Global Warming: Who Cares About The Environment Anyway?

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#1
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2004/01/08012004183718.asp

World: Global Warming Could Lead To Extinction Of Plant, Animal Species
By Don Hill

An international group of biologists says that global warming threatens to set as many as a million species of Earth's plants and animals on the road to extinction.

Prague, 8 January 2004 (RFE/RL) -- A group of scientists, led by Professor Chris Thomas at Britain's University of Leeds, have completed the largest-ever study of its kind and published its findings in the current issue of the British-based scientific journal "Nature."

Applying classical ecological principles in possibly controversial new ways, the group's findings substantiate some of the direst forecasts of threats to the earth's environment from greenhouse gases and other man-made pollutants.

But lead author Thomas hedges the findings with scientific caveats that contradict some news reports and political reactions.

"What we found is that if we project which parts of the world are going to be suitable for species of animals and plants in the future, then we find that for a lot of species there aren't going to be any suitable climatic areas left for them, and many others will be much reduced in their distribution."

The study, as Thomas puts it, does "not quite" conclude, as some news services report, that global warming could wipe out a quarter of all species of plants and animals on Earth by 2050. What it does say is that somewhere between 10 percent and 50 percent of the 1,000 species studied would be either extinct or on their way to extinction by mid-century.

"So they might be declining each generation," he says. "And so over the following decades or even centuries, they would be gradually pegging out (dying) one by one. That, of course, opens a sort of glimmer of hope -- because if we can reverse the climatic warming that is taking place so that the environment becomes suitable for these species again in future, some of them may be rescued by returning the climate to what it was before the last individuals actually die."

Klaus Toepfer, director of the UN Environment Program, one of the world organization's specialist agencies, seized upon the report's findings to call for enforcement of the Kyoto Protocol.

In December 1997, more than 160 nations met in Kyoto, Japan, to negotiate binding limitations on greenhouse gas emissions by developed nations, along the lines of a UN Framework Convention on Climate Change drafted five years earlier. The outcome of the meeting was the Kyoto Protocol, under which developed nations agreed to limit their greenhouse gas emissions.

The United States, for example, agreed to reduce emissions from 1990 levels by 7 percent during the period 2008-2012. The protocol stipulates that it can come into force only when countries responsible for 55 percent of the world's emissions of carbon dioxide approve it. It appears doomed because the United States, representing 36 percent, and Russia, representing 17 percent, have refused to ratify it.

Reuters news service quotes Toepfer as saying of the Thomas study, "This alarming report underlines again to the world the importance of bringing into force the Kyoto Protocol."

Thomas says the difficulty in implementing the protocol may bode ill for passing even more stringent environmental measures in the future.

"We didn't specifically look at the impact of the Kyoto Protocol, but it has to be said that the protocol is only having a relatively minor effect, probably, on the amount of warming that we see. It's a start, and the problem is that it's been so controversial to get even that very limited first step in the direction of real control -- it is so difficult to get even that ratified -- that one suspects that things are going to get quite a lot worse before they get better."

"Nature," the journal that published the Thomas group's findings, is peer-reviewed, meaning that papers are submitted to other experts for review, comment, and criticism before publication. Thomas readily concedes that his group's paper does not so much establish new truths as point the way to additional, more conclusive investigation.

The paper's predictions of species dying out are based on what is known of the environments the species now inhabit. It assumes that if such environments cease to exist or are reduced to insignificant areas, the plants and animals they now harbor likewise will cease to exist.

Thomas says that's part of the "glimmer of hope" he referred to.

"Well, we still don't know what the time scales are between the climate's becoming unsuitable for something and the last individual's dying out. And so that's an important new area for research -- and until that's known, we don't really know how bright this glimmer is."

He says also that in a number of places, "we're developing new methods on how to assess the extinction risk to species."

Thomas says that although the study does not pin down a specific time frame or assured results, its overall conclusions are valid and disturbing.

"Whilst there are a lot of doubts in this study about exact proportions of species that might become extinct, what is very clear is that climate change should now be considered to rank alongside habitat loss and the other great threats to global biodiversity and should be taken very, very seriously by all conservation organizations, be they within countries or at an international scale."

He says that if one extends to all species on Earth the study's conclusions based on the 1,000 species it considers, the possibility is that a million species are at risk in the coming century. He says that suggests a biological disaster that would rival the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#6
Ok. You sit in a room with your car running, fifteen minutes, and you're dead.

Now, imagine on a daily basis, the average car spews out enough carbon monoxide to kill a basketball stadium full of people. You know shit rises. And what is it, having a good effect on the atmosphere?

How can pollutants, synthetics, etc., in any way shape or form be docile?
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#10
Mcleanhatch said:
check this out. it is a piece done by the CATO institute a libertarian think tank. it was to long to post up so if any of you want to check it out here is the link. the writer is a professor of meteorology at MIT.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
Actually you know what's funny Mclean? You oppose the notion of glabal warming because you're a Republican, and most Republicans do. This allows their business friends to purchase permits to let off thousands of pounds of coal/tar/waste into the air, which of course has NO EFFECT at all on the atmosphere.

So you found one scientist who wrote a piece proposing that global warming is either a very small or nonexistant factor in the Earth's temperature change, and you're just ready to hop on board! Fuck the other 9 million scientists who say it is real and a factor, right? Once you got someone who agrees with you, who needs things like proof?

Mclean you are simply a Republican tool. The reason Michael Savage and Newsmax talk about environmental hippies trying to scare everyone with global warming is because their pals in the textile industry, in manufacturing, in the Hummer factories, want people to think it's nothing.

They want "the environment" to be put on an issue back burner, like oh yea, it's another issue like health care. Unfortunately, the earth isn't going anywhere, and it isn't getting any healthier. You can live in your delusional bubble world of Michael Savage paranoia and commie liberals, but at the very least try and make an effort to keep everyone from going extinct, thanks.
 
Dec 18, 2002
3,928
5
0
38
#11
^^^i thought i was the only one who knew about that shit....republicans are the worst leeches of the environment of anybody, bush the republican destroyed a treatie obligating the U.S to emit less greenhouse gasses by 05'...people like mclean make me wanna go on a shooting spree
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
48
#12
KrypticFlowz said:
^^^i thought i was the only one who knew about that shit....republicans are the worst leeches of the environment of anybody, bush the republican destroyed a treatie obligating the U.S to emit less greenhouse gasses by 05'...people like mclean make me wanna go on a shooting spree
what treaty are you talking about, Kyoto???

that was a bologne treaty and i am glad we never signed into it.
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#13
Yea Kyoto ain't shit. Russia, Cina, the biggest fucking non ecologically sound, polluting countries signed it. The treaty was a paper tiger. You know for fuck sure no one in the Chinese govt. a shit about releasing excess coal or some shit when you live in a country wheer people are like ants and human life does not matter.
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
48
#14
WHITE DEVIL said:
Yea Kyoto ain't shit. Russia, Cina, the biggest fucking non ecologically sound, polluting countries signed it. The treaty was a paper tiger. You know for fuck sure no one in the Chinese govt. a shit about releasing excess coal or some shit when you live in a country wheer people are like ants and human life does not matter.
if i recall correctly Russia isnt signed on to Kyoto.

and also arent India and China exempt from lowering their pollution and/or paying a price for it under Kyoto??
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#15
WHITE DEVIL said:
Actually you know what's funny Mclean? You oppose the notion of glabal warming because you're a Republican, and most Republicans do. This allows their business friends to purchase permits to let off thousands of pounds of coal/tar/waste into the air, which of course has NO EFFECT at all on the atmosphere.

So you found one scientist who wrote a piece proposing that global warming is either a very small or nonexistant factor in the Earth's temperature change, and you're just ready to hop on board! Fuck the other 9 million scientists who say it is real and a factor, right? Once you got someone who agrees with you, who needs things like proof?

Mclean you are simply a Republican tool. The reason Michael Savage and Newsmax talk about environmental hippies trying to scare everyone with global warming is because their pals in the textile industry, in manufacturing, in the Hummer factories, want people to think it's nothing.

They want "the environment" to be put on an issue back burner, like oh yea, it's another issue like health care. Unfortunately, the earth isn't going anywhere, and it isn't getting any healthier. You can live in your delusional bubble world of Michael Savage paranoia and commie liberals, but at the very least try and make an effort to keep everyone from going extinct, thanks.
Nicely stated.
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
48
#16
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040115/dcth049_1.html
Blunt: 'Al, It's Cold Outside'
Thursday January 15, 3:21 pm ET


WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 /PRNewswire/ -- House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) today criticized former Vice President Al Gore's politically-motivated speech on the environment sponsored by the liberal activist organization MoveOn.org.

"It is fitting that Gore chose one of the coldest days of the year to spread false information about the Bush Administration's record on global warming. Mother Nature didn't agree with his message and neither do I. Al, it's cold outside.

"From the Internet to the environment, Mr. Gore distorts the truth. Has he forgotten that his former boss, Bill Clinton, never sent Kyoto to the Hill for ratification because it wasn't the right thing to do?

"The Kyoto Protocol is a flawed treaty that exempts 80 percent of the world, including major greenhouse gas emitters China and India, from compliance and forces unfair restrictions on the United States that will hinder our economy and hurt workers.

"As the president and Congress fight to grow the economy and create jobs, Al Gore and his environmental demagoguery will only cause miners to become unemployed and laborers to be laid off.

"The United States has spent $18 billion on climate research since 1990 -- three times as much as any other country. The president is committed to developing an effective, science-based approach to deal with global climate change including new technologies and market incentives to address this important world issue.

"Extreme environmentalism is bad for the millions of American workers trying to make ends meet and compete in a global economy."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of the Majority Whip, Roy Blunt
 
Feb 17, 2005
1,729
2
0
#20
IMO this Richard Lindzen guy and Fred Singer make a much more convincing case than Al Gore and the so called consensus. I have read An Inconvenient Truth, and there was no substantive argument. The only thing it convinced me of is that a moderate warming trend is currently occuring (we have been coming out of an ice age). Now on the other hand reading this study and reading Singer's book there are TONS of flaws in the models they are using and basically huge holes in the theory. What did you guys read to get you so convinced?