which can turn the curve of human development up.
So private space enterprise will save the day!
Why don't I sell you some land along the barrier islands of North Carolina, or Florida. Global warming is not for real - right?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Addendum to #285:
That land was not meant for you, extragrumpymike - I just got carried away.
I must remember Ghost's admonition to smile.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
\\\ Tears in the Web of Life ///
A BBC article is highlighting the high suicide rate in Mumbai (Bombay).
I expected to find what I did - Mumbai and area is one of the 'most highly developed' (civilized in the modern first world sense) areas in India, and the pressure for children to 'do well in school' is pervasive - and both parents typically work - to provide what - a better life for their eleven year old daughter who just hanged herself.
Like the collapsing world ocean fishery, like our burgeoning numbers, like our inability to truly think anymore - this sad story from India is another bitter reminder of the costs of our - progress???????
What I didn't expect to find in this article was this:
"World Health Organisation Assistant Director-General Catherine Le Gals-Camus points out more people die from suicide around the world than from all homicides and wars combined."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8473515.stm
Welcome to the twenty-first century, and the path which leads to Cormac McCarthy's "The Road."
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
#285 manysummits wrote:
"Projected date of collapse: 2048."
Another brainless inductive generalization, one that would have been met with howls of derision in the seventeenth century, yet survives today because of eco-religion.
Complain about this comment
What's this bowman - not even interested in the source? (#288 re #285)
Perhaps it is a climbing magazine - what do you think?
Or a fellow contrarian's blogsite?
My attempt to engage with your crowd is again reminding me of the adage that to discuss with a fool is to become one:
"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. Euripides. ..."
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
#289 manysummits wrote:
"My attempt to engage with your crowd is again reminding me of the adage that to discuss with a fool is to become one"
That must be the origin of the priceless remark: Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?
It's not often that one comes across an entire scandal in a single sentence! As far as I am concerned, that one rhetorical question -- and the spineless way the rest of the "crew" went along with its author's embarrassingly, incomparably anti-scientific attitude -- eclipses all the other transgressions.
Complain about this comment
#285 Manysummits - yes the 2048 figure appears in the article by Worm et al, but not in the way you represent it.
#288 Bowman - the way you ridicule the 2048 figure suggest that you haven't read the actual paper where it comes from and/or understood how it was arrived at.
That article did spark a lot of controversy, in part because a number of commentators took the 2048 figure out of context. Positivly though, it lead to an unprecedented collaboration between two groups of scientists that reviewed the datasets and their respective ways of analysing them to come up with a new shared analysis last year that has advanced the overall scientific understanding of the issues and teh current status and trends in fish stocks.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
Just because someone calls you foolish, doesn't mean that they are wrong, it may be you that's the contrarian, all of these things are relative and "Truth" seems to be quite a flexible thing. Especially, when you're talking about the evidence for man-made climate change.
You seem quite wedded to Mr Hansen and his opinions, whilst others of us are more in agreement with his ex-boss Dr. John S. Theon. As to who's right, who's wrong and who's foolish we'll have to wait and see, but the body of scientific appears to be turning and it's certainly going to be an interesting 2010 for all of us that are interested in subject.
Complain about this comment
#291 simon-swede wrote:
"the way you ridicule the 2048 figure suggest that you haven't read the actual paper where it comes from and/or understood how it was arrived at."
Of course I haven't read the actual paper! It's obviously a bit of naive inductivism, in other words a simple extrapolation from pre-existent "data" that assumes the future will resemble the past in exactly the way the authors would like it to for them to arrive at their magic divination.
Are you going to correct me?
Complain about this comment
#293 Bowman - why bother, since such ignorance is bliss...
Complain about this comment
xtragrumpymike2 #280.
"A farmer has reckoned that the best way to preserve an "endangered" species is to commercially farm that species. ... The program invited the viewers to vote on the issue. How would you vote?"
I'd vote against; placing all the 'dangerous' animals in farms/zoos would be a most convenient excuse to further encroach on habitats and turn all land into some kind of uber-Kansas.
Complain about this comment
#294 simon-swede wrote:
"why bother, since such ignorance is bliss..."
Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?
Complain about this comment
But really, if the paper is the product of something other than induction, I'd like to know about it.
Complain about this comment
manysummits #285.
"The result of all this sub-urbanization is unaffordable infrastructure, so city council cuts back on snow clearance - you all know the story."
you should see the UK man, here we're encouraged to acquire detached property with front garden and back garden, ideally with scenic views.
much of the housing stock is old and decrepit, poor insulation, etc.
enormously -- idiotically -- wasteful, but we all get to feel like 'we're kings in our castles'. :-(
Complain about this comment
#296 & #297 Bowman - so why dismiss something first, then start asking questions? Have a look at the paper.
Complain about this comment
#299 simon-swede wrote:
"why dismiss something first, then start asking questions?"
Because I'm dismissing it on much the same grounds as I dismiss the pronouncements of Nostradamus, or astrology. I don't think I have to bother going into the level of detail of actually reading the collected works of Nostradamus, or the weekly column of Mystic Meg.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #275
First - can the insults.
Insult? None was intended - I know you are a keen climber, so assumed a reference by the IPCC to a climbing magazine would be of interest to you
Second, the IPCC is not peer-reviewed, as far as I am aware, though of course the scientific studies which form the basis of the report are.
The IPCC "peer reviewed" literature includes articles from unpublished work, magazines and activist bodies such as WWF and Greenpeace - therefore your statement is not entirely true
Third - the 2035 Himalayan Glacier dissappearing act:
- I doubt anyone got dyslexic, eg 2350.
- Both 2035 and 2350 are equally unlikely, to any glaciologist or student of climate change. It is an error, to be sure.
- Perhaps you will be less hard on actual peer-review in your future posts?
- Given what I have said:
No competent scientist who knows about glaciers would have bought that number, not for a minute.
And yet it passed muster at the IPCC.
As pointed out in your link, it was allegedly from a climbing magazine and a Master's student in geography.
Not allegedly - it's right there in AR4
Are you in the habit of mixing up these sources and a peer-reviewed science article, or an official statement from a national academy of science, or from a distinguished scientist?
Shouldn't that be a question for the IPCC?
Your question, and its manner of address, suggests you are taken aback by all this.
I am, as should you be - using articles that are not peer reviewed is both against the IPCC's own rules and has no place in a report like AR4, especially when other peer reviewed work which isn't on message is dismissed.
You are therefore naive in the ways of both science and glaciers, and of distinguishing between an error of little consequence and one of import.
Maybe, so i assume no alarmist will ever raise the 555 error by Bellamy again
Why not streamline and improve - rather than just criticize?
Why not disband altogether if the IPCC is not prepared to review sceptical scientists equally?
The "science is settled" clearly isn't, my friend
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@MangoChutneyUKOK #301
(@manysummits)
Mango, you want to avoid going round suggesting that people have said "the science is settled". It is not nice.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/
Complain about this comment
"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."
Al Gore, 1992.
Complain about this comment
@RobWansbeck #303
RobWansbeck, do you want me to dig out an example of some of the more dubious behaviour of oil lobbyists, and suggest that you, personally you, indulge in that behaviour now? Because that is the equivalent of what Mango's #301 post appears to do.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#bowman
"More "nature worship", I suspect!" .....another nice little contrarian meme. let's protect the environment because we depend on it somehow becomes earth worship. a bit like accepting the hard scientific evidence around agw becomes warm mongering, alarmism, herd mentality and agw 'belief'.
poitsplace's 'warming worriers' probably gets closest to the truth.......but if you accept the peer reviewed science (and there are thousands of papers which makes mango's and others' obsession with the 2035 nonsense and climateagate etc revealing) then there it is perfectly rational to 'worry' about it and try to do something about it.
of course that 'try to do something' is portrayed in some parts of the media as wealth distribution or some green pinko (maybe murky brown!) conspiracy to take over the world.
i think the polarisation of the comments by the regulars (larry kealey excepted...maybe the only sceptical sceptic on here) on this post represent excatly what the post was about, business as usual proponents, the conservative approach, will attack any real attempt at political change.
Complain about this comment
#mango
"Maybe, so i assume no alarmist will ever raise the 555 error by Bellamy again"
i'm glad you mentioned that again, gave me a little chuckle on a rather dreary morning.
a bit strange trying to equate the output of dr. bellamy on agw with the ipcc though.....or is it?
Complain about this comment
@MangoChutneyUKOK #301
(@rossglory)
(@manysummits)
Some of my posts have been aimed in demonstrating to my fellow pro-AGW side of the debate that some sceptics have the same environmentalist "don't bash the planet" attitude as pro-AGW. So I went looking for a Youtube clip of Bellamy as an obvious example.
And the best clip was him arguing with Monbiot about the 555 glaciers issue. However I felt that the strong similarities with Glaciergate would undermine the message, with my post just being used as a bridge to a carbon copy of earlier Glaciergate arguments.
I hope you agree that showing that not all sceptics are bad guys is a little more important than going over Glaciergate again.
So I will make a comment here.
Firstly the similarities are embarrassing for the IPCC.
The sloppiness of the individual who included the 2035 claim in the first place. The sloppy lack of checking the IPCC's own source when it was first flagged up as being an out of the ordinary claim. Then the sloppy lack of checking the IPCC's own source when the Ramesh / Raina paper came out. And the lack of response to Pallava Bagla's attempt to flag up the problem with the IPCC source (disputed interpretations of events here). And the excruciating inappropriateness of the "voodoo science" comment about the Ramesh / Raina paper (albeit after Ramesh had expressed strong opinions of his own).
IPCC on Himalayan glaciers as sloppy as David Bellamy on glaciers. Yes, that is embarrassing.
Secondly there is one big dissimilarity.
There is a lot of scope for improvement for the IPCC. But Glaciergate is an extreme example.
Whereas Bellamy has never put the case for climate scepticism well. Not just compared to professional climate sceptic scientists like Richard Lindzen. Plenty of sceptic posters here outclass him as well.
Finally a point. I expect to see Glaciergate mentioned in connection with the IPCC until the IPCC visibly cleans up its act. I also expect 555 mentioned in connection with David Bellamy's climate scepticism until he cleans up his act. As the IPCC is in the news rather more than David Bellamy's climate scepticism you will see more about Glaciergate, well after the current news is chip paper. ( http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2006/2534546426_790545bbf0.jpg ) But don't expect silence on 555.
@rossglory #307
LOL
Complain about this comment
Hello my frends
Was most upset to miss the Madagascar experience when in the wilds.The young manatee was released into the lagoon deep in the Amazon.
I've watched for years as various theories are proven and disproven, rehashed and unpicked and like you and everyone else.
I believe that the programes you have shot are amazing and was wondering how you got the opportunity to participate this sort.In answer to your other question, there are several different species of manatee. The Amazonian manatee, which is the one Stephen and I went to look for, occurs mainly in freshwater.Each have their part to play, but I'm wondering if the closure of some may be connected to the increase in capture of data from satellite sources. There's more from Mark on the amazon manatee in the rainforest.The same working group also failed to reference fears over the Amazon rainforest.The amazing tale is told in a new book, Fordlandia.The West Indian manatee, or Florida manatee, is most likely the one you've seen at sea
Best regards from Bojan Jop
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS