>>A decline in freshwater availability – Per capita fresh water availability is less than half of the level of the 1960s. It is likely that climate change will have an overwhelming impact on the freshwater availability through alteration of the hydrologic cycle and water availability.

Unsustainable marine fisheries – In 1992, the total marine catch was at or above the maximum sustainable yield and fisheries were on the verge of collapse. Global catch rates have decreased, though fishing efforts are increasing.

Ocean dead zones – Coastal dead zones which are mainly caused by fertilizer runoff and fossil-fuel use, are killing large swaths of marine life. Dead zones with hypoxic, oxygen-depleted waters, are a significant stressor on marine systems and identified locations have dramatically increased since the 1960s, with more than 600 systems affected by 2010.

Forest losses – The world’s forests are crucial for conserving carbon, biodiversity, and freshwater. Between 1990 and 2015, total forest area decreased from 4,128 to 3,999 million ha, a net loss of 129 million ha which is approximately the size of South Africa.

Dwindling biodiversity – The world’s biodiversity is vanishing at an alarming rate and populations of vertebrate species are rapidly collapsing (World Wildlife Fund 2016). Collectively, global fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals declined by 58% between 1970 and 2012.

Climate change – Global fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions have increased sharply since 1960. Relative to the 1951-1980 average, global average annual surface temperature, in parallel to CO2 emissions, has also rapidly risen as shown by 5-year mean temperature anomaly. The 10 warmest years in the 136-year record have occurred since 1998.

Population growth – Since 1992, the human population has increased by approximately 2 billion individuals, a 35% change. The world human population is unlikely to stop growing this century and there is a high likelihood that the world population will grow from 7.2 billon people now to between 9.6 and 12.3 billon by 2100.<<

Some very interesting charts in the article too.

http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/15000-scientists-from-around-the-world-issue-warning-to-humanity

Compliments of the SSSF Forum.

PermeateFree said:

>>A decline in freshwater availability – Per capita fresh water availability is less than half of the level of the 1960s. It is likely that climate change will have an overwhelming impact on the freshwater availability through alteration of the hydrologic cycle and water availability.

Unsustainable marine fisheries – In 1992, the total marine catch was at or above the maximum sustainable yield and fisheries were on the verge of collapse. Global catch rates have decreased, though fishing efforts are increasing.

Ocean dead zones – Coastal dead zones which are mainly caused by fertilizer runoff and fossil-fuel use, are killing large swaths of marine life. Dead zones with hypoxic, oxygen-depleted waters, are a significant stressor on marine systems and identified locations have dramatically increased since the 1960s, with more than 600 systems affected by 2010.

Forest losses – The world’s forests are crucial for conserving carbon, biodiversity, and freshwater. Between 1990 and 2015, total forest area decreased from 4,128 to 3,999 million ha, a net loss of 129 million ha which is approximately the size of South Africa.

Dwindling biodiversity – The world’s biodiversity is vanishing at an alarming rate and populations of vertebrate species are rapidly collapsing (World Wildlife Fund 2016). Collectively, global fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals declined by 58% between 1970 and 2012.

Climate change – Global fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions have increased sharply since 1960. Relative to the 1951-1980 average, global average annual surface temperature, in parallel to CO2 emissions, has also rapidly risen as shown by 5-year mean temperature anomaly. The 10 warmest years in the 136-year record have occurred since 1998.

Population growth – Since 1992, the human population has increased by approximately 2 billion individuals, a 35% change. The world human population is unlikely to stop growing this century and there is a high likelihood that the world population will grow from 7.2 billon people now to between 9.6 and 12.3 billon by 2100.<<

Some very interesting charts in the article too.

http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/15000-scientists-from-around-the-world-issue-warning-to-humanity

Compliments of the SSSF Forum.

It is not really new news. It has been happening for a good while. Only hardly anybody has othered to notice.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

>>A decline in freshwater availability – Per capita fresh water availability is less than half of the level of the 1960s. It is likely that climate change will have an overwhelming impact on the freshwater availability through alteration of the hydrologic cycle and water availability.

Unsustainable marine fisheries – In 1992, the total marine catch was at or above the maximum sustainable yield and fisheries were on the verge of collapse. Global catch rates have decreased, though fishing efforts are increasing.

Ocean dead zones – Coastal dead zones which are mainly caused by fertilizer runoff and fossil-fuel use, are killing large swaths of marine life. Dead zones with hypoxic, oxygen-depleted waters, are a significant stressor on marine systems and identified locations have dramatically increased since the 1960s, with more than 600 systems affected by 2010.

Forest losses – The world’s forests are crucial for conserving carbon, biodiversity, and freshwater. Between 1990 and 2015, total forest area decreased from 4,128 to 3,999 million ha, a net loss of 129 million ha which is approximately the size of South Africa.

Dwindling biodiversity – The world’s biodiversity is vanishing at an alarming rate and populations of vertebrate species are rapidly collapsing (World Wildlife Fund 2016). Collectively, global fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals declined by 58% between 1970 and 2012.

Climate change – Global fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions have increased sharply since 1960. Relative to the 1951-1980 average, global average annual surface temperature, in parallel to CO2 emissions, has also rapidly risen as shown by 5-year mean temperature anomaly. The 10 warmest years in the 136-year record have occurred since 1998.

Population growth – Since 1992, the human population has increased by approximately 2 billion individuals, a 35% change. The world human population is unlikely to stop growing this century and there is a high likelihood that the world population will grow from 7.2 billon people now to between 9.6 and 12.3 billon by 2100.<<

Some very interesting charts in the article too.

http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/15000-scientists-from-around-the-world-issue-warning-to-humanity

Compliments of the SSSF Forum.

It is not really new news. It has been happening for a good while. Only hardly anybody has othered to notice.

It is the statistics that are of interest of how bad things really are. As humans we tend to have very short memories and need reminding often for it to sink in, especially if we don’t want to accept the situation.

> Per capita fresh water availability is less than half of the level of the 1960s. It is likely that climate change will have an overwhelming impact on the freshwater availability through alteration of the hydrologic cycle and water availability.

Well duh. World population since the 1960s has grown by a factor of 7 and a half. So obviously we we now have both a much bigger water supply AND we’re now using water more effectively. Global warming can only increase water availability, not decrease it.

> Unsustainable marine fisheries. Global catch rates have decreased.

Fishing of unsustainable species such as the orange roughy have been greatly curtailed. “The very first US Federal Agency devoted exclusively to conservation was the aptly named U.S. Commission on Fish and Fisheries, created in 1871 (only six years after the Civil War), and dedicated to the protection, study, management, and restoration of fish.” Fish protection has been steadily increasing since then all around the world, and now all fishing is believed to be sustainable indefinitely.

> Ocean dead zones – Coastal dead zones which are mainly caused by fertilizer runoff.

Again, this problem has disappeared completely, now that we better understand that it is useless to waste fertiliser.

> Forest losses – The world’s forests are crucial for conserving carbon, biodiversity, and freshwater. Between 1990 and 2015, total forest area decreased from 4,128 to 3,999 million ha.

… which is totally negligible. Startlingly so given the propensity for forest loss in earlier generations. In Europe, there have been significant forest gains.

> Dwindling biodiversity – The world’s biodiversity is vanishing at an alarming rate and populations of vertebrate species are rapidly collapsing. Collectively, global fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals declined by 58% between 1970 and 2012.

Bullshit. The decline in biodiversity since 1970 is more like 1%. Calling it 58% is simply not true. Humans have had startlingly little effect on wildlife diversity since the 1800s. The biodiversity of flowering plants has been rock solid since the 1970s. 50% of bird extinctions since the 1800s have been on Hawaii, which is tiny, and very few of the other bird extinctions can be related back to human causes. For example, the whole swathe of destruction that we call World War II drove only one bird species to extinction – and it is highly likely that even that bird would have gone extinct without human intervention. The number of known species of shark has almost doubled since 1970.

> Climate change

So what.

> Population growth – Since 1992, the human population has increased by approximately 2 billion individuals, a 35% change. The world human population is unlikely to stop growing this century and there is a high likelihood that the world population will grow from 7.2 billion people now to between 9.6 and 12.3 billion by 2100.

Again so what. Globally, the total fertility rate TFR (births per female) is still declining towards break-even point. The current TFR tells you what the future population will be. More than half of the world’s population is in countries that have a TFR below sustainability levels. Nigeria and Pakistan remain the only big baddies in the equation.

mollwollfumble said:

> Per capita fresh water availability is less than half of the level of the 1960s. It is likely that climate change will have an overwhelming impact on the freshwater availability through alteration of the hydrologic cycle and water availability.

Well duh. World population since the 1960s has grown by a factor of 7 and a half. So obviously we we now have both a much bigger water supply AND we’re now using water more effectively. Global warming can only increase water availability, not decrease it.

> Unsustainable marine fisheries. Global catch rates have decreased.

Fishing of unsustainable species such as the orange roughy have been greatly curtailed. “The very first US Federal Agency devoted exclusively to conservation was the aptly named U.S. Commission on Fish and Fisheries, created in 1871 (only six years after the Civil War), and dedicated to the protection, study, management, and restoration of fish.” Fish protection has been steadily increasing since then all around the world, and now all fishing is believed to be sustainable indefinitely.

> Ocean dead zones – Coastal dead zones which are mainly caused by fertilizer runoff.

Again, this problem has disappeared completely, now that we better understand that it is useless to waste fertiliser.

> Forest losses – The world’s forests are crucial for conserving carbon, biodiversity, and freshwater. Between 1990 and 2015, total forest area decreased from 4,128 to 3,999 million ha.

… which is totally negligible. Startlingly so given the propensity for forest loss in earlier generations. In Europe, there have been significant forest gains.

> Dwindling biodiversity – The world’s biodiversity is vanishing at an alarming rate and populations of vertebrate species are rapidly collapsing. Collectively, global fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals declined by 58% between 1970 and 2012.

Bullshit. The decline in biodiversity since 1970 is more like 1%. Calling it 58% is simply not true. Humans have had startlingly little effect on wildlife diversity since the 1800s. The biodiversity of flowering plants has been rock solid since the 1970s. 50% of bird extinctions since the 1800s have been on Hawaii, which is tiny, and very few of the other bird extinctions can be related back to human causes. For example, the whole swathe of destruction that we call World War II drove only one bird species to extinction – and it is highly likely that even that bird would have gone extinct without human intervention. The number of known species of shark has almost doubled since 1970.

> Climate change

So what.

> Population growth – Since 1992, the human population has increased by approximately 2 billion individuals, a 35% change. The world human population is unlikely to stop growing this century and there is a high likelihood that the world population will grow from 7.2 billion people now to between 9.6 and 12.3 billion by 2100.

Again so what. Globally, the total fertility rate TFR (births per female) is still declining towards break-even point. The current TFR tells you what the future population will be. More than half of the world’s population is in countries that have a TFR below sustainability levels. Nigeria and Pakistan remain the only big baddies in the equation.

It is a pity you don’t do a little research rather than making such stupid ill-informed comment. You were one here I thought would most benefit by this information, but once a denier apparently always a denier.

Climate change/global warming is a major problem.

The other problem is, the major contributors to it don’t give a poop about it.

If the Chinese announced that the city of Shanghai (and just the city of Shanghai, that’s it) was going to reduce it’s carbon emissions by 50% by 2030 (and the rest of China could carry on as is), would you think it a great contribution to rectifying global warming?

No? Well, if everyone and everything in Australia reduced carbon emissions by 50% by 2030, the result would be about the same, because our population is about equal to that of Shanghai.

Basically, until you can get the Chinese and the Indians to do something serious in their backyards, the rest of us are just farting at thunder.

captain_spalding said:

Climate change/global warming is a major problem.

The other problem is, the major contributors to it don’t give a poop about it.

If the Chinese announced that the city of Shanghai (and just the city of Shanghai, that’s it) was going to reduce it’s carbon emissions by 50% by 2030 (and the rest of China could carry on as is), would you think it a great contribution to rectifying global warming?

No? Well, if everyone and everything in Australia reduced carbon emissions by 50% by 2030, the result would be about the same, because our population is about equal to that of Shanghai.

Basically, until you can get the Chinese and the Indians to do something serious in their backyards, the rest of us are just farting at thunder.

http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china.html

http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/india.html

PermeateFree said:

It is a pity you don’t do a little research rather than making such stupid ill-informed comment. You were one here I thought would most benefit by this information.

Hey, I’m the only one here that actually does a little research using raw data, rather than relying on predigested alarmist propaganda. But once a doomsdayer always a doomsdayer I suppose.

There are heaps of far more serious threats than any of those mentioned above: nuclear war, economic collapse, major volcanic eruption, epidemic, crop pest, are five that spring immediately to mind.

Of the ones mentioned in the OP, the three I consider most important are population increase, loss of biodiversity and loss of forests. But all three are under control. Everything else mentioned in the OP was either completely solved decades ago, or is just plain untrue.

Climate change is inevitable. Everything changes except fear of the unknown.

Ah well here’s hoping humanity listens.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

It is a pity you don’t do a little research rather than making such stupid ill-informed comment. You were one here I thought would most benefit by this information.

Hey, I’m the only one here that actually does a little research using raw data, rather than relying on predigested alarmist propaganda. But once a doomsdayer always a doomsdayer I suppose.

There are heaps of far more than any of those mentioned above: nuclear war, economic collapse, major volcanic eruption, epidemic, crop pest, are five that spring immediately to mind.

Of the ones mentioned in the OP, the three I consider most important are population increase, loss of biodiversity and loss of forests. But all three are under control. Everything else mentioned in the OP was either completely solved decades ago, or is just plain untrue.

Climate change is inevitable. Everything changes except fear of the unknown.

I think your raw data is your own opinion rather than an informed study of the facts. And the “predigested alarmist propaganda” is produced by the scientist studying the subjects. Your assessments are so ridiculous it is obvious that you know nothing about them and why you bother to comment defies imagination.

Your more more ‘serious threats” have yet to happen and may not happen in the foreseeable future if at all, whereas the listed ones are happening NOW and all are of major concern. And please don’t blame me for being a doomsdayer, as my views are largely the views of directly involved “real” scientists.

dv said:

Ah well here’s hoping humanity listens.

Well parts of it obviously don’t.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Ah well here’s hoping humanity listens.

Well parts of it obviously don’t.

You just want everyone to agree with you.

Just remember.

In a scientific study in England of the perception of risk, the correlation between actual risk and perceived risk was zero.

mollwollfumble said:

Just remember.

In a scientific study in England of the perception of risk, the correlation between actual risk and perceived risk was zero.

does that mean perception of risk (fear perhaps) is the ultimate prophylactic?

mollwollfumble said:

Just remember.

In a scientific study in England of the perception of risk, the correlation between actual risk and perceived risk was zero.

Yeah I have been told that shit for years but everything still keeps falling apart. In a bigger and bigger way each time.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

Just remember.

In a scientific study in England of the perception of risk, the correlation between actual risk and perceived risk was zero.

Yeah I have been told that shit for years but everything still keeps falling apart. In a bigger and bigger way each time.

Smaller way each time, thankfully. A bigger way would be World War 3.

>I think your raw data is your own opinion rather than an informed study of the facts.

i’d guess an informed study of the facts lends to opinion, formation of, a view.

moll’s agenda of world domination rattles me too. I can see a cascade of contagion, a mollification.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

Yeah I have been told that shit for years but everything still keeps falling apart. In a bigger and bigger way each time.

Smaller way each time, thankfully. A bigger way would be World War 3.

Or a cobalt bomb.

I have a theory that if you can’t see, hear, touch, smell or taste it then it isn’t going to kill you. Even radiactivity, you can feel it.

I can’t see, hear, touch, smell or taste climate change. No animal can. Some plants can, because they don’t move around as much as animals.

If climate change was causing the Earth to get colder then I’d be seriously worried.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

Yeah I have been told that shit for years but everything still keeps falling apart. In a bigger and bigger way each time.

Smaller way each time, thankfully. A bigger way would be World War 3.

Or a cobalt bomb.

I have a theory that if you can’t see, hear, touch, smell or taste it then it isn’t going to kill you. Even radiactivity, you can feel it.

I can’t see, hear, touch, smell or taste climate change. No animal can. Some plants can, because they don’t move around as much as animals.

If climate change was causing the Earth to get colder then I’d be seriously worried.

Seriously we have actually reached the point thta we could almost call silent spring. You are the man that looks at birds. Don’t tell me thta you have not fucking noticed.

WW3 or fucking cobalt bombs never gave me a concern but disappearing species does. Don’t play it down.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

Smaller way each time, thankfully. A bigger way would be World War 3.

Or a cobalt bomb.

I have a theory that if you can’t see, hear, touch, smell or taste it then it isn’t going to kill you. Even radiactivity, you can feel it.

I can’t see, hear, touch, smell or taste climate change. No animal can. Some plants can, because they don’t move around as much as animals.

If climate change was causing the Earth to get colder then I’d be seriously worried.

Seriously we have actually reached the point thta we could almost call silent spring. You are the man that looks at birds. Don’t tell me thta you have not fucking noticed.

WW3 or fucking cobalt bombs never gave me a concern but disappearing species does. Don’t play it down.

Does optimism mean that we smile and wave as we sink with the ship?

mollwollfumble said:

I have a theory that if you can’t see, hear, touch, smell or taste it then it isn’t going to kill you. Even radiactivity, you can feel it.

I can’t see, hear, touch, smell or taste climate change. No animal can. Some plants can, because they don’t move around as much as animals.

That’s not a theory.

It’s not even a hypothesis.

But since the effects of climate change can bee seen, heard, touched, smelled and tasted it doesn’t seem very relevant to the discussion anyway.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Ah well here’s hoping humanity listens.

Well parts of it obviously don’t.

Don’t have to look down a well to see.

mollwollfumble said:

> Per capita fresh water availability is less than half of the level of the 1960s. It is likely that climate change will have an overwhelming impact on the freshwater availability through alteration of the hydrologic cycle and water availability.

Well duh. World population since the 1960s has grown by a factor of 7 and a half. So obviously we we now have both a much bigger water supply AND we’re now using water more effectively. Global warming can only increase water availability, not decrease it.

> Unsustainable marine fisheries. Global catch rates have decreased.

Fishing of unsustainable species such as the orange roughy have been greatly curtailed. “The very first US Federal Agency devoted exclusively to conservation was the aptly named U.S. Commission on Fish and Fisheries, created in 1871 (only six years after the Civil War), and dedicated to the protection, study, management, and restoration of fish.” Fish protection has been steadily increasing since then all around the world, and now all fishing is believed to be sustainable indefinitely.

> Ocean dead zones – Coastal dead zones which are mainly caused by fertilizer runoff.

Again, this problem has disappeared completely, now that we better understand that it is useless to waste fertiliser.

> Forest losses – The world’s forests are crucial for conserving carbon, biodiversity, and freshwater. Between 1990 and 2015, total forest area decreased from 4,128 to 3,999 million ha.

… which is totally negligible. Startlingly so given the propensity for forest loss in earlier generations. In Europe, there have been significant forest gains.

> Dwindling biodiversity – The world’s biodiversity is vanishing at an alarming rate and populations of vertebrate species are rapidly collapsing. Collectively, global fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals declined by 58% between 1970 and 2012.

Bullshit. The decline in biodiversity since 1970 is more like 1%. Calling it 58% is simply not true. Humans have had startlingly little effect on wildlife diversity since the 1800s. The biodiversity of flowering plants has been rock solid since the 1970s. 50% of bird extinctions since the 1800s have been on Hawaii, which is tiny, and very few of the other bird extinctions can be related back to human causes. For example, the whole swathe of destruction that we call World War II drove only one bird species to extinction – and it is highly likely that even that bird would have gone extinct without human intervention. The number of known species of shark has almost doubled since 1970.

> Climate change

So what.

> Population growth – Since 1992, the human population has increased by approximately 2 billion individuals, a 35% change. The world human population is unlikely to stop growing this century and there is a high likelihood that the world population will grow from 7.2 billion people now to between 9.6 and 12.3 billion by 2100.

Again so what. Globally, the total fertility rate TFR (births per female) is still declining towards break-even point. The current TFR tells you what the future population will be. More than half of the world’s population is in countries that have a TFR below sustainability levels. Nigeria and Pakistan remain the only big baddies in the equation.

You have just reduced my trust in scientists to zero.
We may be using water more efficiently but we waste more of our agricultural production than we ever did before when we have more and more mouths to feed but none of this relates to the other species dependent upon the same resources.

I don’t give a flying rats arse about what humans are doing as to making things more efficient for themselves. The smartest thing they can do is remove most of us.

If the wildlife is doing so well, show me in which part of the world this is actually correct.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

>>A decline in freshwater availability – Per capita fresh water availability is less than half of the level of the 1960s. It is likely that climate change will have an overwhelming impact on the freshwater availability through alteration of the hydrologic cycle and water availability.

Unsustainable marine fisheries – In 1992, the total marine catch was at or above the maximum sustainable yield and fisheries were on the verge of collapse. Global catch rates have decreased, though fishing efforts are increasing.

Ocean dead zones – Coastal dead zones which are mainly caused by fertilizer runoff and fossil-fuel use, are killing large swaths of marine life. Dead zones with hypoxic, oxygen-depleted waters, are a significant stressor on marine systems and identified locations have dramatically increased since the 1960s, with more than 600 systems affected by 2010.

Forest losses – The world’s forests are crucial for conserving carbon, biodiversity, and freshwater. Between 1990 and 2015, total forest area decreased from 4,128 to 3,999 million ha, a net loss of 129 million ha which is approximately the size of South Africa.

Dwindling biodiversity – The world’s biodiversity is vanishing at an alarming rate and populations of vertebrate species are rapidly collapsing (World Wildlife Fund 2016). Collectively, global fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals declined by 58% between 1970 and 2012.

Climate change – Global fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions have increased sharply since 1960. Relative to the 1951-1980 average, global average annual surface temperature, in parallel to CO2 emissions, has also rapidly risen as shown by 5-year mean temperature anomaly. The 10 warmest years in the 136-year record have occurred since 1998.

Population growth – Since 1992, the human population has increased by approximately 2 billion individuals, a 35% change. The world human population is unlikely to stop growing this century and there is a high likelihood that the world population will grow from 7.2 billon people now to between 9.6 and 12.3 billon by 2100.<<

Some very interesting charts in the article too.

http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/15000-scientists-from-around-the-world-issue-warning-to-humanity

Compliments of the SSSF Forum.

It is not really new news. It has been happening for a good while. Only hardly anybody has othered to notice.

It is the statistics that are of interest of how bad things really are. As humans we tend to have very short memories and need reminding often for it to sink in, especially if we don’t want to accept the situation.

This is seriously the reall issue. Mmost of us live in a dream like state.

roughbarked said:

You have just reduced my trust in scientists to zero.
We may be using water more efficiently but we waste more of our agricultural production than we ever did before when we have more and more mouths to feed but none of this relates to the other species dependent upon the same resources.

I don’t give a flying rats arse about what humans are doing as to making things more efficient for themselves. The smartest thing they can do is remove most of us.

If the wildlife is doing so well, show me in which part of the world this is actually correct.

How the heck did he manage to do that.

Most of what he said is just plain wrong, and the rest of it is misleading. Nothing to do with science or scientists.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

You have just reduced my trust in scientists to zero.
We may be using water more efficiently but we waste more of our agricultural production than we ever did before when we have more and more mouths to feed but none of this relates to the other species dependent upon the same resources.

I don’t give a flying rats arse about what humans are doing as to making things more efficient for themselves. The smartest thing they can do is remove most of us.

If the wildlife is doing so well, show me in which part of the world this is actually correct.

How the heck did he manage to do that.

Most of what he said is just plain wrong, and the rest of it is misleading. Nothing to do with science or scientists.

Well he is claiming the opposite, because he is a scientist.

Things we should be doing.

Reducing world population
Planting more trees
Bring industrial waste to close to zero as possible
Planting more trees
Making companies more aware and responsible for the environment
Talking seawater population more seriously
Cleaning up plastics in the environment
Breeding more fish
Accepting that humanity has an effect on the environment
Accepting climate change
Accepting that humanity is reducing other lifeforms and contributing to their extinction
We need to stop species becoming extinct
We need to reduce our energy consumption by using smarter energy saving techniques
Building houses to a better energy saving standard
Bring manufacturing energy levels down
Focusing on more efficient engines and technologies for transport
Reducing domestic waste towards zero
Recycling 100 percent waste
Reducing emissions in the atmosphere
Eliminating non nonrenewable as much as possible
Stop coal mining
We need to electrify out cars more and make transport more efficient, reducing time at traffic lights using smarter technologies.

There are MANY OTHER other things to need to do.

I know there are a lot for and against arguments for climate change, there is also a lot of mis information and fake news etc, due to vested business interests, ignorance, corruption and a lot of self greed, and perhaps the most damaging is reckless Government leadership like Trump and others which we don’t need one bit.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Things we should be doing.

Reducing world population
Planting more trees
Bring industrial waste to close to zero as possible
Planting more trees
Making companies more aware and responsible for the environment
Talking seawater population more seriously
Cleaning up plastics in the environment
Breeding more fish
Accepting that humanity has an effect on the environment
Accepting climate change
Accepting that humanity is reducing other lifeforms and contributing to their extinction
We need to stop species becoming extinct
We need to reduce our energy consumption by using smarter energy saving techniques
Building houses to a better energy saving standard
Bring manufacturing energy levels down
Focusing on more efficient engines and technologies for transport
Reducing domestic waste towards zero
Recycling 100 percent waste
Reducing emissions in the atmosphere
Eliminating non nonrenewable as much as possible
Stop coal mining
We need to electrify out cars more and make transport more efficient, reducing time at traffic lights using smarter technologies.

There are MANY OTHER other things to need to do.

I know there are a lot for and against arguments for climate change, there is also a lot of mis information and fake news etc, due to vested business interests, ignorance, corruption and a lot of self greed, and perhaps the most damaging is reckless Government leadership like Trump and others which we don’t need one bit.

Taking seawater pollution more seriously.
Talking declining ocean populations more seriously, plants, corals and fish.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Things we should be doing.

Reducing world population
Planting more trees
Bring industrial waste to close to zero as possible
Planting more trees
Making companies more aware and responsible for the environment
Talking seawater population more seriously
Cleaning up plastics in the environment
Breeding more fish
Accepting that humanity has an effect on the environment
Accepting climate change
Accepting that humanity is reducing other lifeforms and contributing to their extinction
We need to stop species becoming extinct
We need to reduce our energy consumption by using smarter energy saving techniques
Building houses to a better energy saving standard
Bring manufacturing energy levels down
Focusing on more efficient engines and technologies for transport
Reducing domestic waste towards zero
Recycling 100 percent waste
Reducing emissions in the atmosphere
Eliminating non nonrenewable as much as possible
Stop coal mining
We need to electrify out cars more and make transport more efficient, reducing time at traffic lights using smarter technologies.

There are MANY OTHER other things to need to do.

I know there are a lot for and against arguments for climate change, there is also a lot of mis information and fake news etc, due to vested business interests, ignorance, corruption and a lot of self greed, and perhaps the most damaging is reckless Government leadership like Trump and others which we don’t need one bit.

It was within my range to do the first four or five on the list and I did them.

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Things we should be doing.

Reducing world population
Planting more trees
Bring industrial waste to close to zero as possible
Planting more trees
Making companies more aware and responsible for the environment
Talking seawater population more seriously
Cleaning up plastics in the environment
Breeding more fish
Accepting that humanity has an effect on the environment
Accepting climate change
Accepting that humanity is reducing other lifeforms and contributing to their extinction
We need to stop species becoming extinct
We need to reduce our energy consumption by using smarter energy saving techniques
Building houses to a better energy saving standard
Bring manufacturing energy levels down
Focusing on more efficient engines and technologies for transport
Reducing domestic waste towards zero
Recycling 100 percent waste
Reducing emissions in the atmosphere
Eliminating non nonrenewable as much as possible
Stop coal mining
We need to electrify out cars more and make transport more efficient, reducing time at traffic lights using smarter technologies.

There are MANY OTHER other things to need to do.

I know there are a lot for and against arguments for climate change, there is also a lot of mis information and fake news etc, due to vested business interests, ignorance, corruption and a lot of self greed, and perhaps the most damaging is reckless Government leadership like Trump and others which we don’t need one bit.

It was within my range to do the first four or five on the list and I did them.

Now, it’s over to you, China, India, USA…

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Things we should be doing.

Reducing world population
Planting more trees
Bring industrial waste to close to zero as possible
Planting more trees
Making companies more aware and responsible for the environment
Talking seawater population more seriously
Cleaning up plastics in the environment
Breeding more fish
Accepting that humanity has an effect on the environment
Accepting climate change
Accepting that humanity is reducing other lifeforms and contributing to their extinction
We need to stop species becoming extinct
We need to reduce our energy consumption by using smarter energy saving techniques
Building houses to a better energy saving standard
Bring manufacturing energy levels down
Focusing on more efficient engines and technologies for transport
Reducing domestic waste towards zero
Recycling 100 percent waste
Reducing emissions in the atmosphere
Eliminating non nonrenewable as much as possible
Stop coal mining
We need to electrify out cars more and make transport more efficient, reducing time at traffic lights using smarter technologies.

There are MANY OTHER other things to need to do.

I know there are a lot for and against arguments for climate change, there is also a lot of mis information and fake news etc, due to vested business interests, ignorance, corruption and a lot of self greed, and perhaps the most damaging is reckless Government leadership like Trump and others which we don’t need one bit.

It was within my range to do the first four or five on the list and I did them.

Now, it’s over to you, China, India, USA…

china and india again. didn’t you read those pages i referred to yesterday? china is doing more than australia. if you repeat this ignorance again i’ll think you are willfully stupid. and there is nothing worse than being that.

JudgeMental said:

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

It was within my range to do the first four or five on the list and I did them.

Now, it’s over to you, China, India, USA…

china and india again. didn’t you read those pages i referred to yesterday? china is doing more than australia. if you repeat this ignorance again i’ll think you are willfully stupid. and there is nothing worse than being that.

Did you read the scales on the left hand side of the graphs that you presented?

Even if Australia halved, or doubled its emissions, it wouldn’t be even a drop in the bucket compared to China’s or India’s emissions.

Reading graphs is not just about looking at the path thatthe line traces, you know: you have to read the scale, and see what the line represents.

captain_spalding said:

JudgeMental said:

captain_spalding said:

Now, it’s over to you, China, India, USA…

china and india again. didn’t you read those pages i referred to yesterday? china is doing more than australia. if you repeat this ignorance again i’ll think you are willfully stupid. and there is nothing worse than being that.

Did you read the scales on the left hand side of the graphs that you presented?

Even if Australia halved, or doubled its emissions, it wouldn’t be even a drop in the bucket compared to China’s or India’s emissions.

Reading graphs is not just about looking at the path thatthe line traces, you know: you have to read the scale, and see what the line represents.

doesn’t matter about what we do, do you litter using the reason that everyone else does so you not doing makes no difference? do you think those two countries with the populations they have can turn things around overnight? they are doing a lot more than us or the US. you use the same argument as those wanting a world with less people and who think it will happen overnight. even though the fertility rate is falling they are still moaning.

JudgeMental said:

captain_spalding said:

JudgeMental said:

china and india again. didn’t you read those pages i referred to yesterday? china is doing more than australia. if you repeat this ignorance again i’ll think you are willfully stupid. and there is nothing worse than being that.

Did you read the scales on the left hand side of the graphs that you presented?

Even if Australia halved, or doubled its emissions, it wouldn’t be even a drop in the bucket compared to China’s or India’s emissions.

Reading graphs is not just about looking at the path thatthe line traces, you know: you have to read the scale, and see what the line represents.

doesn’t matter about what we do, do you litter using the reason that everyone else does so you not doing makes no difference? do you think those two countries with the populations they have can turn things around overnight? they are doing a lot more than us or the US. you use the same argument as those wanting a world with less people and who think it will happen overnight. even though the fertility rate is falling they are still moaning.

Both the Chinese and the Indians can move mountains overnight by hand because they have the people.

JudgeMental said:

captain_spalding said:

JudgeMental said:

china and india again. didn’t you read those pages i referred to yesterday? china is doing more than australia. if you repeat this ignorance again i’ll think you are willfully stupid. and there is nothing worse than being that.

Did you read the scales on the left hand side of the graphs that you presented?

Even if Australia halved, or doubled its emissions, it wouldn’t be even a drop in the bucket compared to China’s or India’s emissions.

Reading graphs is not just about looking at the path thatthe line traces, you know: you have to read the scale, and see what the line represents.

doesn’t matter about what we do, do you litter using the reason that everyone else does so you not doing makes no difference? do you think those two countries with the populations they have can turn things around overnight? they are doing a lot more than us or the US. you use the same argument as those wanting a world with less people and who think it will happen overnight. even though the fertility rate is falling they are still moaning.

‘do you litter using the reason that everyone else does so you not doing makes no difference?’

No. In fact, i often pick up litter left by other people.

‘do you think those two countries with the populations they have can turn things around overnight?’

No. In fact, i don’t think those countries can, or want to, “turn things around”. The profit motive is too strong. Their political systems don’t allow for pressure from groups who don’t place the profit motive first to have any real effect. Their economic systems are too heavily entrenched in methods that promote global warming for them to contemplate any move away from those policies.

‘…those wanting a world with less people…’

That would, presumably, include the Chinese (who are doing so much for reducing global warming), who for many years, as you know, had a one-child-per-family policy in an attempt to control their runaway population growth. That was abandoned in recent years because of the preference for male children, which led to interventions in pregnancies, which was leading to an imbalance in gender in their population. It’s estimated that there may already be 30 million Chinese males f for whom no female marriage partners will exist when they reach adulthood.

You don’t know me, and i don’t know you. You can think of me as being ‘wilfully stupid’ (that’s the correct spelling of that word, by the way), but that would only advertise to all and sundry that you are monumentally arrogant – and i don’t give a shitwhat you think, anyway.

well he says he’s judgemental and snorkels in bogs.

inserts 5 minute monty python animation

roughbarked said:

Well he is claiming the opposite, because he is a scientist.

I’d say he was just following his chosen role as the forum non-aggressive contrarianist.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Well he is claiming the opposite, because he is a scientist.

I’d say he was just following his chosen role as the forum non-aggressive contrarianist.

hmm well, he can be allowed that. :)

PermeateFree said:

>>A decline in freshwater availability – Per capita fresh water availability is less than half of the level of the 1960s. It is likely that climate change will have an overwhelming impact on the freshwater availability through alteration of the hydrologic cycle and water availability.

Unsustainable marine fisheries – In 1992, the total marine catch was at or above the maximum sustainable yield and fisheries were on the verge of collapse. Global catch rates have decreased, though fishing efforts are increasing.

Ocean dead zones – Coastal dead zones which are mainly caused by fertilizer runoff and fossil-fuel use, are killing large swaths of marine life. Dead zones with hypoxic, oxygen-depleted waters, are a significant stressor on marine systems and identified locations have dramatically increased since the 1960s, with more than 600 systems affected by 2010.

Forest losses – The world’s forests are crucial for conserving carbon, biodiversity, and freshwater. Between 1990 and 2015, total forest area decreased from 4,128 to 3,999 million ha, a net loss of 129 million ha which is approximately the size of South Africa.

Dwindling biodiversity – The world’s biodiversity is vanishing at an alarming rate and populations of vertebrate species are rapidly collapsing (World Wildlife Fund 2016). Collectively, global fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals declined by 58% between 1970 and 2012.

Climate change – Global fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions have increased sharply since 1960. Relative to the 1951-1980 average, global average annual surface temperature, in parallel to CO2 emissions, has also rapidly risen as shown by 5-year mean temperature anomaly. The 10 warmest years in the 136-year record have occurred since 1998.

Population growth – Since 1992, the human population has increased by approximately 2 billion individuals, a 35% change. The world human population is unlikely to stop growing this century and there is a high likelihood that the world population will grow from 7.2 billon people now to between 9.6 and 12.3 billon by 2100.<<

Some very interesting charts in the article too.

http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/15000-scientists-from-around-the-world-issue-warning-to-humanity

Compliments of the SSSF Forum.

When I look at the technical paper on http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/sw/files/Ripple_et_al_11-3-17%20Scientists%20main%20text.pdf it doesn’t contain much in the way of references. One figure presented and that’s it. PS, Figure 1d, dead zones, has to be shockingly wrong as well. The number of “dead zones” has decreased enormously since the 1960s.

Now let’s look more closely at that shockingly wrong figure 1f. What exactly is being plotted, is it the figure itself that is at fault or is it the interpretation?

> The world’s biodiversity is vanishing at an alarming rate and populations of vertebrate species are rapidly collapsing (World Wildlife Fund 2016). Collectively, global fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds,and mammals declined by 58% between 1970 and 2012 (Figure 1f).Here, we display a diversity-weighted Living Planet Index that has been adjusted for taxonomic and geographic bias by accounting for the estimated number of species within biogeographical regions, and the relative species diversity within them. (McRae et al. 2017).Freshwater, marine, and terrestrial populations declined by 81%, 36%, and 35% respectively (McRae et al. 2017).

So what’s McRae et al. 2017? McRae, L., Deinet, S. and Freeman, R., 2017. The Diversity-Weighted Living Planet Index: Controlling for Taxonomic Bias in a Global Biodiversity Indicator. PloS one, 12(1), p.e0169156.

The paper itself is heavily biased. The first line of the abstract “Threats to species continue to increase” is unsupported by any evidence, and this bias using unsupported statements continues throughout.

> Accurately quantifying trends in global biodiversity is crucial in order to understand the impacts of threats on the species and ecosystems.

Yes.

> the Living Planet Database (LPD) and records trends in 14,152 populations of 3,706 species.

That’s not in itself a measure of biodiversity.

> Numbers of species in the LPI database were compared with estimates of the number of known species in each of the following subcategories: system (terrestrial, freshwater, marine); taxonomic group (birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fishes); land-based biogeographic realm for terrestrial and freshwater species (Afrotropical, Australasia, Indo-Malaya, Nearctic, Neotropical, Oceania, Palearctic); marine realm for marine species (Arctic, Atlantic north temperate, Atlantic tropical and subtropical, Pacific north temperate, Tropical and subtropical Indo-Pacific, Southern temperate and Antarctic).

Good, except for the unsupported word “estimates”.

> The Living Planet Database contains a number of abundance records that have been provided in confidence. These are used to calculate the presented trends and statistics, but cannot be made publically available.

OK. I don’t have problems with that.

> We calculated the geometric mean of trends for each species within a Generalised Additive Modelling (GAM) framework, following , whereby each population time series with six or more data points was modelled using a GAM. Population time series with fewer than six data points or that resulted in poor GAM fit were modelled using the chain method . Where we had more than one population time series for a species, the modelled annual trends dt for each population were averaged to provide a single set of annual trends for each species.

I don’t fully understand this, but am already not too keen on the method. If I read it correctly – suppose there are two populations of one species, one of which initially and finally contains 1000 animals and the other initially contains 1 animal and finally contains no animals. Then the mathematical method says that there’s been a 50% drop in population (average of no drop and 100% drop) which is incorrect because there’s only a 0.1% drop in population.

> The second approach, the diversity weighted LPI (LPI-D), incorporates a proportionally weighted system based on the species richness estimates described above (building upon suggestions in ). Because the reptile and amphibian data sets are small, these were combined into one herpetological group (‘herps’), leaving four species groups (‘Birds’, ‘Mammals’, ‘Fish’ and ‘Herps’).

The second approach is better.

I like this figure:

To be continued.

Looking further, perhaps I should ignore McRae because the same results (and same mathematical problem) can be found in the Living Planet Index website itself. Oh wait, McRae quotes the Living Planet Index and the Living Planet Index quotes McRae. I smell a feedback loop here.

http://www.livingplanetindex.org/projects?main_page_project=AboutTheIndex&home_flag=1

> Calculating the index
To calculate an LPI, a generalised additive modelling framework is used to determine the underlying trend in each population time-series (Collen et al. 2009; Loh et al. 2005). Average rates of change are then calculated and aggregated to the species level. For the global LPI, the method of aggregation has recently been revised to include a weighting system which gives trends from more species-rich systems, realms and groups more weight in the final index (McRae et al. 2017).

> The global trend
The global LPI as presented in the Living Planet Report 2016 shows that a subset of 14,152 populations of 3,706 species has declined by 58% in abundance between 1970 and 2012. Trends differ in the different systems, with terrestrial systems declining by 38%, marine systems declining by 36% and freshwater being reduced to less than a quarter of their abundance in 1970.

Looking a bit further into the Living Planet Index I note that almost all of their data (on the map) comes from city suburbs. That is inevitable because the input is crowd sourced, and most of the crowd lives in cities.

For example, only three species are reported from Bass Strait. So all the “warning to humanity” is reporting in its biodiversity chart is a reduction in the number of wild animals seen in cities.

To his credit, McRae has attempted to rectify this problem, but there’s very little that can be done with such faulty input data.

Worldwide species decline is quite evident isn’t it even by casual observation, we have hunted/fished animals to extinction or almost so and are trying to reverse the damage but it may be too late for some species.

mollwollfumble surely logic dictates that the more humanity expands and increases its population, other living things will suffer even if we try to minimise our impact and we aren’t even doing that.

I imagine much of the damage has been hidden from the public by government and big business and it’s only recently the full impact is known as it can’t be hidden any longer.

It’s not like these previous mentioned groups haven’t covered up things before that are far less serious.

Those in power that can change things for the most part don’t care as they think they can ride it out as they are rich and powerful.

mollwollfumble said:

Looking a bit further into the Living Planet Index I note that almost all of their data (on the map) comes from city suburbs. That is inevitable because the input is crowd sourced, and most of the crowd lives in cities.

For example, only three species are reported from Bass Strait. So all the “warning to humanity” is reporting in its biodiversity chart is a reduction in the number of wild animals seen in cities.

To his credit, McRae has attempted to rectify this problem, but there’s very little that can be done with such faulty input data.

>>The World Wildlife Fund and the Zoological Society of London jointly issued their “Living Blue Planet Report” on 16 September 2015 which states that there was a dramatic fall of 74% in world-wide stocks of the important scombridae fish such as mackerel, tuna and bonitos between 1970 and 2010, and the global overall “population sizes of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish fell by half on average in just 40 years.”<<

Land clearing, over fishing, disease, hunting/poaching, etc., etc. Moll humans have in one way or another, stuffed up a great deal of this planets biodiversity. Cats, foxes and cane toads have brought many vertebrate species to extinction in Australia; frog populations through most parts of the world due to the chytrid fungus has been devastated. It is going on all around us, you have even said bird numbers have reduced near you, so I don’t know why you persist with the idea that the world is motoring along with little if any adverse environmental problems, particularly that have been caused by us.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Looking a bit further into the Living Planet Index I note that almost all of their data (on the map) comes from city suburbs. That is inevitable because the input is crowd sourced, and most of the crowd lives in cities.

For example, only three species are reported from Bass Strait. So all the “warning to humanity” is reporting in its biodiversity chart is a reduction in the number of wild animals seen in cities.

To his credit, McRae has attempted to rectify this problem, but there’s very little that can be done with such faulty input data.

>>The World Wildlife Fund and the Zoological Society of London jointly issued their “Living Blue Planet Report” on 16 September 2015 which states that there was a dramatic fall of 74% in world-wide stocks of the important scombridae fish such as mackerel, tuna and bonitos between 1970 and 2010, and the global overall “population sizes of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish fell by half on average in just 40 years.”<<

Land clearing, over fishing, disease, hunting/poaching, etc., etc. Moll humans have in one way or another, stuffed up a great deal of this planets biodiversity. Cats, foxes and cane toads have brought many vertebrate species to extinction in Australia; frog populations through most parts of the world due to the chytrid fungus has been devastated. It is going on all around us, you have even said bird numbers have reduced near you, so I don’t know why you persist with the idea that the world is motoring along with little if any adverse environmental problems, particularly that have been caused by us.

Evolution motors on regardless. Might not be good to us.

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Looking a bit further into the Living Planet Index I note that almost all of their data (on the map) comes from city suburbs. That is inevitable because the input is crowd sourced, and most of the crowd lives in cities.

For example, only three species are reported from Bass Strait. So all the “warning to humanity” is reporting in its biodiversity chart is a reduction in the number of wild animals seen in cities.

To his credit, McRae has attempted to rectify this problem, but there’s very little that can be done with such faulty input data.

>>The World Wildlife Fund and the Zoological Society of London jointly issued their “Living Blue Planet Report” on 16 September 2015 which states that there was a dramatic fall of 74% in world-wide stocks of the important scombridae fish such as mackerel, tuna and bonitos between 1970 and 2010, and the global overall “population sizes of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish fell by half on average in just 40 years.”<<

Land clearing, over fishing, disease, hunting/poaching, etc., etc. Moll humans have in one way or another, stuffed up a great deal of this planets biodiversity. Cats, foxes and cane toads have brought many vertebrate species to extinction in Australia; frog populations through most parts of the world due to the chytrid fungus has been devastated. It is going on all around us, you have even said bird numbers have reduced near you, so I don’t know why you persist with the idea that the world is motoring along with little if any adverse environmental problems, particularly that have been caused by us.

Evolution motors on regardless. Might not be good to us.

To our credit we might damage the planet more than the asteroid that helped bring about the dinosaurs extinction.

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Looking a bit further into the Living Planet Index I note that almost all of their data (on the map) comes from city suburbs. That is inevitable because the input is crowd sourced, and most of the crowd lives in cities.

For example, only three species are reported from Bass Strait. So all the “warning to humanity” is reporting in its biodiversity chart is a reduction in the number of wild animals seen in cities.

To his credit, McRae has attempted to rectify this problem, but there’s very little that can be done with such faulty input data.

>>The World Wildlife Fund and the Zoological Society of London jointly issued their “Living Blue Planet Report” on 16 September 2015 which states that there was a dramatic fall of 74% in world-wide stocks of the important scombridae fish such as mackerel, tuna and bonitos between 1970 and 2010, and the global overall “population sizes of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish fell by half on average in just 40 years.”<<

Land clearing, over fishing, disease, hunting/poaching, etc., etc. Moll humans have in one way or another, stuffed up a great deal of this planets biodiversity. Cats, foxes and cane toads have brought many vertebrate species to extinction in Australia; frog populations through most parts of the world due to the chytrid fungus has been devastated. It is going on all around us, you have even said bird numbers have reduced near you, so I don’t know why you persist with the idea that the world is motoring along with little if any adverse environmental problems, particularly that have been caused by us.

Evolution motors on regardless. Might not be good to us.

Will not be good for most other life forms thanks to us.

PermeateFree said:

buffy said:

PermeateFree said:

>>The World Wildlife Fund and the Zoological Society of London jointly issued their “Living Blue Planet Report” on 16 September 2015 which states that there was a dramatic fall of 74% in world-wide stocks of the important scombridae fish such as mackerel, tuna and bonitos between 1970 and 2010, and the global overall “population sizes of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish fell by half on average in just 40 years.”<<

Land clearing, over fishing, disease, hunting/poaching, etc., etc. Moll humans have in one way or another, stuffed up a great deal of this planets biodiversity. Cats, foxes and cane toads have brought many vertebrate species to extinction in Australia; frog populations through most parts of the world due to the chytrid fungus has been devastated. It is going on all around us, you have even said bird numbers have reduced near you, so I don’t know why you persist with the idea that the world is motoring along with little if any adverse environmental problems, particularly that have been caused by us.

Evolution motors on regardless. Might not be good to us.

Will not be good for most other life forms thanks to us.

Our plastic waste has pretty much been found everywhere including at the bottom of the Mariana trench.
Pity we can’t divert military spending to cleaning up the planet

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble surely logic dictates that the more humanity expands and increases its population, other living things will suffer even if we try to minimise our impact and we aren’t even doing that.

I imagine much of the damage has been hidden from the public by government and big business and it’s only recently the full impact is known as it can’t be hidden any longer.

It’s not like these previous mentioned groups haven’t covered up things before that are far less serious.

Those in power that can change things for the most part don’t care as they think they can ride it out as they are rich and powerful.

Cymek logic surely dictates that measures that have already been taken to clean up air pollution, clean up water pollution, protect wildlife in national parks, protect ocean life in marine parks, put limits on fish sizes and catch sizes in fishery, limit the spraying of insecticides and herbicides, limiting fertiliser use, recycling, environmental remediation of mine sites, reducing fresh water usage, banning of trade in endangered species, zoo breeding programs, reintroduction of keystone species into the environment etc. has a positive rather than negative effect on the environment.

It’s ridiculous to claim that all of these measures are ineffective.

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble surely logic dictates that the more humanity expands and increases its population, other living things will suffer even if we try to minimise our impact and we aren’t even doing that.

I imagine much of the damage has been hidden from the public by government and big business and it’s only recently the full impact is known as it can’t be hidden any longer.

It’s not like these previous mentioned groups haven’t covered up things before that are far less serious.

Those in power that can change things for the most part don’t care as they think they can ride it out as they are rich and powerful.

Cymek logic surely dictates that measures that have already been taken to clean up air pollution, clean up water pollution, protect wildlife in national parks, protect ocean life in marine parks, put limits on fish sizes and catch sizes in fishery, limit the spraying of insecticides and herbicides, limiting fertiliser use, recycling, environmental remediation of mine sites, reducing fresh water usage, banning of trade in endangered species, zoo breeding programs, reintroduction of keystone species into the environment etc. has a positive rather than negative effect on the environment.

It’s ridiculous to claim that all of these measures are ineffective.

If they had been effective the problems should be repairing rather than compounding.

There have been some small encouraging results from reintroducing species but releasing into unfenced areas is yet to show such encouraging results.

Until the majority of the population change their attitudes things will likely only continue to worsen.

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble surely logic dictates that the more humanity expands and increases its population, other living things will suffer even if we try to minimise our impact and we aren’t even doing that.

I imagine much of the damage has been hidden from the public by government and big business and it’s only recently the full impact is known as it can’t be hidden any longer.

It’s not like these previous mentioned groups haven’t covered up things before that are far less serious.

Those in power that can change things for the most part don’t care as they think they can ride it out as they are rich and powerful.

Cymek logic surely dictates that measures that have already been taken to clean up air pollution, clean up water pollution, protect wildlife in national parks, protect ocean life in marine parks, put limits on fish sizes and catch sizes in fishery, limit the spraying of insecticides and herbicides, limiting fertiliser use, recycling, environmental remediation of mine sites, reducing fresh water usage, banning of trade in endangered species, zoo breeding programs, reintroduction of keystone species into the environment etc. has a positive rather than negative effect on the environment.

It’s ridiculous to claim that all of these measures are ineffective.

Australia is not the world and what of the above that has been effective, it is relatively small and very localised even in Australia. Most of the world does not adopt these practices.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble surely logic dictates that the more humanity expands and increases its population, other living things will suffer even if we try to minimise our impact and we aren’t even doing that.

I imagine much of the damage has been hidden from the public by government and big business and it’s only recently the full impact is known as it can’t be hidden any longer.

It’s not like these previous mentioned groups haven’t covered up things before that are far less serious.

Those in power that can change things for the most part don’t care as they think they can ride it out as they are rich and powerful.

Cymek logic surely dictates that measures that have already been taken to clean up air pollution, clean up water pollution, protect wildlife in national parks, protect ocean life in marine parks, put limits on fish sizes and catch sizes in fishery, limit the spraying of insecticides and herbicides, limiting fertiliser use, recycling, environmental remediation of mine sites, reducing fresh water usage, banning of trade in endangered species, zoo breeding programs, reintroduction of keystone species into the environment etc. has a positive rather than negative effect on the environment.

It’s ridiculous to claim that all of these measures are ineffective.

Australia is not the world and what of the above that has been effective, it is relatively small and very localised even in Australia. Most of the world does not adopt these practices.

I imagine you can’t repair a century of treating the Earth like a toilet with relatively small scale efforts over decades.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble surely logic dictates that the more humanity expands and increases its population, other living things will suffer even if we try to minimise our impact and we aren’t even doing that.

I imagine much of the damage has been hidden from the public by government and big business and it’s only recently the full impact is known as it can’t be hidden any longer.

It’s not like these previous mentioned groups haven’t covered up things before that are far less serious.

Those in power that can change things for the most part don’t care as they think they can ride it out as they are rich and powerful.

Cymek logic surely dictates that measures that have already been taken to clean up air pollution, clean up water pollution, protect wildlife in national parks, protect ocean life in marine parks, put limits on fish sizes and catch sizes in fishery, limit the spraying of insecticides and herbicides, limiting fertiliser use, recycling, environmental remediation of mine sites, reducing fresh water usage, banning of trade in endangered species, zoo breeding programs, reintroduction of keystone species into the environment etc. has a positive rather than negative effect on the environment.

It’s ridiculous to claim that all of these measures are ineffective.

Australia is not the world and what of the above that has been effective, it is relatively small and very localised even in Australia. Most of the world does not adopt these practices.

and even so a large proportion of Australia couldn’t give a shit and will do whatever they want regardless of any restrictions.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek logic surely dictates that measures that have already been taken to clean up air pollution, clean up water pollution, protect wildlife in national parks, protect ocean life in marine parks, put limits on fish sizes and catch sizes in fishery, limit the spraying of insecticides and herbicides, limiting fertiliser use, recycling, environmental remediation of mine sites, reducing fresh water usage, banning of trade in endangered species, zoo breeding programs, reintroduction of keystone species into the environment etc. has a positive rather than negative effect on the environment.

It’s ridiculous to claim that all of these measures are ineffective.

Australia is not the world and what of the above that has been effective, it is relatively small and very localised even in Australia. Most of the world does not adopt these practices.

I imagine you can’t repair a century of treating the Earth like a toilet with relatively small scale efforts over decades.

Never give up. Baby steps are good, even if they start decades too late.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Australia is not the world and what of the above that has been effective, it is relatively small and very localised even in Australia. Most of the world does not adopt these practices.

I imagine you can’t repair a century of treating the Earth like a toilet with relatively small scale efforts over decades.

Never give up. Baby steps are good, even if they start decades too late.

That is true

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble surely logic dictates that the more humanity expands and increases its population, other living things will suffer even if we try to minimise our impact and we aren’t even doing that.

I imagine much of the damage has been hidden from the public by government and big business and it’s only recently the full impact is known as it can’t be hidden any longer.

It’s not like these previous mentioned groups haven’t covered up things before that are far less serious.

Those in power that can change things for the most part don’t care as they think they can ride it out as they are rich and powerful.

Cymek logic surely dictates that measures that have already been taken to clean up air pollution, clean up water pollution, protect wildlife in national parks, protect ocean life in marine parks, put limits on fish sizes and catch sizes in fishery, limit the spraying of insecticides and herbicides, limiting fertiliser use, recycling, environmental remediation of mine sites, reducing fresh water usage, banning of trade in endangered species, zoo breeding programs, reintroduction of keystone species into the environment etc. has a positive rather than negative effect on the environment.

It’s ridiculous to claim that all of these measures are ineffective.

Australia is not the world and what of the above that has been effective, it is relatively small and very localised even in Australia. Most of the world does not adopt these practices.

Bullshit. Almost all populous countries adopt every one of these practices. Perhaps bad boys Syria, Pakistan and Nigeria don’t, but every country in South and North America does, as well as almost all if not all of South East Asia, almost all if not all of Europe, Russia, China, and some countries in Africa.

For example, 183 countries have signed CITES, including Nigeria and Pakistan and excluding only four countries: North Korea, Western Sahara, Turkmenistan and South Sudan.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek logic surely dictates that measures that have already been taken to clean up air pollution, clean up water pollution, protect wildlife in national parks, protect ocean life in marine parks, put limits on fish sizes and catch sizes in fishery, limit the spraying of insecticides and herbicides, limiting fertiliser use, recycling, environmental remediation of mine sites, reducing fresh water usage, banning of trade in endangered species, zoo breeding programs, reintroduction of keystone species into the environment etc. has a positive rather than negative effect on the environment.

It’s ridiculous to claim that all of these measures are ineffective.

Australia is not the world and what of the above that has been effective, it is relatively small and very localised even in Australia. Most of the world does not adopt these practices.

Bullshit. Almost all populous countries adopt every one of these practices. Perhaps bad boys Syria, Pakistan and Nigeria don’t, but every country in South and North America does, as well as almost all if not all of South East Asia, almost all if not all of Europe, Russia, China, and some countries in Africa.

For example, 183 countries have signed CITES, including Nigeria and Pakistan and excluding only four countries: North Korea, Western Sahara, Turkmenistan and South Sudan.

The either-orism is getting a bit extreme this morning I see.

Seems to me that the question is not whether all the measures are totally ineffective, it is whether sufficient of them are sufficiently effective to result in long term improvement in environmental conditions, rather than degradation.

Sorry, me thinks the mollwollfumble doth protest to much.

If I get around to it, I’ll plot up what I think the biodiversity loss graph should look like, and try to figure out how they made a mistake in their dead zone calculations.

mollwollfumble said:

Sorry, me thinks the mollwollfumble doth protest to much.

If I get around to it, I’ll plot up what I think the biodiversity loss graph should look like, and try to figure out how they made a mistake in their dead zone calculations.

You go and reinvent the wheel moll and put all those stupid scientists out of a job.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek logic surely dictates that measures that have already been taken to clean up air pollution, clean up water pollution, protect wildlife in national parks, protect ocean life in marine parks, put limits on fish sizes and catch sizes in fishery, limit the spraying of insecticides and herbicides, limiting fertiliser use, recycling, environmental remediation of mine sites, reducing fresh water usage, banning of trade in endangered species, zoo breeding programs, reintroduction of keystone species into the environment etc. has a positive rather than negative effect on the environment.

It’s ridiculous to claim that all of these measures are ineffective.

Australia is not the world and what of the above that has been effective, it is relatively small and very localised even in Australia. Most of the world does not adopt these practices.

Bullshit. Almost all populous countries adopt every one of these practices. Perhaps bad boys Syria, Pakistan and Nigeria don’t, but every country in South and North America does, as well as almost all if not all of South East Asia, almost all if not all of Europe, Russia, China, and some countries in Africa.

For example, 183 countries have signed CITES, including Nigeria and Pakistan and excluding only four countries: North Korea, Western Sahara, Turkmenistan and South Sudan.

It is more a problem of whether they abide by any environmental safeguards, let alone police them, then of course do the fund them? Do you live in a little bubble somewhere? You do not seem to have comprehension of anything outside of your backyard.

Seems some stuff has worked, and some people care.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-20/curlews-popping-up-in-canberra-suburbs-after-reintroduction/9567094

Up to 20,000 now

Michael V said:

Seems some stuff has worked, and some people care.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-20/curlews-popping-up-in-canberra-suburbs-after-reintroduction/9567094

That’s a great story.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Sorry, me thinks the mollwollfumble doth protest to much.

If I get around to it, I’ll plot up what I think the biodiversity loss graph should look like, and try to figure out how they made a mistake in their dead zone calculations.

You go and reinvent the wheel moll and put all those stupid scientists out of a job.

Scientists can be so gullible. Not reinvent the wheel, put the two wheels that have fallen off back on.

The whole biodiversity graph came from a biased paper by just three people, with no indication that they were even scientists. But it gets into the media and becomes a religion.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Sorry, me thinks the mollwollfumble doth protest to much.

If I get around to it, I’ll plot up what I think the biodiversity loss graph should look like, and try to figure out how they made a mistake in their dead zone calculations.

You go and reinvent the wheel moll and put all those stupid scientists out of a job.

Scientists can be so gullible. Not reinvent the wheel, put the two wheels that have fallen off back on.

The whole biodiversity graph came from a biased paper by just three people, with no indication that they were even scientists. But it gets into the media and becomes a religion.

>>Dead zones are hypoxic (low-oxygen) areas in the world’s oceans and large lakes, caused by “excessive nutrient pollution from human activities coupled with other factors that deplete the oxygen required to support most marine life in bottom and near-bottom water. (NOAA)”. In the 1970s oceanographers began noting increased instances of dead zones. These occur near inhabited coastlines, where aquatic life is most concentrated. (The vast middle portions of the oceans, which naturally have little life, are not considered “dead zones”.)

In March 2004, when the recently established UN Environment Programme published its first Global Environment Outlook Year Book (GEO Year Book 2003), it reported 146 dead zones in the world’s oceans where marine life could not be supported due to depleted oxygen levels. Some of these were as small as a square kilometre (0.4 mi²), but the largest dead zone covered 70,000 square kilometres (27,000 mi²). A 2008 study counted 405 dead zones worldwide.<<

For your information moll, these zones are generally increasing in number and size, and are being monitored by numerous scientific bodies. If you require more information, just ask!

Michael V said:

Seems some stuff has worked, and some people care.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-20/curlews-popping-up-in-canberra-suburbs-after-reintroduction/9567094

That is very good and I applaud it wholeheartedly, but you should also note the following quote from the same article.

>>The ground-dwelling bird was obliterated by foxes and cats in the ACT before being declared extinct there in 1970.
Dr Grarock said predator-proof areas like the sanctuary were essential to protect the endangered bird, which was once common across the region.<<

It is hardly a successful environmental measure when we need to keep our wildlife behind predator proof enclosures, unless you intend building a very large number of them, or alternatively and a longer term solution, would be to get rid of or greatly reduce the predator numbers. This is the problem, people think we are looking after the environment, with this type of publicity, whilst outside of these enclosures the wildlife is being pushed to extinction.

PermeateFree said:

Michael V said:

Seems some stuff has worked, and some people care.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-20/curlews-popping-up-in-canberra-suburbs-after-reintroduction/9567094

That is very good and I applaud it wholeheartedly, but you should also note the following quote from the same article.

>>The ground-dwelling bird was obliterated by foxes and cats in the ACT before being declared extinct there in 1970.
Dr Grarock said predator-proof areas like the sanctuary were essential to protect the endangered bird, which was once common across the region.<<

It is hardly a successful environmental measure when we need to keep our wildlife behind predator proof enclosures, unless you intend building a very large number of them, or alternatively and a longer term solution, would be to get rid of or greatly reduce the predator numbers. This is the problem, people think we are looking after the environment, with this type of publicity, whilst outside of these enclosures the wildlife is being pushed to extinction.

I wonder if allowing foxes and feral cats as food for humans would be useful

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

You go and reinvent the wheel moll and put all those stupid scientists out of a job.

Scientists can be so gullible. Not reinvent the wheel, put the two wheels that have fallen off back on.

The whole biodiversity graph came from a biased paper by just three people, with no indication that they were even scientists. But it gets into the media and becomes a religion.

>>Dead zones are hypoxic (low-oxygen) areas in the world’s oceans and large lakes, caused by “excessive nutrient pollution from human activities coupled with other factors that deplete the oxygen required to support most marine life in bottom and near-bottom water. (NOAA)”. In the 1970s oceanographers began noting increased instances of dead zones. These occur near inhabited coastlines, where aquatic life is most concentrated. (The vast middle portions of the oceans, which naturally have little life, are not considered “dead zones”.)

In March 2004, when the recently established UN Environment Programme published its first Global Environment Outlook Year Book (GEO Year Book 2003), it reported 146 dead zones in the world’s oceans where marine life could not be supported due to depleted oxygen levels. Some of these were as small as a square kilometre (0.4 mi²), but the largest dead zone covered 70,000 square kilometres (27,000 mi²). A 2008 study counted 405 dead zones worldwide.<<

For your information moll, these zones are generally increasing in number and size, and are being monitored by numerous scientific bodies. If you require more information, just ask!

The latest report dated January 2018

>>Hidden ‘Dead Zones’ in The Ocean Have Quadrupled Since The ’50s, And That’s Really Bad<<

>>It’s no secret that the world’s oceans are struggling with plastic pollution and rising temperatures, but hidden below the surface is a very serious problem – the ocean is running out of oxygen, and fast, according to the most comprehensive study of the ocean’s ‘dead zones’ to date.

The new study reviewed evidence on low-oxygen zones collected around the world, and found that these deadly swathes of water in the open ocean have quadrupled in number since the 1950s, expanding by millions of square kilometres. And that’s a much bigger problem than most people recognise.<<

https://www.sciencealert.com/dead-zones-in-ocean-quadrupled-since-1950s-killing-marine-life

Global Warming is now playing a bigger role! Strongly suggest you read moll.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Michael V said:

Seems some stuff has worked, and some people care.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-20/curlews-popping-up-in-canberra-suburbs-after-reintroduction/9567094

That is very good and I applaud it wholeheartedly, but you should also note the following quote from the same article.

>>The ground-dwelling bird was obliterated by foxes and cats in the ACT before being declared extinct there in 1970.
Dr Grarock said predator-proof areas like the sanctuary were essential to protect the endangered bird, which was once common across the region.<<

It is hardly a successful environmental measure when we need to keep our wildlife behind predator proof enclosures, unless you intend building a very large number of them, or alternatively and a longer term solution, would be to get rid of or greatly reduce the predator numbers. This is the problem, people think we are looking after the environment, with this type of publicity, whilst outside of these enclosures the wildlife is being pushed to extinction.

I wonder if allowing foxes and feral cats as food for humans would be useful

I can just imagine cat lovers sitting down to a savory roast moggie, or as the desert Aboriginals prefer, lightly BBQ with just the fur burnt off. But equally important beside people’s preference, is catching them, don’t think you would make much difference even if people would eat them. Not so long ago fox skins had a big market, but any fox numbers reduced then, were soon replaced.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

That is very good and I applaud it wholeheartedly, but you should also note the following quote from the same article.

>>The ground-dwelling bird was obliterated by foxes and cats in the ACT before being declared extinct there in 1970.
Dr Grarock said predator-proof areas like the sanctuary were essential to protect the endangered bird, which was once common across the region.<<

It is hardly a successful environmental measure when we need to keep our wildlife behind predator proof enclosures, unless you intend building a very large number of them, or alternatively and a longer term solution, would be to get rid of or greatly reduce the predator numbers. This is the problem, people think we are looking after the environment, with this type of publicity, whilst outside of these enclosures the wildlife is being pushed to extinction.

I wonder if allowing foxes and feral cats as food for humans would be useful

I can just imagine cat lovers sitting down to a savory roast moggie, or as the desert Aboriginals prefer, lightly BBQ with just the fur burnt off. But equally important beside people’s preference, is catching them, don’t think you would make much difference even if people would eat them. Not so long ago fox skins had a big market, but any fox numbers reduced then, were soon replaced.

I do remember a documentary on two old Aboriginal women catching feral cats and eating them. They mentioned the cats aren’t well adapted to escaping in a desert type environment

If you thought Trump has done his worse, try reading this article to see his affect on scientific study. This sort of thing is happening all over.

>>One of the world’s richest troves of Triassic-period fossils has been discovered in an area of Bears Ears National Monument that just lost its protected status, scientists announced Thursday. President Trump signed a proclamation in December that shrank the national monument by 85 percent.<<

>>Gay alerted the BLM’s district paleontologist to the problem, and a bureau official told him that its Arizona office had a fragment of fossil that was surrendered in 2008 by a collector who lacked a permit. The team matched the fossil to the recent Bears Ears findings, proving that it came from the same site.

“They broke off the skull,” Gay said of the amateurs who robbed the site.

“They didn’t even take the whole skull. Also, they missed the entire rest of the animal and several other animals laying on top of it and hundreds and hundreds of bones laying across the slope.”<<

https://www.scienceaf.com/rare-fossils-found-at-bears-ears-right-where-trump-removed-protections?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=native

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

I wonder if allowing foxes and feral cats as food for humans would be useful

I can just imagine cat lovers sitting down to a savory roast moggie, or as the desert Aboriginals prefer, lightly BBQ with just the fur burnt off. But equally important beside people’s preference, is catching them, don’t think you would make much difference even if people would eat them. Not so long ago fox skins had a big market, but any fox numbers reduced then, were soon replaced.

I do remember a documentary on two old Aboriginal women catching feral cats and eating them. They mentioned the cats aren’t well adapted to escaping in a desert type environment

No they can’t run far, especially in the heat of the day, plus their footprints in the sand are easy to track.

Well it all goes to show there is no point in trying is what you are saying. So I won’t any more.

Michael V said:

Well it all goes to show there is no point in trying is what you are saying. So I won’t any more.

MV, what would you prefer the optimistic rubbish of moll, or a real time portrayal of the actual situation. You have no hope of doing anything about it if you don’t know the extent of the problem. The problem is very big and very real!

PermeateFree said:

Michael V said:

Well it all goes to show there is no point in trying is what you are saying. So I won’t any more.

MV, what would you prefer the optimistic rubbish of moll, or a real time portrayal of the actual situation. You have no hope of doing anything about it if you don’t know the extent of the problem. The problem is very big and very real!

I would prefer to not know that there is no point in trying. I would prefer to know that my meagre, minuscule efforts are maybe just a little tiny bit worthwhile.

You seem to to me to be saying there’s no point in trying because the extent of the problem is so huge. I agree with you now, so I won’t be bothered trying any more. I had my hopes up that many, maybe most people were trying to do their bit, but now you’ve put me straight, I see the futility of my actions, so I won’t be bothered. It’s less stressful that way for me.

I wonder if allowing foxes and feral cats as food for humans would be useful.

—

I thought that rb was catching enough cats to feed half of NSW.

Michael V said:

PermeateFree said:

Michael V said:

Well it all goes to show there is no point in trying is what you are saying. So I won’t any more.

MV, what would you prefer the optimistic rubbish of moll, or a real time portrayal of the actual situation. You have no hope of doing anything about it if you don’t know the extent of the problem. The problem is very big and very real!

I would prefer to not know that there is no point in trying. I would prefer to know that my meagre, minuscule efforts are maybe just a little tiny bit worthwhile.

You seem to to me to be saying there’s no point in trying because the extent of the problem is so huge. I agree with you now, so I won’t be bothered trying any more. I had my hopes up that many, maybe most people were trying to do their bit, but now you’ve put me straight, I see the futility of my actions, so I won’t be bothered. It’s less stressful that way for me.

The OP is all about these massive problems we are facing, yet most of humanity looks the other way and does not want to know. I remember some years ago saying in this or the previous forums that I wondered why all the mothers of young children were not marching en mass to parliament, to demand politicians do something, but I was howled down as an alarmist extremist (as I have also been labelled in this thread). Well as they say the chooks are now coming home to roost. We should have acted years ago to permit us some control of our destiny, but we let it slip through our fingers. I don’t know where it is going to end, but I can say, it will be a long way down.

Ian said:

I wonder if allowing foxes and feral cats as food for humans would be useful.

—

I thought that rb was catching enough cats to feed half of NSW.

He never sends them up this way.

PermeateFree said:

Michael V said:

PermeateFree said:

MV, what would you prefer the optimistic rubbish of moll, or a real time portrayal of the actual situation. You have no hope of doing anything about it if you don’t know the extent of the problem. The problem is very big and very real!

I would prefer to not know that there is no point in trying. I would prefer to know that my meagre, minuscule efforts are maybe just a little tiny bit worthwhile.

You seem to to me to be saying there’s no point in trying because the extent of the problem is so huge. I agree with you now, so I won’t be bothered trying any more. I had my hopes up that many, maybe most people were trying to do their bit, but now you’ve put me straight, I see the futility of my actions, so I won’t be bothered. It’s less stressful that way for me.

The OP is all about these massive problems we are facing, yet most of humanity looks the other way and does not want to know. I remember some years ago saying in this or the previous forums that I wondered why all the mothers of young children were not marching en mass to parliament, to demand politicians do something, but I was howled down as an alarmist extremist (as I have also been labelled in this thread). Well as they say the chooks are now coming home to roost. We should have acted years ago to permit us some control of our destiny, but we let it slip through our fingers. I don’t know where it is going to end, but I can say, it will be a long way down.

So there’s no point. I may as well look the other way and greedily use up what I can while I still can, I suppose.

Michael V said:

PermeateFree said:

Michael V said:

I would prefer to not know that there is no point in trying. I would prefer to know that my meagre, minuscule efforts are maybe just a little tiny bit worthwhile.

You seem to to me to be saying there’s no point in trying because the extent of the problem is so huge. I agree with you now, so I won’t be bothered trying any more. I had my hopes up that many, maybe most people were trying to do their bit, but now you’ve put me straight, I see the futility of my actions, so I won’t be bothered. It’s less stressful that way for me.

The OP is all about these massive problems we are facing, yet most of humanity looks the other way and does not want to know. I remember some years ago saying in this or the previous forums that I wondered why all the mothers of young children were not marching en mass to parliament, to demand politicians do something, but I was howled down as an alarmist extremist (as I have also been labelled in this thread). Well as they say the chooks are now coming home to roost. We should have acted years ago to permit us some control of our destiny, but we let it slip through our fingers. I don’t know where it is going to end, but I can say, it will be a long way down.

So there’s no point. I may as well look the other way and greedily use up what I can while I still can, I suppose.

Your choice, as doing nothing will be for most people. That is why we find ourselves in this position, it is not individuals like you or me that can do much. But too many people on this planet need a lot of resources and they all come from the environment, which has simply had enough of us.

You seem to to me to be saying there’s no point in trying because the extent of the problem is so huge. I agree with you now, so I won’t be bothered trying any more. I had my hopes up that many, maybe most people were trying to do their bit, but now you’ve put me straight, I see the futility of my actions, so I won’t be bothered. It’s less stressful that way for me. 

—

Sarcastic bugger

Ian said:

You seem to to me to be saying there’s no point in trying because the extent of the problem is so huge. I agree with you now, so I won’t be bothered trying any more. I had my hopes up that many, maybe most people were trying to do their bit, but now you’ve put me straight, I see the futility of my actions, so I won’t be bothered. It’s less stressful that way for me. 

—

Sarcastic bugger

No like most people, he is living his dream. I certainly don’t worry about it any more, but observe from a distance the stupidity of our species.

Realistically things that could be stopped in first world nations almost immediately would be logging of old growth forests and giving other nations incentives to stop doing it as well, could be past as law if politicians had the motivation. An old industry that just has to die

Cymek said:

Realistically things that could be stopped in first world nations almost immediately would be logging of old growth forests and giving other nations incentives to stop doing it as well, could be past as law if politicians had the motivation. An old industry that just has to die

A couple of other suggestions:

• High fuel taxes.
• Large car engines ban.

Cymek said:

Realistically things that could be stopped in first world nations almost immediately would be logging of old growth forests and giving other nations incentives to stop doing it as well, could be past as law if politicians had the motivation. An old industry that just has to die

There is a great deal of corruption in that business, like the trading of endangered animals. Logging is often illegal, Amazon, Indonesia, PNG, etc.

PermeateFree said:

If you thought Trump has done his worse, try reading this article to see his affect on scientific study. This sort of thing is happening all over.

>>One of the world’s richest troves of Triassic-period fossils has been discovered in an area of Bears Ears National Monument that just lost its protected status, scientists announced Thursday. President Trump signed a proclamation in December that shrank the national monument by 85 percent.<<

>>Gay alerted the BLM’s district paleontologist to the problem, and a bureau official told him that its Arizona office had a fragment of fossil that was surrendered in 2008 by a collector who lacked a permit. The team matched the fossil to the recent Bears Ears findings, proving that it came from the same site.

“They broke off the skull,” Gay said of the amateurs who robbed the site.

“They didn’t even take the whole skull. Also, they missed the entire rest of the animal and several other animals laying on top of it and hundreds and hundreds of bones laying across the slope.”<<

https://www.scienceaf.com/rare-fossils-found-at-bears-ears-right-where-trump-removed-protections?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=native

Here is one from Australia, just for you.

>>I wish I didn’t have to send this email. A few minutes ago, Josh Frydenberg released the management plans for Australia’s marine reserve and it’s worse than we ever imagined.

Australia’s network of marine parks has been gutted. The more pristine the area, the more savage the changes are. The Coral Sea has gone from being the Jewel in the Crown of the Commonwealth Marine Reserves protecting the eastern side of the Great Barrier Reef to now being a haven for longlining and trawling.

They have even massively extended an area of trawling immediately adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

This decision removes more area from conservation than any decision from any government in any country ever. That’s right, there has never been a step backwards in environmental protection as large as this from any country on Earth.<<

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

If you thought Trump has done his worse, try reading this article to see his affect on scientific study. This sort of thing is happening all over.

>>One of the world’s richest troves of Triassic-period fossils has been discovered in an area of Bears Ears National Monument that just lost its protected status, scientists announced Thursday. President Trump signed a proclamation in December that shrank the national monument by 85 percent.<<

>>Gay alerted the BLM’s district paleontologist to the problem, and a bureau official told him that its Arizona office had a fragment of fossil that was surrendered in 2008 by a collector who lacked a permit. The team matched the fossil to the recent Bears Ears findings, proving that it came from the same site.

“They broke off the skull,” Gay said of the amateurs who robbed the site.

“They didn’t even take the whole skull. Also, they missed the entire rest of the animal and several other animals laying on top of it and hundreds and hundreds of bones laying across the slope.”<<

https://www.scienceaf.com/rare-fossils-found-at-bears-ears-right-where-trump-removed-protections?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=native

Here is one from Australia, just for you.

>>I wish I didn’t have to send this email. A few minutes ago, Josh Frydenberg released the management plans for Australia’s marine reserve and it’s worse than we ever imagined.

Australia’s network of marine parks has been gutted. The more pristine the area, the more savage the changes are. The Coral Sea has gone from being the Jewel in the Crown of the Commonwealth Marine Reserves protecting the eastern side of the Great Barrier Reef to now being a haven for longlining and trawling.

They have even massively extended an area of trawling immediately adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

This decision removes more area from conservation than any decision from any government in any country ever. That’s right, there has never been a step backwards in environmental protection as large as this from any country on Earth.<<

So clearly, no point in any of us doing anything. It’s so depressing.

Michael V said:

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

If you thought Trump has done his worse, try reading this article to see his affect on scientific study. This sort of thing is happening all over.

>>One of the world’s richest troves of Triassic-period fossils has been discovered in an area of Bears Ears National Monument that just lost its protected status, scientists announced Thursday. President Trump signed a proclamation in December that shrank the national monument by 85 percent.<<

>>Gay alerted the BLM’s district paleontologist to the problem, and a bureau official told him that its Arizona office had a fragment of fossil that was surrendered in 2008 by a collector who lacked a permit. The team matched the fossil to the recent Bears Ears findings, proving that it came from the same site.

“They broke off the skull,” Gay said of the amateurs who robbed the site.

“They didn’t even take the whole skull. Also, they missed the entire rest of the animal and several other animals laying on top of it and hundreds and hundreds of bones laying across the slope.”<<

https://www.scienceaf.com/rare-fossils-found-at-bears-ears-right-where-trump-removed-protections?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=native

Here is one from Australia, just for you.

>>I wish I didn’t have to send this email. A few minutes ago, Josh Frydenberg released the management plans for Australia’s marine reserve and it’s worse than we ever imagined.

Australia’s network of marine parks has been gutted. The more pristine the area, the more savage the changes are. The Coral Sea has gone from being the Jewel in the Crown of the Commonwealth Marine Reserves protecting the eastern side of the Great Barrier Reef to now being a haven for longlining and trawling.

They have even massively extended an area of trawling immediately adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

This decision removes more area from conservation than any decision from any government in any country ever. That’s right, there has never been a step backwards in environmental protection as large as this from any country on Earth.<<

So clearly, no point in any of us doing anything. It’s so depressing.

Good job you don’t read the scientific research on environmental matters that would really depress you.

PermeateFree said:

Michael V said:

PermeateFree said:

Here is one from Australia, just for you.

>>I wish I didn’t have to send this email. A few minutes ago, Josh Frydenberg released the management plans for Australia’s marine reserve and it’s worse than we ever imagined.

Australia’s network of marine parks has been gutted. The more pristine the area, the more savage the changes are. The Coral Sea has gone from being the Jewel in the Crown of the Commonwealth Marine Reserves protecting the eastern side of the Great Barrier Reef to now being a haven for longlining and trawling.

They have even massively extended an area of trawling immediately adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

This decision removes more area from conservation than any decision from any government in any country ever. That’s right, there has never been a step backwards in environmental protection as large as this from any country on Earth.<<

So clearly, no point in any of us doing anything. It’s so depressing.

Good job you don’t read the scientific research on environmental matters that would really depress you.

Anything not positive is depressing, really.

Michael V said:

PermeateFree said:

Michael V said:

So clearly, no point in any of us doing anything. It’s so depressing.

Good job you don’t read the scientific research on environmental matters that would really depress you.

Anything not positive is depressing, really.

Sounds like wishful thinking.

Can we make this thread more depressing

Bird Biodiversity Loss.

Since the year 1800, the number of bird species that have gone extinct is 108.
Since the year 1970, the number of bird species that have gone extinct is 9.

In 2014, the number of recognised bird species was 10,426.
So in terms of raw numbers, we’ve experienced a 1% loss of bird biodiversity since 1800,
and a 0.1% loss of bird biodiversity since 1970.

There’s another way of looking at this that is more hopeful. Very few of the bird species that went extinct were on continents, so few that I can easily list them here. Dates are approximate.
1981. Eskimo Curlew
1950. Imperial Woodpecker
1924. Pink-headed Duck
1916. Korean Crested Shelduck
1914. Passenger Pigeon
1914. Forest Spotted Owlet (rediscovered 1997)
1875. Labrador Duck
1844. Great Auk
1800. Painted Vulture
1765. Yellow-headed Macaw

Island biogeography is a major branch of science, and the dominant lesson to be learnt from it is that although species come and go, the biodiversity on each remains the same. The number of species lost equals the number of species gained.

However, let’s stick to a 0.1% world loss of bird biodiversity since 1970.
Not fuckin’ 58%.

mollwollfumble said:

Bird Biodiversity Loss.

Since the year 1800, the number of bird species that have gone extinct is 108.
Since the year 1970, the number of bird species that have gone extinct is 9.

In 2014, the number of recognised bird species was 10,426.
So in terms of raw numbers, we’ve experienced a 1% loss of bird biodiversity since 1800,
and a 0.1% loss of bird biodiversity since 1970.

There’s another way of looking at this that is more hopeful. Very few of the bird species that went extinct were on continents, so few that I can easily list them here. Dates are approximate.
1981. Eskimo Curlew
1950. Imperial Woodpecker
1924. Pink-headed Duck
1916. Korean Crested Shelduck
1914. Passenger Pigeon
1914. Forest Spotted Owlet (rediscovered 1997)
1875. Labrador Duck
1844. Great Auk
1800. Painted Vulture
1765. Yellow-headed Macaw

Island biogeography is a major branch of science, and the dominant lesson to be learnt from it is that although species come and go, the biodiversity on each remains the same. The number of species lost on each individual island equals the number of species gained on that island.

However, let’s stick to a 0.1% world loss of bird biodiversity since 1970.
Not fuckin’ 58%.

Oops, forgot Paradise Parrot.

Now to find out why they got the number of “dead zones” so badly wrong.

The reference is Diaz and Rosenberg, 2008. Now looking up paper.

> The visible ecosystem response to eutrophication is the greening of the water columnas the algae and vegetation in coastal areas grow in direct response to nutrient enrichment.

Hold on. There’s a huge difference between an algal bloom and a “dead zone”. Each algal bloom needs to be evaluated individually to determine whether is has a positive or negative effect on fish numbers. But let’s look further.

> More recently, dead zones have developed in continental seas,such as the Baltic, Kattegat, Black Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and East China Sea, all of which are major fishery areas.

OK. But not necessarily all that recently. There may have been dead zones there dating back much further.

> Localized declines of DO levels were noted in the Baltic Sea as early as the 1930s. Localized hypoxia had also been observed since the1930s in the Chesapeake Bay

Yes. Thank you for agreeing with me.

> Although the anthropogenic fertilization of marine systems by excess nitrogen has been linked to many ecosystem-level changes, there are natural processes that can lead to nutrient enrichment along continental margins that produce similar ecosystem responses. Coastal upwelling zones associated with the western boundary of continental landmasses are highly productive but are associated with severe hypoxia.

Thank you for recognising this. For example, many whale species rely for their existence on this natural nutrient enrichment.

> The observed declines in DO have lagged about 10 years behind the increased use of industrially produced nitrogen fertilizer that began in the late 1940s, with explosive growth in the 1960s to 1970s.

Interesting.

General comment. The more I read Diaz and Rosenberg (2008), the more I object to the words “dead zone”. Only about half of the locations found result in any die-back of benthic organisms at all, and so far in the paper in each of those the benthic community is completely reestablished each autumn. There’s no die back of fish at all in the cases mentioned in the paper so far.

On the other hand, I have not found the authors of this paper to be biased, which is good.

To be continued. I like the following figure.

mollwollfumble said:

However, let’s stick to a 0.1% world loss of bird biodiversity since 1970.
Not fuckin’ 58%.

The above was putting the first wheel back on the cart. Now putting the second wheel back on the cart.

They’re not measuring “dead zones”. They’re not even measuring eutrophication (which as you will appreciate is not the same). They’re measuring phytoplankton, which because it’s the base of the food chain leads to maximum biodiversity.

So, a sneak peak ahead to Good Scientist Cartoon 525.

To be more precise, extreme phytoplankton blooms can lead to a boom and bust cycle where there’s eutrophication in the bust phase. But not only does the boom phase dominate, it can and (in the cases studied does) occur without any fish deaths at all. The boom bust cycle is a natural phenomenon as well, in the same locations (river mouths). So what we’re seeing is a reduction in toxic chemical use around the world (including a reduction in acid rain) resulting in a return of the coastal environment to its pristine state. This is a good thing.

mollwollfumble said:

Bird Biodiversity Loss.

Since the year 1800, the number of bird species that have gone extinct is 108.
Since the year 1970, the number of bird species that have gone extinct is 9.

In 2014, the number of recognised bird species was 10,426.
So in terms of raw numbers, we’ve experienced a 1% loss of bird biodiversity since 1800,
and a 0.1% loss of bird biodiversity since 1970.

There’s another way of looking at this that is more hopeful. Very few of the bird species that went extinct were on continents, so few that I can easily list them here. Dates are approximate.
1981. Eskimo Curlew
1950. Imperial Woodpecker
1924. Pink-headed Duck
1916. Korean Crested Shelduck
1914. Passenger Pigeon
1914. Forest Spotted Owlet (rediscovered 1997)
1875. Labrador Duck
1844. Great Auk
1800. Painted Vulture
1765. Yellow-headed Macaw

Island biogeography is a major branch of science, and the dominant lesson to be learnt from it is that although species come and go, the biodiversity on each remains the same. The number of species lost equals the number of species gained.

However, let’s stick to a 0.1% world loss of bird biodiversity since 1970.
Not fuckin’ 58%.

It was not species loss, but a 58% reduction in vertebrate numbers (including birds), which of course will send some species extinct.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

Bird Biodiversity Loss.

Since the year 1800, the number of bird species that have gone extinct is 108.
Since the year 1970, the number of bird species that have gone extinct is 9.

In 2014, the number of recognised bird species was 10,426.
So in terms of raw numbers, we’ve experienced a 1% loss of bird biodiversity since 1800,
and a 0.1% loss of bird biodiversity since 1970.

There’s another way of looking at this that is more hopeful. Very few of the bird species that went extinct were on continents, so few that I can easily list them here. Dates are approximate.
1981. Eskimo Curlew
1950. Imperial Woodpecker
1924. Pink-headed Duck
1916. Korean Crested Shelduck
1914. Passenger Pigeon
1914. Forest Spotted Owlet (rediscovered 1997)
1875. Labrador Duck
1844. Great Auk
1800. Painted Vulture
1765. Yellow-headed Macaw

Island biogeography is a major branch of science, and the dominant lesson to be learnt from it is that although species come and go, the biodiversity on each remains the same. The number of species lost on each individual island equals the number of species gained on that island.

However, let’s stick to a 0.1% world loss of bird biodiversity since 1970.
Not fuckin’ 58%.

Oops, forgot Paradise Parrot.

Now to find out why they got the number of “dead zones” so badly wrong.

The reference is Diaz and Rosenberg, 2008. Now looking up paper.

> The visible ecosystem response to eutrophication is the greening of the water columnas the algae and vegetation in coastal areas grow in direct response to nutrient enrichment.

Hold on. There’s a huge difference between an algal bloom and a “dead zone”. Each algal bloom needs to be evaluated individually to determine whether is has a positive or negative effect on fish numbers. But let’s look further.

> More recently, dead zones have developed in continental seas,such as the Baltic, Kattegat, Black Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and East China Sea, all of which are major fishery areas.

OK. But not necessarily all that recently. There may have been dead zones there dating back much further.

> Localized declines of DO levels were noted in the Baltic Sea as early as the 1930s. Localized hypoxia had also been observed since the1930s in the Chesapeake Bay

Yes. Thank you for agreeing with me.

> Although the anthropogenic fertilization of marine systems by excess nitrogen has been linked to many ecosystem-level changes, there are natural processes that can lead to nutrient enrichment along continental margins that produce similar ecosystem responses. Coastal upwelling zones associated with the western boundary of continental landmasses are highly productive but are associated with severe hypoxia.

Thank you for recognising this. For example, many whale species rely for their existence on this natural nutrient enrichment.

> The observed declines in DO have lagged about 10 years behind the increased use of industrially produced nitrogen fertilizer that began in the late 1940s, with explosive growth in the 1960s to 1970s.

Interesting.

General comment. The more I read Diaz and Rosenberg (2008), the more I object to the words “dead zone”. Only about half of the locations found result in any die-back of benthic organisms at all, and so far in the paper in each of those the benthic community is completely reestablished each autumn. There’s no die back of fish at all in the cases mentioned in the paper so far.

On the other hand, I have not found the authors of this paper to be biased, which is good.

To be continued. I like the following figure.

Moll, with global warming now being a very large influence, a paper produced 10 years ago is bound to be a little out of date. Let us get one thing straight, I did not write the information in my posts, there are reproduced from scientific study. Why you should think your opinion is far more reliable really makes me wonder about your sanity. Why don’t you just read the links I posted and hopefully learn from the work of others.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

However, let’s stick to a 0.1% world loss of bird biodiversity since 1970.
Not fuckin’ 58%.

The above was putting the first wheel back on the cart. Now putting the second wheel back on the cart.

They’re not measuring “dead zones”. They’re not even measuring eutrophication (which as you will appreciate is not the same). They’re measuring phytoplankton, which because it’s the base of the food chain leads to maximum biodiversity.

So, a sneak peak ahead to Good Scientist Cartoon 525.

To be more precise, extreme phytoplankton blooms can lead to a boom and bust cycle where there’s eutrophication in the bust phase. But not only does the boom phase dominate, it can and (in the cases studied does) occur without any fish deaths at all. The boom bust cycle is a natural phenomenon as well, in the same locations (river mouths). So what we’re seeing is a reduction in toxic chemical use around the world (including a reduction in acid rain) resulting in a return of the coastal environment to its pristine state. This is a good thing.

Moll, you do not have a cart to put wheels on.

Bump for sm’s articles.

Michael V said:

Bump for sm’s articles.

transition said:

sarahs mum said: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/20/save-the-planet-half-earth-kim-stanley-robinson?CMP=fb_gu https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/21/we-have-monetised-the-end-of-the-world?CMP=soc_567 Perhaps they should be in the end of the world thread. read those pages and this.. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/20/save-the-planet-half-earth-kim-stanley-robinson?CMP=fb_gu was excellent :)

more gloom.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/21/catastrophe-as-frances-bird-population-collapses-due-to-pesticides?CMP=fb_gu

sarahs mum said:

Michael V said:

Bump for sm’s articles.

transition said:

sarahs mum said: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/20/save-the-planet-half-earth-kim-stanley-robinson?CMP=fb_gu https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/21/we-have-monetised-the-end-of-the-world?CMP=soc_567 Perhaps they should be in the end of the world thread. read those pages and this.. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/20/save-the-planet-half-earth-kim-stanley-robinson?CMP=fb_gu was excellent :)

more gloom.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/21/catastrophe-as-frances-bird-population-collapses-due-to-pesticides?CMP=fb_gu

Population collapses aren’t extinctions per se but they are highly indicitave that extinctions could well be imminent on a much larger scale.

I remember the save half the world thing being discussed 20 years ago by a science teacher friend of mine. I don’t think it can be done. Greed is too big a thing.

Meanwhile…

>Too many centre-right politicians have dismissed environmentalism as a left-wing cause, writes Ruth Davidson. “For generations, we have assumed that the efforts of mankind would leave the fundamental equilibrium of the world’s systems and atmosphere stable. But it is possible that with all these enormous changes – population, agricultural, use of fossil fuels – concentrated in such a short period of time, we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself.” Read out the passage above in polite society and you would, no doubt, receive a sage nodding of heads in reply. Declare in advance that the person who spoke these words was one Margaret Thatcher, in a speech in 1988, and the response may invite a little more scepticism. It is now buried entirely beneath her legacy, but it was she who, in the late 1980s, first told the Conservative party that conservationism may have something to do with our mission. The clue is in the title. It prompted the founder of Friends of the Earth, Jonathan Porrit to declare not so long ago that she “did more than anyone in the last 60 years to put green issues on the national agenda”. Scroll forward 30 years after Lady Thatcher’s speech in 1988, and it’s clear that the dangers to the environment identified by her then are more acute than ever. It comes with the World Bank this week estimating that as many as 140 million people from the developing world will be forced to migrate over the next 30 years, due to climate change. Many will be forced to head into crowded slums in Africa, south Asia and Latin America. While richer nations will endeavour to find ways to insulate themselves from the effects of environmental degradation, the poorest will suffer the most. And while issues like Brexit and Russian poisoning occupy our attention in the here and now, the impact of climate change is continuing to wreak devastating damage to the way we live. So Mrs Thatcher’s 30-year old message from history should also act as a reminder to her successors – to those of us on the centre-right today – that the cause of environmentalism is as urgent as ever, and must be our cause too.

Too often, the political right has dismissed ‘green’ issues as something which need only concern those on the opposite side of the fence. Partly this is due to the rise of Green parties which, together with their views the environment, often hold a left-wing stance anathema to those of us on the centre-right. It has led to too many centre-right politicians to dismiss the messenger, without examining parts of the message with which we have common cause. Partly it is due to the fact that the environmental debate is too often hijacked by wider culture wars. Whatever the reason, however, Conservatives must not allow the environmental cause to become ghettoised only by professional environmentalists. Our job is to make it a common cause for all. We can do so in a number of ways. Firstly, by respecting the science. Because the science is unequivocal. Human activity is leading to a warming of the atmosphere. Climate change is real. And with social media platforms fanning the flames of conspiracies and lies, it is all the more important to say it. And secondly, Conservatives need to show a lead in tackling climate change and environmental damage at home. At Westminster, Michael Gove has already taken action to ban cosmetic microbeads which damage our seas, to tackle plastic pollution which damages our marine life, and is proposing a post-Brexit ‘green revolution’ with EU standards set as a floor not a ceiling to our ambitions. Announcing more funding for poorer nations to tackle climate change, the Prime Minister said late last year that there was a “clear moral imperative” for richer nations like ours to help. Meanwhile, in Scotland, we too want to act. Scottish Conservatives want to set up a new Environmental Court where people who feel their environmental rights have been damaged can take their case. If we succeed in getting into government, we would commit to a new target to ensure 50 per cent of Scotland’s energy comes from renewables by 2030; back 10 per cent of the capital budget – that’s a billion pounds in the next parliament – to be spent on energy efficiency; and support for the creation of 15,000 hectares of new quality woodland per year. This is in addition to supporting our natural world too.

The UK Government is now acting to ban ivory sales around the world. Later this year, it will host the London Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference with the aim of stamping out the illegal trade in endangered species across the world – one of the great environmental crimes of our age. And as well as ending crime, we want to do more to support greater biodiversity, restoring species back to our environment. That includes supporting the fantastic work being done by Edinburgh’s Zoological Society on species recovery, and the Highland National Park which, at the start of the year, hosted the first polar bear birth in the UK for 25 years. There is, whisper it, plenty of consensus among the parties at Holyrood on achieving greater environmental justice and awareness in Scotland – even b

etween Tory and Green, on many issues. Despite the fractious nature of our politics in Scotland, I hope this is one area where real progress can be made. “The environmental challenge that confronts the whole world demands an equivalent response from the whole world,” declared Mrs Thatcher before the UN in 1989. “Every country will be affected and no-one can opt out. Those countries who are industrialised must contribute more to help those who are not.” Powerful words – and 30 years on, they offer a challenge to those of us on the centre-right of politics more than ever.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/ruth-davidson-real-conservatives-fight-climate-change-1-4709553

All those links supplied by sm are very informative and well worth the read. However, considerable caution should be taken with northern hemisphere land management solutions, as their biodiversity is much less than ours and their ecosystems far more robust and more capable of modification. Australia and other southern hemisphere countries tend to have much more sensitive environments that are more easily damaged. Therefore environmental solutions from northern areas are less likely to work here, although forestry and other commercial activities will quote them as the ultimate authority, simply because their solutions favour their operations.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/20/save-the-planet-half-earth-kim-stanley-robinson?CMP=fb_gu

PermeateFree said:

All those links supplied by sm are very informative and well worth the read. However, considerable caution should be taken with northern hemisphere land management solutions, as their biodiversity is much less than ours and their ecosystems far more robust and more capable of modification. Australia and other southern hemisphere countries tend to have much more sensitive environments that are more easily damaged. Therefore environmental solutions from northern areas are less likely to work here, although forestry and other commercial activities will quote them as the ultimate authority, simply because their solutions favour their operations.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/20/save-the-planet-half-earth-kim-stanley-robinson?CMP=fb_gu

This is basically because we are largely still working from the same base that we brought from the northern hemisphere with us.
At no time did we ever state that because it is all different here that we should start from a new knowledge base.

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

If you thought Trump has done his worse, try reading this article to see his affect on scientific study. This sort of thing is happening all over.

>>One of the world’s richest troves of Triassic-period fossils has been discovered in an area of Bears Ears National Monument that just lost its protected status, scientists announced Thursday. President Trump signed a proclamation in December that shrank the national monument by 85 percent.<<

>>Gay alerted the BLM’s district paleontologist to the problem, and a bureau official told him that its Arizona office had a fragment of fossil that was surrendered in 2008 by a collector who lacked a permit. The team matched the fossil to the recent Bears Ears findings, proving that it came from the same site.

“They broke off the skull,” Gay said of the amateurs who robbed the site.

“They didn’t even take the whole skull. Also, they missed the entire rest of the animal and several other animals laying on top of it and hundreds and hundreds of bones laying across the slope.”<<

https://www.scienceaf.com/rare-fossils-found-at-bears-ears-right-where-trump-removed-protections?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=native

Here is one from Australia, just for you.

>>I wish I didn’t have to send this email. A few minutes ago, Josh Frydenberg released the management plans for Australia’s marine reserve and it’s worse than we ever imagined.

Australia’s network of marine parks has been gutted. The more pristine the area, the more savage the changes are. The Coral Sea has gone from being the Jewel in the Crown of the Commonwealth Marine Reserves protecting the eastern side of the Great Barrier Reef to now being a haven for longlining and trawling.

They have even massively extended an area of trawling immediately adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

This decision removes more area from conservation than any decision from any government in any country ever. That’s right, there has never been a step backwards in environmental protection as large as this from any country on Earth.<<

To follow up on the above:

>>Earlier this week, the Government quietly announced its intention to cut protections in Australia’s marine national parks.

Now that we have had some time to look through the devastating details it’s no wonder they didn’t want to make much noise about it. These cuts are brutal. It’s the final stage in a four year process to remove more area from conservation than any decision by any Government anywhere in the world ever.

Here are the facts.

Coral Sea

The total area of the Coral Sea Marine Park is: 989 842 square kilometres Labor’s network had 50.78% Marine National Park protection (502 645 sq Km) The Government’s handpicked expert panel recommended protection for 40.94% (405 258 sq km) It’s reported this week that Minister Frydenberg’s new marine reserves has 24% Marine National Park protection.

This means

over 50% of the Marine National Park zoning is being stripped away Australia’s largest recreational fishing zone erased in deference to large scale industrial fishing including midwater trawling and tuna longlining. Labor’s network had 18.45% of the Coral sea reserve set aside for recreational fishing. The Coalition has removed that entirely and replaced it with areas where commercial fishing is allowed except bottom trawl. So yes it is true to say recreational fishers can still go there, but so can commercial fishers. Unique reefs like Marion Reef and Kenn Reef have been stripped back to only partial protection.

Temperate East

one of Australia’s longest standing Marine National Park zones – Middleton Reef (part of the Lord Howe Marine Park) has been cut. It was declared in 1987 by the Hawke Government and is very important in the network as long-time Marine National Parks zones are rare and valuable.

South West

Diamantina Fracture Zone – reduced one of Australia’s largest Marine National Parks to the lowest possible zoning where everything is allowed except bottom trawling (this is an area 5-7km deep) there is no fishing or mining out there Geographe Bay – removed one of the two very modest Marine National Parks

North West

large Marine National Parks that help sustain the marine life of the Kimberley and Ningaloo have been stripped of much of their protection (Argo Rowley Tce and Gascoyne).

North

Large Marine National Park in the Gulf of Carpentaria has had its protections cut – off the Wessel Islands, Karumba and in the Torres Strait – leaving those important areas open to bottom trawling and mining.<<

I bet that the Hon. Minister can tell you exactly how many yuan you get to the dollar.

“The NOAA Environmental Visualization Laboratory site will no longer be updated. Please visit https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov for the latest information on the Nation’s environmental satellites and data. The staff wishes to thank you for your support since 1999.”

Is this a result of Trump’s de-funding science?

https://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/Default.php

Michael V said:

“The NOAA Environmental Visualization Laboratory site will no longer be updated. Please visit https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov for the latest information on the Nation’s environmental satellites and data. The staff wishes to thank you for your support since 1999.”

Is this a result of Trump’s de-funding science?

https://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/Default.php

Sounds misere to me

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

“The NOAA Environmental Visualization Laboratory site will no longer be updated. Please visit https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov for the latest information on the Nation’s environmental satellites and data. The staff wishes to thank you for your support since 1999.”

Is this a result of Trump’s de-funding science?

https://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/Default.php

Sounds misere to me

Open?

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

“The NOAA Environmental Visualization Laboratory site will no longer be updated. Please visit https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov for the latest information on the Nation’s environmental satellites and data. The staff wishes to thank you for your support since 1999.”

Is this a result of Trump’s de-funding science?

https://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/Default.php

Sounds misere to me

Open?

Hehe

Peak Warming Man said:

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

Sounds misere to me

Open?

Hehe

I should’ve called Slam No-Trumps.