Global Warming Spreading Pests Far and Wide According To Study 193
An anonymous reader writes "New research has concluded that global warming is helping pests and diseases that attack crops to spread around the world. 'Researchers from the universities of Exeter and Oxford have found crop pests are moving at an average of two miles (3km) a year. The team said they were heading towards the north and south poles, and were establishing in areas that were once too cold for them to live in. The research is published in the journal Nature Climate Change.'"
Pests (Score:2, Funny)
Yep, them hippie environmentalist pests are especially bad since global warming started.
Re:Pests (Score:5, Insightful)
Dr Bebber said: "The most convincing hypothesis is that global warming has caused this shift."
*facepalms* Allow me to translate: "We really like the idea that global warming is responsible for this shift; bear in mind that this is a hypothesis, not a theory, so it has not been tested or validated in even a casual sense."
Show me group think!
Re:Pests (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not exactly correct, but it's really poor science to talk about an entire body of work involving thousands of separate research projects and researchers, in overly broad and general ways. Some work certainly has more rigor (and is therefore more authoritative) than others, and this news blurb talks about such a diverse population of pests (virii, viroids, bacteria, fungi, insects, nematodes... ad-infinitum) impacting everything from forest health to the growing occurrence of tropical fungal disease in humans occurring in temperate regions, that the trends spoken of here are a powerful indictment on issues of global climate change.. the average movement for pests (most thrive in warm climates) is about 3 km per years north and south (migration towards the poles.)
So at one level you're right, this could be gremlins herding trillion of lifeforms from dozens of different classes away from the equator, however watching these creatures move in lockstep with local changes in climate (and even micro climate), and watching what amounts to tropical conditions carry these lifeforms to places they've never been before, suggests that your observation, while humorous lacks a certain intellectual vision.
Still want it? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if the selfish and short-sighted people who want global warming to continue because they live in areas that would benefit are still so enthusiastic...but I guess pests are as at least as easy to ignore as wars, refugees and food shortages.
Why not, if other things can flourish also? (Score:3, Insightful)
This theory (that pests are moving farther north because it's no longer as cold) ALSO supports the idea that other things, like plants and animals can also be raised farther north because it is warmer.
If you think that's offset by some parts becoming too warm to support some crops and animals, then you must ALSO weigh that with the aspect that some pests will find it too warm and so there is some benefit. But since jungles grow everything in abundance it's pretty hard to argue that warming is not a net gai
Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? (Score:4, Interesting)
Hot-house earth isnt completely uninhabitable. The violent storms and extreme heat in the tropical zones would make them indoors-only and dangerous to travel in, but the polar regions and for instance high mountain areas further south would be quite habitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And what if Canada and Russia don't want a bunch of foreigners living on their territory?
Re: (Score:2)
Um, but they do have a lot to do with rain belts, and along with warming temperatures you also see those shift, which will mean increased pace of desertification.
Re: (Score:2)
Most deserts around the world are situated in the subtropical zones where the dry air from the Hadley cells descends, around 30 degrees north and south. Global warming appears to be expanding the Hadley cells somewhat which will move the desertified zones a little further toward the poles without necessarily shifting the other edges of those zones further from the equator thus expanding the desert area. For example there is evidence that southern Europe is getting drier but the southern edge of the Sahara
Re: (Score:2)
Most deserts around the world are situated in the subtropical zones where the dry air from the Hadley cells descends, around 30 degrees north and south. Global warming appears to be expanding the Hadley cells somewhat which will move the desertified zones a little further toward the poles without necessarily shifting the other edges of those zones further from the equator thus expanding the desert area. For example there is evidence that southern Europe is getting drier but the southern edge of the Sahara Desert shows no signs of shifting northward.
These articles seem to disagree:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html [nationalgeographic.com]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8150415.stm [bbc.co.uk]
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2811 [newscientist.com]
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/sep/16/highereducation.climatechange [theguardian.com]
http://www.co2science.org/subject/d/summaries/desertification.php [co2science.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected. Thanks for that information about the equatorial sides of the desert zones shifting away from the Equator. The first part of my answer still stands though. The zone edges are moving poleward. This is not good news for Southern Europe and the US Southwest.
Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem here is that it seems rather likely that the habitable zones won't grow in size. Rather they will shift in latitude. There will be very real geopolitical ramifications to the North American and Eurasian growth zones jumping northward. Imagine the North American Grain Belt heading a few degrees north. All of a sudden, large areas currently under cultivation in the United States cease to arable, or at least cheaply arable. At the same time, Canada gains large amounts of arable land much farther north. In a few generations, you could see US food security compromised, with large amounts of the grain it needs suddenly in another sovereign country. The US will almost certainly be able to come to some accord with Canada, but other parts of the world may not be so lucky. A brief survey of historic and prehistoric migrations heavily suggests that people don't just sit on their asses and quietly die out when they can no longer get enough food and water.
Re: (Score:2)
large areas currently under cultivation in the United States cease to arable, or at least cheaply arable. At the same time, Canada gains large amounts of arable land much farther north.
There are factors other than mere temperature that go into whether land can be used for growing crops. Much of the soil north of where Canadian farmers currently grow their crops is either very poor or next-to-nonexistent. The Canadian Shield consists largely of volcanic rock. You can't grow a crop in that even if
Re: (Score:3)
The Canadian Shield is an extension of the Appalachians. The region I'm talking about is the north of the prairie provinces and the Northwest Territories, which are an extension of the Great Plains. There's a helluva lot of territory between the Rockies and the Canadian shield.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true but the soil in the Canadian prairie provinces still usually isn't as good as that found in the US Midwest. It was scraped pretty thin during the last glaciation while the Midwest continued to build up soil since it wasn't covered by ice all that time.
Re: (Score:3)
Its a worse problem than that. The soil in poleward locations may not be suitable, tending to turn into desert instead (at least in the geologic near term). Land area is also less abundant near the poles, especially when you consider that Antarctica will remain ice-covered deep into the arable land crisis. Most plants and animals that help keep a temperate zone healthy probably won't be able to migrate quickly enough to the unprecedented rate of warming we have unleashead.
Then there is the tiny little quest
Re: (Score:2)
Well fortunately we live on a cylindrical planet where the area higher up is equal to the area towards the middle ...
No, that was wrong let me have another positive look at this, we applied a step function to the input of a non-linear system with feed-backs and all. If we get
lucky the temperatures move up so fast the Equatorians won't be able to catch up.
There is one excited Ph. D. student who is talking about the prospect that it is getting warm in Canada:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw1GEp8UBj4 [youtube.com]
and stay
Re: (Score:2)
Cylindrical planet?
I was always taught it was spherical, and all of NASA
has pics to back this up.
Cylindrical planet? Is it a pipe, or a column? Inquiring minds want to know.
Re: (Score:2)
Now I'm conflicted whether to go with a "series of tubes" or a "Whoosh" reply.
Re: (Score:2)
I still don't see anything stuck to my magnet.
Re: (Score:2)
It's OK. It's all owned by Monsanto anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Corollary: deserts grow nothing in abundance.
Actually your statement is quite incorrect anyway. Of all the major food sources used by humans only yucca/cassava grows well under jungle-type conditions, and to a lesser extent rice. Corn, wheat, rye, barley, potatoes, and sweet potatoes all do very poorly if they grow at all, and only a few varieties of yams do well.
Re:Still want it? (Score:5, Funny)
Personally, I'm switching careers from IT to pest control.
Re:Still want it? (Score:5, Funny)
Personally, I'm switching careers from IT to pest control.
It is an easy career change. You deal with bugs in both professions.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'm switching careers from IT to pest control.
It is an easy career change. You deal with bugs in both professions.
I'm thinking of switching from IT to being a proctologist - years of dealing with assholes should give me ample cross-credits.
Re: (Score:2)
I see it coming (Score:5, Funny)
Personally, I'm switching careers from IT to pest control.
Future news:
"The pest control industry is lobbying Congress for an increase in H1-Bs for pest control engineers. Stating ' there isn't enough qualified Americans coming out of school.'"
On Slashdot we'll see: ' I've been interviewing pest control engineers for years now, and I can tell yo that getting qualified people is really difficult. We get people with years of experience who can't describe how the poisons work on the pest nervous system and they can't even give a balanced equation on the compound's creation!"
"Same here! Why one guy couldn't use the sprayer properly."
And there will be ads for:
'Pest Control Engineer. MUST have 5 years of experience with the Pest Sprayer 2020 v 1.43.233, 5 years experience with the Pest sounder 3.42.11, 5 years of programming experience of the pest control API for Windows, BS/MSPE, Able to program the pest control Robot'
And there will be the "We are a Silicon Valley start-up with a new and ground breaking company that is a social media pest control company with iPad apps. There's a huge shortage of qualified people here in SF!" on Slashdot.
Re:I see it coming (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that the same career path?
There is quite a bit of overlap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Still want it? (Score:4, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_potato_beetle
"The beetle was discovered in 1824 by Thomas Say from specimens collected in the Rocky Mountains on buffalo-bur, Solanum rostratum. The origin of the beetle is somewhat unclear, but it seems that Colorado and Mexico are a part of its native distribution in southwestern North America.[2] In about 1840, the species adopted the cultivated potato into its host range and it rapidly became a most destructive pest of potato crops. The large scale use of insecticides in agricultural crops effectively controlled the pest until it became resistant to DDT in the 1950s. Other pesticides have since been used but the insect has, over time, developed resistance to them all.[3]"
So, when you stop patting yourself on the back for confirming your bias, you can spare a moment, and read up on one of the pests mentioned in that article. The Colorado Potato Beetle is immune to DDT (an achievement in of itself), as well as a number of other pesticides, which were holding it at bay. In other words, this thing used to destroy potato crops, and only by blanketing crops with pesticides did we slow it down some. It evolved...our pesticides have not; what more, I imagine many of the farmers in the affected areas have decided to ride the 'organic' cash cow, and not use any pesticide on their crops...thus ensuring that this pest won't even be slightly dinged by whatever extra proteins it has to manufacture to get around the poisons we normally spread on those crops; instead, it will grow fast...much faster.
Global Warming had jack shit to do with this pest's rise...only the laziness of mankind let it reclaim ground. And I imagine that the other pests are, perhaps, due to similar, or other, explainable reasons. But I guess a little fact checking takes too much time these days...
Re: (Score:2)
What is the point you are trying to make? That mono-culture encourages some pests? That indiscriminate use of insecticides encourage pests to evolve tolerance? That we need to use deadlier pesticides that wipe out many beneficial insects such as bees as well as negatively affecting people?
Or perhaps that the Colorado potato beetle is a good example where organic methods are the best controls. Things like crop rotations, encouraging ground beetles that eat potato beetles but are perhaps more sensitive to ins
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have missed entirely what was written about this beetle: it's essentially a locust. Before DDT, also known as the nuclear weaponry mankind used to tell certain orders of the insect civilizations to stop being dicks, these little pests destroyed, like locusts, potato crops. These pests (notice that they are called the Colorado potato beetle...not the Irish potato beetle) are indigenous lifeforms, that eat the wild *organic* stuff as well as the mono-culture stuff (they didn't eat the mono-culture
Re: (Score:2)
All I know about the Colorado Potato Beetle I got from the wiki link that you posted. I have been certified for pesticide application though in forestry, not farming and have applied quite a few pesticides, mostly herbicides but occasionally insecticides and fungicides so I do know something about pesticides which seems to be more then you do. The wiki article itself says,
High fecundity usually allows Colorado potato beetle populations to withstand natural enemy pressure. Still, in the absence of insecticides natural enemies can sometimes reach densities capable of reducing Colorado potato beetle numbers below economically damaging levels. A ground beetle, Lebia grandis is a predator of the eggs and larvae and its larvae are parasitoids of the Colorado beetle's pupae. Beauveria bassiana (Hyphomycetes) is a pathogenic fungus that infects a wide range of insect species, including the Colorado potato beetle. It is probably the most widely used natural enemy of the Colorado potato beetle, with readily available commercial formulations that can be applied using a regular pesticide sprayer.
Which sounds like they are controllable through spraying fungus on them as well as encouraging their natural predators to flourish. As y
Re:Still want it? (Score:4, Informative)
Mmmmm those cherries are so good, I see why you picked them:
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Global [climate4you.com] temperature trends
Care to admit why you picked 10 years and not 15 or 20?
If you grab a sample of 2 women and 2 men you may well find the women are taller, and you wont be able to say based on that sample if men or women are taller on average. But given 20 or 30 women and 20 or 30 men the answer becomes obvious.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Good thing satellite data isn't the only kind of temperature and climate data available. And no model is going to provide the level of accuracy you demand. Really, you don't need that level of accuracy any more than a physicist needs to count the lifespan of every single uranium atom to know uranium's halflife.
Re:Still want it? (Score:4, Insightful)
In scientific circles, there is very little debate. This isn't a scientific debate, it's a PR debate instigated by fossil fuel companies. As to your last sentence, either you're wilfully lying, or you're an ignoramus.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The more shrill the global warming crowd gets, the less people believe them. The more "scientists" engage in gloom and doom hyperbole in front of the press, the less public support they're going to get. Technology and human development is often at odds with the environment, but the real danger to humanity is politics, and "scientists" aren't free of it. BTW, there is quite a lot of debate in scientific circles. The ones who deny that aren't scientists. They're ideologues.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a lot of debate about aspects of AGW, not about AGW itself. Misrepresenting debate as some sort of lack of consensus on the general aspects of any given theory is being deceitful. That's like saying "There is a lot of debate on whether Proto-Indo-European sprang from the Kurgan culture or from Anatolia, therefore French, Hindi and Old Church Slavonic are not related languages."
Re: (Score:2)
The debate really is important because humanity are limiting a lot of good power generation options to avoid a catastrophe that might not actually even be catastrophic.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The shrill, is the sound of people noticing you're on fire... and too smug to look down, drop and roll... that doesn't make the one's shout ignorant. If you had the faintest clue about biology, thermodynamics, biochemistry or ecology, you might be just a wee bit more concerned, there are some pretty dark futures that are absolutely within the realm of possibility if you follow climate change to it's conclusion. These futures don't include homo sapiens, in fact many don't even include vertebrates.
The debate
Re:Still want it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's try this. Imagine if aliens started to pour carbon dioxide, methane and other gases to Earth's atmosphere. As you know from the elementary school Earth's greenhouse effect keeps the temps at a nice level. Greenhouse effect that has been known well over 100 years is actualized because of the called greenhouse gases, which trap heat to the lower layers of the atmosphere. So ask yourself this: what will happen when the amount of those gases is increased?
Would you be welcoming the aliens who pour gases to the atmosphere? One effect of that would for example be that hugely larger areas of crops are threatened because of pests. Your very source of food is in danger.
Wouldn't you be pretty sure who is responsible for the anomalously amplified greenhouse effect? I'd guess the media would be in full blast declaring a war against them. It's interesting why it isn't happening at the moment.
Re:Still want it? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe volcanoes are aliens?
Re:Still want it? (Score:4, Interesting)
The majority of Americans and probably even American scientists believe in a supernatural all powerful entity for which there is no evidence at all. Just because a majority of people believe in something does not make it true.
Evidence is what convinces me. Not opinion polls. Opinion polls are most definitely not a part of the scientific method. Once a large enough majority believes in a thing it becomes difficult for many people to disbelieve it. Just show me the raw data and I will draw my own conclusions. I don't need to be told what to think. Scientists are just as capable of being irrational as anyone else. Just because a scientist believes in a thing doesn't make it true.
Re:Still want it? (Score:4, Interesting)
The majority of Americans and probably even American scientists believe in a supernatural all powerful entity for which there is no evidence at all.
2.3 of the world's population and over half of all scientists.
Evidence is what convinces me.
There is no evidence I was in possession of marijuana -- It's gone. There is no evidence Jimmy Hoffa is dead, but I'm pretty sure he is. There is no evidence for extraterrestrial life, but I think there probably is.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Re:Still want it? (Score:4, Informative)
There is one single extra-Gospel source that Jesus existed, and that is Josephus. Once you strip away the 2nd and 3rd century "additions", what you get is basically "there was a Nazarene named Jesus who was a holy man and had a following, and who was put to death by the Romans."
Re: (Score:2)
"And then a zealous believer named Paul turned the story into an organized religion based on guilt."
Paul taught that the Gospel brings _freedom_ from guilt. He even called himself the chief of sinners.
Have a read of Romans chapter 8 for a better idea of what the Gospel really means.
Re: Still want it? (Score:2)
Of course there was a Jesus. The non-Greek name is Joshua which was a common name in that part of the world for hundreds of years before him
Re:Still want it? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to see such people as myth when monster international corporations and uber-rich guys like the Koch Brothers are very much behind a massive campaign to discredit AGW researchers. I can't say whether they want the climate to continue to warm. They could be more mundanely evil in not giving a sweet fuck what happens 50 or 100 years from now, so long as their net worth continues up in the short and medium term.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, the Koch brother have their money, not that I would imply they are opposed to making more. They are actually spending money to forward their agenda, unlike other somewhat less uber-rich guys like Al Gore who make piles of money directly hyping their agenda.
So he're my position. There are guys on both sides of the debate who are far more knowledgeable than I, admittedly far more on one side than the other. So, I have to look at credibility. One side definitely has the numbers and the support of the sci
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry. Could we start at credibility here? Why, if you're investigating a scientific theory, would you both considering what Al Gore or the Koch Brothers had to say?
As to the rest of it, well, for one of the first times in history we are able to predict with at least a certain level of certainty a major ecological crisis shaping up. Our ancestors had these, and they often spelled catastrophe for civilizations. So why shouldn't one at least hope that nation states and international organizations might, f
Re:Still want it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why, if you're investigating a scientific theory, would you both considering what Al Gore or the Koch Brothers had to say?
Because it's not about science for the denialists, it's about tribalism and primate dominance.
Re: (Score:3)
So because international cooperation is really hard, climatologists aren't worried? That's just about the most tortured logic I've ever seen.
Re: (Score:3)
About the only thing that large numbers of countries have been able to cooperate on are thing that are of fairly immediate and mutual benefit.
We did manage to do something about the ozone layer eating chlorofluorocarbons.
Re: (Score:2)
About the only thing that large numbers of countries have been able to cooperate on are thing that are of fairly immediate and mutual benefit.
We did manage to do something about the ozone layer eating chlorofluorocarbons.
Mostly due to the patents on chlorofluorocarbons running out so industry was motivated to switch to a new patented refrigerant which had the side affect of not eating ozone.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a popular meme but it doesn't hold much water. Most of the CFC refrigerants were patented in the 1930's so the patents ran out in the 1950's. There was a DuPont patent on a manufacturing process for Freon that ran out in 1979 but the patent for the current refrigerant of choice, R-410 is held by Honeywell (Allied Signal got the patent in 1991) so it doesn't help DuPont.
Re: (Score:2)
My smell-o-meter detected a rat very early on in the AGW debate. For me (and those of my generation,) my youth was filled with horror stories of the coming ice age and how pollution was bringing it about. The proposals to counter this effect were exactly the same as the ones now being pushed to counter global warming; i.e. don't burn fossil fuels, reduce energy consumption, increase our dependence on renewables, etc.
Then, sometime in to 90's talk of global warming began, always with the effects 30-50 y
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a fictional bogeyman, it's a real opinion I've heard from real people including Slashdot users.
Re: (Score:2)
Would your local ecosystem that's been unaccustomed to the pests handle the invasion well? What if it's a built up area with no meaningful room to grow crops, but still room to host pests? What if it was an area that could host the crops but not the pests, and can now also host the pests?
Do you think everything is so simple?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like the mountain pine beetle as well as many other pests that are controlled by freezing?
Pine beetle (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Pine beetle (Score:4, Interesting)
One thing that has exacerbated that is the length of the warm season has grown enough in some places that the pine beetles are now able to have two generations in a year which has the effect of increasing their numbers far beyond what was seen in the past.
Re:Pine beetle (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Pine beetle (Score:4, Informative)
So no warming in the last 18 years is causing pine beetles to go to warmer areas that are not warmer?
In this case, it's not average temps that matter. It's the lack of any sustained period of very low temps. The lowest lows are nowhere near historic norms in the past decade. Now why this is, I'm not going to debate here.
Biblical (Score:2)
It's not "Global Warming". It's God giving the Earth a dutch oven. That's what my Bible says, and that's that.
And remember: "If it ain't King James, then it ain't Bible"*.
(*that last line is an actual bumper sticker seen in the parking lot of the Wal-mart on Route 66 in Rolla, Missouri, March 2013)
Re: (Score:2)
The really funny thing about posts making fun of religious people is that you end up sounding far more stupid than the people who believe in religion, most of whom are quite practical and intelligent.
You just come off as ignorant about a gigantic aspect of society.
Re: (Score:2)
What part of my post was making fun of religious people?
The only fanciful part was the idea of God giving the world a dutch oven.
I think you're just being overly defensive. Maybe because you see some of the humorous inconsistencies inherent in all religious belief and it makes you uncomfortable. Maybe if you had more faith, you wouldn't be so touchy.
Hrm... can't we just summarize what's happening? (Score:2)
Global warming (climate change) means the water in the air [weather] changes the way it behaves. We're in flux right now so it's pretty impossible to make long-term predictions, but it is safe enough to say that some places will get more rain while other places get less.
This shift in where water goes will also make a shift in where and how well plants grow. Some plants will die while others will begin to thrive and flourish. The animal life which depend on the water and the plant life will also shift, di
You can't (usually) have it both ways. (Score:2)
So wait, warming is allowing "pests" (ie creatures we don't like) to spread and flourish, while reducing/eliminating the ranges for the "beloved" creatures (like corals and polar bears). Never, apparently, helping the spread of beneficial or favored animals or confining/killing things we don't like?
That's rather amazing synchronicity, don't you think?
The only possible conclusion is that there is, in fact, a God and he hates us.... ....or, the mendacious reporting of "Global Warming" news concentrates solel
Re: (Score:3)
Re:frist pist (Score:5, Funny)
First pest?
Re: (Score:2)
First pest?
Damn first pest denialists... this problem has been going on for a lot longer than now, and the fact that it's just being reported is stupid. Oh, correlation doesn't mean causation! Intarwebs! Car analogy! (collapses giggling)
Re: (Score:2)
What , you mean all the GMO Monsanto and Cargill horseshit still fall to pests?
I'm just not happy with the name (Score:3)
But that sadly died, and "Climate Change" was left.
That's now dead, and what must rise from its dust is
Something like "Global Non-Constant Atmospheric Justice".
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Strange. My first thought was "Al Gore; Kyoto delegates; Chinese; French!"
That said, I think that global warming is a valid concern. My biggest problem with the environmentalists is that they often do even more destruction with their willy-nilly unjust laws.
And injustice does cause environmental problems. Now that I'm losing my car, for example, I won't be recycling; I don't have the means. And when people can't afford plumbing, they end up with the contamination in slums.
Re:Generalized Hypothesis in a Generalized World (Score:4, Insightful)
So first thing, there are no laws created by environmentalists... those would be legislators. The stupid you're impugning lives with folks who use environmental concerns exactly the same way the folks on the other side of the legislative fence use concerns about energy. Backroom deals with monied corporate interests getting stupid laws passed in their own interest that in fact exacerbate the issues in the real world, but make someone a lot of money. Real environmentalists appreciate that human beings are a inseparable part of the environment, and that ideas that force suffering or deprivation on vast populations would undermine ecological sanity on a global scale.
Technology is already beginning to provide huge opportunities to create environmentally sound alternatives to our current lifestyles, while at the same time giving us access to a world that is truly human compatible, even socially empowering. Agendas and dogmas are indications of people with ideologies to inflict on others, and these people seldom the source of workable solutions.
Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm curious. Do you think the universe gives one sweet fuck about your political ideology. We can debate the scientific merits of these claims, but to attack them because they somehow collide with your political ideology is so fucking stupid I can only assume your either a moron or mentally ill.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, like pretty much every climatologist on the planet. Certainly seems a more sensible group to turn to than some fucking halfwith AC on /.
Re: (Score:3)
Fallacy of the False Equivalence [wikipedia.org]
It figures on top of everything else, you can't even make a cogent argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would someone who didn't believe in AGW become a climate scientist? It just isn't going to happen. Or almost never. Does that really surprise you?
Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, because they want to study climate? Oddly enough, people enter scientific fields to do science.
Re: (Score:2)
The poster I replied to wrote:
"Goverment funded study identifies new threat. Only solution is to give up more resources and liberties to said goverment.."
Can you explain how that is a critique of the scientific merits?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"if you really want something to be done about human-caused climate change, STOP THIS OVER-THE-TOP DRAMA!!!!"
Good thinking.
Heck, if you'd never heard about global warming at all, you'd probably be on the front lines for combatting it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wake up sheeple!
Reality doesn't require your understanding (Score:3)
You don't have to comprehend something to make it true. Reality and the Earth will continue without human "intelligence."
Re: (Score:3)
Reality and the Earth will continue without human "intelligence."
Got any evidence for that?
The problem with assumptions...
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the solipsists come out to play. How do you know I exist, or anyone else?
Never was a more pointless philosophy put forward.
Re: (Score:2)
Global Warming is just part of the problem, just a symtom, one where scientist can take a bunch of historical data and point a finger showing to even the dumbest persons that is happening
Whats more, they can show to the dumbest person that it already happened before many times in earths history so we CANT DO SHIT ABOUT IT.
Re: (Score:2)
Reality time:
Reduction of specific pesticides, and resistances cause pests to spread further and farther. Study does an okay job of correlation=causation. I expect next week to hear that global warming is causing malaria carrying mosquito's to show up in Florida, Louisiana, Texas and Georgia. Never minding that pesticide spraying to keep their numbers in check has decreased significantly along with the kill rates.