One of the issues we are dealing with today is massive deforestation - and not just in the Amazon - I lived in Africa and in Asia and when you fly over some of these places, the destruction is shocking - Indonesia, Malaysia, Congo, parts of west Africa esp due to logging. So we are pumping our CO2 on a massive scale while at the same time killing off part of the very thing that is supposed to counter it.
It's not just developing countries, Most if not all of the developed countries have already cleared huge amounts of forest for either habitation or agriculture. Loss of habitat is yet another issue we face, at what point does the worlds ecosystem start to collapse... Biodiversity is important, but (modern) man's practices are causing many problems in this area. You could have a parallel discussion about it that could probably rival the subject of this thread 
Tony.
Tony.
It's not just developing countries, Most if not all of the developed countries have already cleared huge amounts of forest for either habitation or agriculture. Loss of habitat is yet another issue we face, at what point does the worlds ecosystem start to collapse... Biodiversity is important, but (modern) man's practices are causing many problems in this area. You could have a parallel discussion about it that could probably rival the subject of this thread
Tony.
I was quite surprised to read a few months ago that the total biomass of all insects is about 80% (IIRC) of all living things excluding plants. It is collapsing BTW. I will try to dig out the article.
I’ve been looking at this stuff on and off for years. Nothing seems to be going in the right direction and I’m not a ‘catastrophist’ - but somewhere the in the future the proverbial will hit the fan.
German study More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas
Wiki (also references the above study) Decline in insect populations - Wikipedia
Here is a breakdown of global biomass from this study The biomass distribution on Earth | PNAS
Wiki (also references the above study) Decline in insect populations - Wikipedia
Here is a breakdown of global biomass from this study The biomass distribution on Earth | PNAS
Attachments
Last edited:
Alleged? Oh, that's right, your usual dance (from years of practice for your audio business) again. Perhaps you've forgotten post #50 on this thread, pretending that you did or didn't even bother to read from the beginning.
What did not happen after 2006 that I stated that it did? Can you quote?
The ocean counters it the most.
Just to be clear, I'm not in support of irresponsibly deforesting.
The giant hoax climate change conspiracy was started by a massive cabal of academics and scientists, the two most liberal and fake type of people and occupations on the planet, and perpetrated by the greatest enemy of the people -- the fake news, which is to say the pervasive and generally evil liberal media. Let's face it, these academics and scientists exist for one reason, to suck money from our universities and governments through appointments and grants to perpetuate their existence. While it has yet to be broken into or revealed, they perpetuate their conspiracy through an ultra-secret network of communication and file sharing, no doubt some type of global cloud conspiracy. The liberal mass media no doubt assist in this vast communication conspiracy. So, in reality, millions of people are involved in this web of deceit and bogus machine of profit. Were it not for a brave, courageous U.S. president and networks like Fox News, this entire undermining of society would have never been exposed. It further points to the secret agenda that most in academia partake in: to espouse ultra liberal viewpoints and pollute the minds of young adults to buy into all this tripe. All while they make massive amounts of salary in Universities, just like their counterparts in government science or environmental jobs. There is little more evil than a highly or overly educated person, especially with a PhD after their name. If we shut down our Universities and all scientific and environmental branches of government, and rolled back all the useless regulations, none of this conspiracy could exist and we would snuff it out fast. That would make our country and our world great again. Instead, due to these people and their conspiracies, we push on towards the brink.
I think there some misunderstandings involved; if one believes in manmade GW or not is one thing (and you have to read and understand a lot of publications on that; to believe what other people think and said about the current scientific understanding is always a bit dangerous) but reinsurance companies for example are very much interested in climate science (and others that help to assess the risks as well) and they knew for quite a long time that there is some change in climate happening.
The money card is always a point, but do you really belief that not changing anything (means do business as usual) is _not_ connected to _big_ money?
The same holds true for any news channel, it is not altruism it is a business and AFAIR the opinion shows at Fox are generating quite impressive earnings for their hosts and presumably for the network as well.
World climate is surely a complex matter (and checking the facts is tedious) but altbeit a simple answer is something to wish, you know that there are no easy answers on such complex problems.
If someone wants to avoid talking about facts and prefers to tell you something about conspiracy theories instead you should be really cautious.....
Last edited:
Hopefully the post was tongue in cheek (I.e a joke).
You never know these days . . .
Alleged? Oh, that's right, your usual dance (from years of practice for your audio business) again. Perhaps you've forgotten post #50 on this thread, pretending that you did or didn't even bother to read from the beginning.
As you were talking about restrictions in general but not any specifics I can't check if your assertion is true, therefore I used 'alleged', isn't that a appropriate wording for an unchecked assertion?
If you've another one, I'm all ears.
Having said that (and semantics is always an important matter) what about the question? Do these 'insert your proposal' restriction prevent you from providing peer-reviewed evidence that corrobates your claim about this so-called 'change'?
As response to my remark about neglecting the evidence, you posted:
In response I answered that I did look, posted an according temperature graph; and asked for your evidence from peer-reviewed publications showing something different.
Therefore my question if the 'insert your proposal' restrictions prevent you from posting temperature graphs from peer-reviewed publications.
Last edited:
Seriously I don't think it was; didn't I mention recently Carl Moreno's book and the climate depot blog?
I was just this afternoon reading a very interesting and on topic article in the September Scientific American issue. It is a special issue on Truth, Lies and Uncertainty - Searching for reality in unreal times.
The article is Why we trust lies by a couple of professors in logic and philosophy. They describe their work to develop simulation models that can predict how ideas spread, what people base their believe on, and the role of social cohesion and conformism in why large groups of people believe strongly in something that is factually false.
Their case study was the anti-vaccination movement and they are very close to a model that gives insight in how these movements spread.
It is a very good read, if you have access, I recommend you get it!
Jan
Sorry, all, I forgot the wink!
Environmental sciences or its predictions have often been derided or dismissed for decades, primarily for "boy who cried wolf" or societal cost implications. The fact is that the air and water of the earth are currently more polluted than ever, and that is at the hand of man. We produce a lot of waste in our world, and it has to go somewhere. As a result, our air, water, species and natural resources suffer consequences. It is a matter of how many of these consequences we wish to address, mitigate, minimize or eliminate. We partially treat our effluent and release it into our rivers to be diluted and carried downstream. The city down stream gets to treat our waste and then consume it. And this is the metaphor for all pollution. There is little agreement or consensus on how much to minimize or eliminate in the waste stream. In general, I prefer to reduce as much waste as possible, as what can be better than a clean and functional planet? And how can keeping it that way be seen as excessive? People still want to debate evolution or call it a hoax. Believe what you want. But sometimes the rest of folks just have to move on.
Environmental sciences or its predictions have often been derided or dismissed for decades, primarily for "boy who cried wolf" or societal cost implications. The fact is that the air and water of the earth are currently more polluted than ever, and that is at the hand of man. We produce a lot of waste in our world, and it has to go somewhere. As a result, our air, water, species and natural resources suffer consequences. It is a matter of how many of these consequences we wish to address, mitigate, minimize or eliminate. We partially treat our effluent and release it into our rivers to be diluted and carried downstream. The city down stream gets to treat our waste and then consume it. And this is the metaphor for all pollution. There is little agreement or consensus on how much to minimize or eliminate in the waste stream. In general, I prefer to reduce as much waste as possible, as what can be better than a clean and functional planet? And how can keeping it that way be seen as excessive? People still want to debate evolution or call it a hoax. Believe what you want. But sometimes the rest of folks just have to move on.
The fire maps shows that very well as even now the situation in Africa is worse than in Brazil. I verify that with the pollution map and already noticed an ongoing decline of air quality. The irony is that tropical forests are also chopped to make room for plantations, producing so called "green" bio-fuel.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.