The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Giving up on climate change? > Comments

Giving up on climate change? : Comments

By Mike Pope, published 14/1/2009

The Rudd proposals on climate change will fail to achieve a meaningful reduction in carbon emissions.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
dickie,

You say, “I rarely allow myself the luxury of providing information, borne from "assumptions" or "wild guesses."” Directly above you give the figure of 10,000 to 100,000 species extinctions every year (not referenced, despite your attack on JBowyer). The huge range alone suggests something of a wild guess - they are the kind thrown about by non-scientific bodies such as Greenpeace.

Such figures are in fact derived, like so much environmental data, from computer models and mathematical algorithms, and thus, being ‘virtual’ data, are the product of a variety of assumptions leading to what can only be termed wild guestimates.

These kinds of figures were initially derived from an empirical species/area formula developed by science/activist E.O. Wilson in the 1960s and tested on insect populations on small islands in the mangroves of Florida. Despite huge questions about the generalizability (eg. non-island environments) and predictive validity of the formula (it has appalling results in producing predictions of species loss), the mere mention of the extrapolated/hypothesized worldwide figures was sufficient to be pounced on by organizations like Greenpeace for their fundraising material, and subsequently entered the public consciousness. Indeed, Wilson’s figures tend to grow the further he gets from peer review - 4000 in Science; 27 000 in his book; 50 to 100 000 in the New York Times and Greenpeace material.

Given the many difficulties involved in measuring the number of species on earth (confirmation, taxonomy, etc.), and thus the “rates” of increase or decline, the actual “observed” rate of extinction is closer to one to per year (S. Budiansky). Something over 800 plant and animal extinctions have been “recorded” since 1500 when records began (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources).

Cont…
Posted by fungochumley, Saturday, 17 January 2009 9:42:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The point is that these figures may very well be an underestimate, but to say that they are a fraction of the figures you give is an understatement (about 0.016% of your lower figure). But as you suggest, the public is entitled to something more than wild guesses based on the assumptions inherent in virtual data.

Perhaps to support the information you provide, you could list, or link to a list, of, say, just 1% of the species - that is, 1000 to 10 000 species - that became extinct over the decade of your choosing (eg. 1992 to 2002).

If you could spare me the insults and respond to what I have written, it would be greatly appreciated.

(See A. Kellow, Science & Public Policy)
Posted by fungochumley, Saturday, 17 January 2009 9:43:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fungochumley

There are a small coterie of known anti-environmental writers. Since there are so few of them, they tend to crop up over and over again in media circles. Journalists such as Stephen Budiansky have been promoting their right wing trash for years, so his views are hardly original.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2005/05/01/woodpecker-punditry-predicted-and-delivered/

Professor Kellow is a member of the IPA and Jennifer Mahorasy likes to cluck over him. Unfortunately for her credibility (and yours) he has no discernible experience in climate science or palaeontolgy. Furthermore, Kellow it appears is educated in the Arts. Astonishingly, he disputes the findings of credible palaeontologists and anyone else who doesn't fit into his grand plans.

In addition, Kellow was listed among Inhofe’s list of “scientists” debunking climate change. The list of "scientists" included economists, amateurs, TV weathermen , film stars and industry hacks.

It appears that you have had no interest in extinctions until today otherwise you would have known that extinction rates have not yet been catalogued and/or you would have provided evidence from credible sources.

If you peruse the papers I have provided, you would realise that I have presented a fair estimate with the information at hand.

http://www.well.com/user/davidu/leakey.html

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:RdLTd_zNrIcJ:math.ucr.edu/home/baez/extinction/+Permian+extinctions&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=au&lr=lang_en

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html

If you want to know the precise species extinction over a short period Fungochumley (though I doubt that you do,) I suggest you find out for yourself. I am not your hand-maiden.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources you quoted has estimated that the current species extinction rate is between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than it would naturally be so do your own sums. In addition, their interest is more on the “Red List” which concentrates on threatened species only.

OLO protocol dictates if you present information to start a bun fight, you should provide direct links which you have not. In addition when you copy and paste from an article, would you please use quotation symbols?

The figures provided by eminent palaeontologists are THEIR estimates, they are not MY “wild guesses” or "assumptions." Comprehend?
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 18 January 2009 12:56:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In 2001 the world population was 6.1 billion. It is projected to grow by 50 percent, to 9.3 billion people, by 2050.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics recently projected that Australia's population could rise to 35 million people by 2056 at current net immigration levels and fertility rate. Melbourne and Sydney are expected to reach 7 million people each.

Immigration rates should be part of a population policy that takes into account population projections, natural resource limitations, climate change, and Australia's questionable ability to support exponential population growth.

People are now being considered as consumers for the benefit of the economy, not citizens! We are already multicultural enough so we don't need more foreigners.

Australia's agriculture is already under threat from vulnerability to climate change and drought.

Kevin Rudd has committed our country to a mere 5% reduction of ghg emissions by 2020 because of our "projected" or deliberate population growth of over 45% from 1990! Just how many people our country can hold without further compromising its life-supporting system - our ecology! How will increasing our population help address climate change and stop the damage to our already over-populated and spreading cities?
Posted by VivKay, Sunday, 18 January 2009 7:21:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just to Dickie I bet you are a vegan too! Full of yourself and determined to try and bully the rest of us. Western Australia I warrant would stack up very nicely against most states on the planet and as for all your worrying over heavy metals etc think on this. The people who are closest are the mining Company workers they do know what they are doing and the Australian legal system makes them accountable for what they do.
In the late eighties I was told by the Melbourne metrological office the weather has not changed since records had been kept. Now that is a fact and extreme weather events happen regularly so there is nothing changed including the Jeremiahs telling me I am going to die and we have to be charged for the air we breathe and the water we drink. I and many others do not believe you and the green nazis and will vote against you. Watch Kevvie change his tune if he looks like losing an election hahahaha!
Posted by JBowyer, Sunday, 18 January 2009 4:58:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So sorry to disappoint you JBowyer for I am not a vegan. Pray tell me what is the inference? Since you appear to be an expert on all matters known to man please advise in which discipline you received your doctorate. Were you taught to provide evidence to support any assertions or are the sum of all your claims derived from covert and confidential meetings with the “metrological” bureau?

Do you know the difference between weather and climate JBowyer?

“Western Australia I warrant would stack up very nicely against most states on the planet”

Really?:

“WA has not enforced ecologically sustainable productivity on the management of its publicly-owned rangelands. Whereas the land-use managers - whether of pastoral leases or agricultural freehold - are culpable for the resource degradation they tolerate or have caused, society is culpable for allowing those who have over-cropped, over-grazed, over-cleared and are continuing to do so.

"The common public good seems to have been neglected by government in favour of private landed property ownership. The plea of government ignorance could once have been sustained, but certainly not at any time during this last quarter century at least:”

http://www.csu.edu.au/research/crsr/ruralsoc/v6n2p3.htm

“At a national level, Western Australia has 8 of 12 Australian biodiversity hotspots. *

“At a global level, the South West is recognised as one of the world's 34 biodiversity hotspots. *

“WA currently has 362 threatened plants, 199 threatened animals and 69 threatened ecological communities.

“Recovery plans have been developed for less than one-third of threatened species and ecological communities.

“There is ongoing loss and degradation of biodiversity in WA.

“Knowledge about many species and ecosystems and some threats to biodiversity remains inadequate.”

http://www.soe.wa.gov.au/report/biodiversity.html

* Hotspots are those which have lost 70% or more of its vegetation.

Since you appear incapable of sensibly addressing or acknowledging the issues in the posts of others and since you are unable to keep both hands on the keyboard, thus bombarding this thread with jabberwanky and ad hominens, I shall not respond to any future posts you may see fit to raise.

Cheerio
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 18 January 2009 8:58:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy