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 > As climate warms, species may need to migrate or perish > Comments

As climate warms, species may need to migrate or perish : Comments

By Carl Zimmer, published 6/5/2009

Global warming is pushing some species to the brink of extinction: the only way to save some species may be to move them.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All
"With global warming pushing some animals and plants to the brink of extinction"

Prove it.

* * *

The entire global warming fret-fest, and this biological sub-set of it, is nothing but neo-religious drivel. While carbon emissions have increased, the globe's climate has not warmed since 1998. That's why they changed the name of the cult to 'climate change', remember? The idea that a) it's happening, and b) all human effects are probably bad, is an unfalisfiable belief, like other religious belief systems. Both extra hot or extra cold, extra wet or extra dry conditions, all are taken as evidence of 'climate change', as if there ever was, or ever could be, a world in which the climate didn't change.

Underlying the biology are value judgements that amount to ethical idiocy: the idea that man-caused change is bad, and that extinction in general is bad. For example, over 99.9 percent of species that ever lived are extinct. Extinction is normal. On the credit side of life, new species are evolving all the time. Should we stop that too? Is that "havoc" too? Should we try to micro-manage each species, and therefore each individual? These are the fantasies of those who have no responsibility for the values they assert.

What its advocates coyly omit to mention is who is to pay for 'moving species'? Is it to be voluntary? Or is payment to be under compulsion?
Posted by Jefferson, Wednesday, 6 May 2009 9:35:18 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
i cant even read the spiel bro, you lost me just by the heading, asa the climate warms[mate global WARMING was yesterday, today its CLIMATE CHANGE...remember?

how come you fools want it both ways?

its global climate change..[get it?]

meaning we dont have to keep changing the panic..as it warms OR COOLS..get it right bro,

is it really warming now?[or you just accepting the gullable to spin past the warning /cooling slip-up...its climate change..[meaning as it cools we move them back..[right?]

by the way..no doudt you quoted how a few degrees CHANGE..means death..[did i assume correctly?,

BUT BRO TELL ME WHAT CLIMATIC VAIRIATION BETWEEN NIGHT AND DAY?[SUMMER/WINTER?]..

YOUR INSANE RAVINGS are designed to create [or sustain] the climate CHANGE hysteria..[and bring in the new TAX for your masters boys club..based on your puff piece
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 6 May 2009 10:19:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Totally agree with Jefferson, soundly put.

What a ridiculous notion that mankind is now responsible for evolution, mind you I can see the attraction to this idea - lot's of good funding available to research this all over the world.

Add this to the long list of crimes by the human population who are also being blamed for the climate changing. /sarc.

Clearly there is no "real" emergency in Australia, the government have just delayed any action about AGW.

I do expect the usual condemnation of any debate on OLO now, of anything that some of the readers don't like and insist is censored i.e. anything that questions the "non-scientific consensus" of AGW belief.
Posted by rpg, Wednesday, 6 May 2009 10:38:09 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
Agreement - the article is a load of drivel. Temperatures reached a peak around 1998-2000 and have been generally declining, as shown by all the centres that track temperature changes. No-one is disagreeing - except for those who have not seen the figures (check the Hadley site). And it is now well established - thanks to scholars that track change in agriculture areas - that the medieval warming period was much warmer than present conditions.. to talk of species extinction is present circumstances is absurd.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 6 May 2009 11:49:31 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
They've let you live, Mr Zimmer, look in the bright side and eat drink and be merry........
Posted by Ginx, Wednesday, 6 May 2009 1:26:28 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 combination of climate change and government policy may be driving a tree species to near extinction. That species is the world's tallest flowering plant Eucalyptus regnans that grows up to 100 metres tall. Yesterday a much visited stand of these trees next to a popular tourist drive was cut down under police supervision
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/05/2561375.htm?site=hobart

The loggers claim they will regrow in 400 years time but I think not. I believe the species thrived as the last cold period 10,000 years ago receded. They need damp cool leaf litter and infrequent fire. The combination of deliberate burning, lack of shade and drying will make it difficult. The drying comes from both reduced local transpiration and global climate change. The trouble is the next southern landmass is Antarctica so the species has nowhere to go. They are being mercilessly chopped down and forced into a smaller less amenable habitat. Perhaps we could grow them in 100 metre tall cool rooms.
Posted by Taswegian, Wednesday, 6 May 2009 2:19:50 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
I thought lots of critters had been migrating for hundreds of centuries....

so nothing new there...

"Evolution" has a strange consequence, through survival of the fitest, species perish and are replaced by more robust and fitter species, better adapted to the environment changed environment.

So this load of drivel is just another scare campaign, from the masters of spin and bulldust .....

and more "socialism by stealth"...
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 6 May 2009 4:04:02 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 entire global warming fret-fest, and this biological sub-set of it, is nothing but neo-religious drivel”

Jefferson

If one wants to see raw, unfiltered data on climate change, one does not consult snake-oil salesmen or money brokers, or God botherers for that matter, who also like to confuse the issue by threatening infidels with the Apocalypse then in typical ambiguous fashion bleat on about God’s “chosen” people being the "stewards" of all living things on the planet whilst they trash the earth's biodiversity.

When one wants to see raw data on global warming temperatures, one does not consult Curmudgeon either, whose deliberate intent to deceive, epitomises the lowly state to which the economic spin masters have degenerated:

“Temperatures reached a peak around 1998-2000 and have been generally declining, as shown by all the centres that track temperature changes........(check the Hadley site). ”

Done Curmudgeon (once again!) and how many times would you like us to check that Hadley site and "all the centres that track temperature changes?" For as long as you continue to lie?:

“The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2008. The year 2008 was tenth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2001, 2007 and 1997. This time series is being compiled jointly by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Met. Office Hadley Centre.”

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Continued
Posted by Protagoras, Wednesday, 6 May 2009 4:09:49 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
Continued:

Whilst Curmudgeon has been previously enlightened about the impacts which the cold La Nina had on mitigating 2008’s temperature, he appears incapable of digesting the facts. What rubbish can we now expect from him when La Nina’s little brother, El Nino arrives to breathe more fire on an already heated planet?

1. A large-scale aerial survey of eastern Australia by researchers from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) shows migratory shorebird populations were once much larger and have plunged by 73 per cent between 1983 and 2006.

During that same period, the populations of Australia's 15 resident shorebird species have dropped by 81 per cent, according to the study, published in the scientific journal Biological Conservation.

2. More than 80 species of woodland birds in the Cowra region, NSW are in a steady decline, due to extensive agricultural land clearing and decreased rainfall.

3. Experts have determined that 16 out of the 21 oceanic shark and ray species that are caught in high seas fisheries are at heightened risk of extinction due primarily to targeted fishing for valuable fins and meat as well as indirect.

Sharks and rays are particularly vulnerable to overfishing due to their tendency to take many years to become sexually mature and have relatively few offspring.

4. A huge flock of various native bird species have dropped dead in temperatures topping 45C after swamping an outback roadhouse in the southern Gascoyne. Kangaroos, emus and goats had also died in the heat.

Thousands of birds have since died after invading sheds, basements and even a hotel bedroom.

And while the fossil record tells us that biodiversity has always recovered, it also tells us that the recovery of the Anthropocene extinctions will be unbearably slow in human terms – perhaps 5 to 10 million years, as seen in the mass extinctions of the past.

That's more than 200,000 generations of humankind before levels of biodiversity comparable to those we inherited might be restored if the money-making Dracula monsters continue on their rampage, sucking the life-blood from Planet Earth.
Posted by Protagoras, Wednesday, 6 May 2009 4:42:32 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
Protagoras's arguments amount to:

1) The last few years have been hotter than the long-term average.
2) Hot conditions kill animals and birds.

But neither of these is in dispute. What IS in dispute is a) whether the temperature increase is due to greenhouse gases and b) whether it is likely to continue. And the data are clear: there has been no net rise in global temperature since 1998, although CO2 levels have risen steadily over that period. On the negative side, Arctic ice is nearly back to long-term average levels after an unprecedentedly fast regrowth, and we are approaching the longest period without sunspots in nearly 100 years: conditions usually associated with a prolonged cold spell.

In Death of a Lake, written in 1954, Arthur Upfield describes movingly how an extended heatwave kills rabbits, birds, marsupials and even a human being. The phenomenon was not new then and it is not new now. And since that is the case, we are not going to stop it by crippling our capacity to keep ourselves alive, healthy and prosperous.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 6 May 2009 6:00:28 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
How old is that list your quoting from, & just who wrote it Protagoras?

It has been accepted for about 6 years, that 1932 was the hotest year in recent times, plus a couple of others aronnd there. If your source is not acknowledging this fact, I suggest you try somewhere more honest, for your facts.

It is rather annoying to see, detailed, all the tax payer money being spent, so these people can play god. I don't mind them playing their useless little games, I just hate paying for them to do so.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 6 May 2009 10:31:00 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
Oh for christ's sake...

guys, GUYS!

This isn't about whether people are causing global warming or not.

Comprendez? They used the phrase 'climate change.'

Whether you believe in man-made global warming or not, nobody is dumb enough to claim that the climate doesn't change at all.

Nor, is anyone dumb enough to claim that people don't cause the extinctions of many animals - perhaps not through climate change, but matters such as logging, pollution and so forth.

One can argue the morality, significance, cause and effect of these things, but you can't argue their existence.

That's just dumb.

So for the critics who are lining up to hammer the piece, I say three things:

The piece isn't for or against relocating animals, it just states the arguments.
The piece isn't arguing for man made global warming or against it.
The piece is just outlining some ideas and theories.

So for crying out loud, stop frothing at the mouth. Some people go bonkers the moment climate change is mentioned.

Cont'd.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 7 May 2009 12:18:08 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
I found the piece a rather interesting analysis, for what is WAS not what it wasn't.

It's a given fact that a) climate is changing and b) in many cases, species are having to adapt. It's always been that way, but of course, people have a way of making things different.

So, can we actually discuss the subject here?

Look, lets say for arguments sake that whether or not man is causing climate change is irrelevant. Lets just say that some places are getting hotter as the natural order of things, and some are getting cooler.

Given this, and given that many species are unable to migrate naturally due to the presence of cities, what of the concept of relocating some by artificial means?

THAT'S what the article is about. Sheesh. I like this piece, because it's NOT the usual controversies, it's a contribution that gives us something novel to talk about, when we don't need to lapse into the same, ridiculous debates between those who believe climate change is man made, and those who don't.

It's an interesting idea, but the first things that spring to mind when I think of this, are cane toads.
But, the cane toad was introduced to an entirely new country - to look only at cane toads, ignores the success of the cactoblastis moth in eradicating prickly pear. So they're not all failures. I can't help but wonder if perhaps putting a few rhinos or elephants in areas of Australia might protect them from poaching and be a haven from poachers. Given their slow breeding process, I don't see the same kind of risks there.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 7 May 2009 12:18:46 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
TRTL

Again you apply some common sense and return the thread to the topic.

Relocating animals is a worthy ideal - on the face of it. Difficulties we encounter is that some animals are very territorial, for example Brush Tail possums, in the past possums were just captured and relocated away from residential areas, these possums would wind up fighting for their lives in a new neighbourhood dominated by the resident possums. This is why the system changed to installing suitable boxes for possums to inhabit rather than your roof.

And the above is just in the same type of eco-system.

I'm not saying it is impossible but every animal species has its particular needs and characteristics to be considered before being relocated.

Many years ago I was part of a study for the Pygmy Possum in the Bogong High plains. Its problem was that the males and females lived completely separate lives until mating season. The road leading to Mt Hotham was as much a barrier as an ocean to the male Pygmy Possum, the study concluded with the installation of a tunnel under the road as well as re-establishing habitat corridors (this is where I was involved as a student Landscape Architect). This plan was completed but the possum is still endangered due to changes in habitat brought on by climate change (it lives in alpine regions only) and the usual threats of foxes, feral dogs and cats.

The introduction of large animals to Australia may appear possible on the surface, (camels do very well) but we have to consider the entire eco-system, from the variety of flora, insects and other animals. Elephants can eat entire trees - and that's just breakfast. We have already created huge imbalances just with our never ending 'progress'.

The greatest impediment is us - our ever increasing and spreading population.
Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 7 May 2009 9:19:55 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
TRTL, good luck. you'll need it.
Posted by bushbasher, Thursday, 7 May 2009 10:24:07 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
Protagoras - I'm glad that you pay attention to what I write but in advancing "proof" that I'm wrong you show that I'm right.. granted its a period of high temperatures but as you point out with your time series the peak was around the turn of the century and has since been delining. The one hold-out in this is Goddard which puts the peak at 2005, and declining since. the business about "hottest years since records began" is debatable as there was some argument that 1930s are hotter but again, that only shows that modern temperatures are high - possibly as part of a cycle. It is now known that temperatues were higher in medieval times (scholars can track the rise and fall of cultivation at higher altitudes with archological techniques. Sorry but declining it is..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 7 May 2009 11:20:58 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
I am really trying hard to care. Even just a little bit.

"As climate warms, species may need to migrate or perish"

But I'm afraid, what with all the other stuff going on right now, government spending going through the roof and the likelihood that we will be paying for it through higher taxes like, forever, and all those boat people about to invade our shores - probably mostly from Mexico where all that 'flu comes from, and what about that 'flu anyway, why doesn't the government just give us all a vaccination and be done with it, and what with the Budget due on Tuesday - now that's going to be a disaster too, smokes and booze going through the roof, feels like we're back in the seventies again - and what about unemployment, if it wasn't enough that the Chinese are taking all our jobs and giving them to people they pay tuppence a day, now we're told that the global financial meltdown is going to put all of us out of work as early as Wednesday fortnight, and what does Obama think he's up to cosying up to the Pakistanis and Afghans, doesn't he know that they are all Muslims and cannot be trusted further than you can throw them, maybe he is a closet Muslim himself after all, they did say that before he was elected now I remember, and don't get me started on the NSW train service - if you can call it a service, a downright disgrace is what I call it, and now you want me to worry about a couple of bleedin' hamsters up a mountain somewhere?

Do me a favour.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 7 May 2009 11:53:59 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
“How old is that list your quoting from, & just who wrote it Protagoras?”

I have already provided the link, the date (current), the authors and the details so why the trolling?

“It has been accepted for about 6 years, that 1932 was the hotest year in recent times, plus a couple of others aronnd there. If your source is not acknowledging this fact, I suggest you try somewhere more honest, for your facts.”

An extremely dishonest piece of trolling Hasbeen but thanks for an amusing post:

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/documents/WMO1039_EN_web.pdf

Keep up the delusional pile of rubble Curmudgeon for snatching yourself a seat on the gravy train is not yet assured:

“The climate story of the decade is that the 2000s are on track to be nearly 0.2°C warmer than the 1990s (see “Very warm 2008 makes this the hottest decade in recorded history by far“). And that temperature jump is especially worrisome since the 1990s were only 0.14°C warmer than the 1980s."

http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/07/very-warm-2008-makes-this-hottest-decade-in-recorded-history-by-far/

Countries with the highest number of threatened and extinct species, according to 2006 IUCN Red List data, include the US (number one position) and Australia (number seven) - not bad for a “civilised” nation with a population of 21 million.

Since Australia's native species are dying of thirst and hunger from large-scale habitat destruction and climate change, including bushfires and flooding, which are killing off hundreds of thousands of native species and livestock, where does one recommend putting rhinos and elephants and what would the evolutionary responses be since global change is pervasive and occurring rapidly in Australia?

I'd suggest that time’s up and there is no longer anywhere for species to run or hide?

Influential industrial lobbies dupe people into believing we can survive while other species are quickly and quietly dying off. Irresponsible governments and businesses would have people believe that we don’t need biodiversity to survive therefore we shall ignore reality because it doesn’t conform with moneymaking strategies.

Self-seeking industrial lobbies and their parasites would do well to remember that when the slaves die so do the slave owners.
Posted by Protagoras, Thursday, 7 May 2009 4:58:16 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
Protagoras,

It is no use arguing with these skeptics, they won't be convinced.

Their motives though for working so exceptionally hard at ridiculing the science and cherry picking the facts (or fabricating them) have me completely bewildered. Are they seeking truth for truth's sake? Are they petrified that the world might actually DO what is really necessary to combat the issue and all the other global environmental and resource issues bearing down us ie stop chasing economic growth at all costs and deal with overpopulation and continued population growth? Are they simply being mischievous or worse in the pay of the polluters?

Incidentally I believe the mass bird deaths in the Gascoynes were due as much to the plugging of boreholes on many stations by WA's Dept of Environment as they were to climate change.
Posted by kulu, Thursday, 7 May 2009 10:29:53 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
Hi Kulu

The conservatives on this forum continue to spread misinformation:

Myth: “On the negative side, Arctic ice is nearly back to long-term average levels after an unprecedentedly fast regrowth,” (John J)

Fact: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.html

These are the hangers on of the right wing think tanks in Australia. Their founders and members represent the most ecologically destructive corporations on the planet. These think tanks are networking with other think tanks around the globe and they don’t care where they get their donations from. Most receive generous donations from pollutant mining industries, including oil companies. The tobacco industry (which they support) is aso generous.

The objective of these gangs is to gag those who recognise the insidious connections between greenwashed institutes, big business and sycophantic governments.

These “good” corporate citizens are influential in lobbying governments to see it their way (not least Mr Five Percent) regardless of the consequences and they seek out public figures, with high profiles to throw excrement at Australia’s environmentalists while they screw the environment:

“In 2005 the IPA launched a front group, The Australian Environment Foundation, to protect the interests of the timber industry. It includes former TV presenter Don Burke, who says, “The greatest threat to the world’s environment is the conservation movement.”

http://kimkaos.nomasters.org/2005/12/11/climate-change-corporations-and-pr/

http://savingiceland.puscii.nl/?p=3185&language=en

In the US there are over 550,000 abandoned mine sites and in WA alone, there are 11,500 abandoned sites, spewing toxic muck into our precious groundwater, soil, air, rivers and oceans and these sites are responsible for the slaughter of native species ranging from precious insect colonies, plants, snakes and bats to whole ecological communities.

The costs for the decontamination of these hazards are being met by the taxpayer. It is evident that these corporations, who police themselves, can’t be trusted:

However, in recent years, mining companies are now obliged to pay bonds, placed in trust for the remediation of abandoned mines but the mining operations continue to desecrate the environment with impunity, the slaughter of native species continues and the little bloke remains impotent in his conflict with the ethics free, "big" Australians:

http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=44
Posted by Protagoras, Friday, 8 May 2009 3:26:26 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
Whoops....apologies. Previous post - wrong link:

http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=440
Posted by Protagoras, Friday, 8 May 2009 7:36:22 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
You have hit the nail on the head Protagoras about the right wing think - sorry - disinformation tanks and their disciples.

As far the bonds required by the miners are concerned governments resist efforts by conservationists to ensure the bond are indeed adequate to cover rehabilitation and contingencies.

I can imagine the sort of bonds required by uranium mines will come nowhere near being enough to ensure these polluters are able to cover post mining costs and realistic contingencies
Posted by kulu, Friday, 8 May 2009 10:27:11 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
That's for certain Kulu and the Ranger uranium mine, for instance, is constantly in the news where in March this year, the government appointed supervising scientist, Alan Hughes, reported that the mine is leaking 100,000 litres of contaminated water into the ground beneath Kakadu Park every day.

Last January, 17,000 litres of sulphuric acid was spilled onto the Top End’s wetlands when a truck rolled over on its way to the Ranger uranium mine. Any animal, wild or domestic (including humans) which comes into contact with this chemical, suffers severe burns but I guess one should regard that as mere collateral damage?

Emperor, Barney Rubble’s on the loose in WA too so what can one expect now that he’s formally lifted the ban on uranium mining in Western Australia where the ore is of low grade in the significant number of U tenements?

According to WA's Chamber of Minerals and Energy, U mining “will allow the state to expand its position as a key supplier of low-emissions fuels in the international fight against climate change.” “Low emissions?” I think not.

No doubt you would know that Australia has the worst record of mammal extinction in the world. Not surprising is that half the mammals that have become extinct globally, in the last 200 years, have been Australian species and many more are in decline.

The good news for the corporate cowboys is that they will now be able to blame global warming for their appalling destruction of Australia's native animals.
Posted by Protagoras, Saturday, 9 May 2009 8:04:14 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
I notice that none of the posters has yet explained why diverting resources to "save animals from extinction" is a worthwhile activity.

As far as I can tell from a brief run around the topic on the internet, i) there are more extant species on this planet than ever before and ii) there has always been a raft of species about to become extinct, even before anyone bothered to keep a list.

And let's be realistic here. We are one of those species that will at some point in the future also become extinct.

Unless the "save the hamster" advocates are making all this fuss from altruism - "I don't care if humans perish, but for God's sake, save the Northern Hairy-nosed Wombat" - their motivation in raising the issue still escapes me entirely.

Is there some kind of ecological rule somewhere that says that it is vital we maintain the existing status quo, species-wise?

If not, I suspect that this is predominantly posturing by the holier-than-thou brigade. 'I appear to care more about fluffy creatures than you, so I must be a nicer person. Oh, and I will have another slice of that delicious possum pie, thank you'.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 10 May 2009 4:41:20 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
Pericles

It is quite normal for species to become extinct due to changing conditions. However, it is the rate at which we humans alter various ecosystems (for example the Bogong High Plains) which hastens the end of not just a single species but an entire network of bacteria, fungi, lichens, plants, insects and animals.

Bio-diversity is necessary for continued evolution, this is why wiping out entire forests causes so much imbalance, from mud slides to extermination of many different species - not just the Hairy Nosed Wombat.

I'm sure you understand the need for genetic diversity - why interbreeding within a small genetic pool produces nonviable creatures.

Diversity is life. Its that simple and yet that complicated - because we can't simply introduce some threatened species into new environments without having a profound effect on the new environment.
Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 10 May 2009 5:08:30 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
Pericles,

Saving species from extinction is probably too little too late and effort would better be spent ensuring that that no species ever reaches that point. Unfortunately it has proved impossible to halt the juggernaut that proceeds incrementally to destroy habitat bit by bit.

Those concerned about the juggernaut just don't have the resources to stop it before it reaches a point of no return. The money only then becomes available to do something so the concerned do what they can even if it is just a token.

It is only when we get down to the last few polar bears that the urgency of their plight strikes a cord with the less concerned public and governments and action results.
Posted by kulu, Sunday, 10 May 2009 5:41:19 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
Under the natural conditions of evolution, species become extinct as something more evolved takes their place in the biodiversity and food chain, rarely do species become extinct because of natural events, unless it's a global event. The difference is now, they're being made extinct because of another species inability to live within the bounds of this planets natural laws of existence. In universal terms, it could be described as a viral disease, killing a life force of diverse complexity.

It's true in the past some species survived by relocating, but this time that's not as easy, the entire planets ecosystem is breaking down. So moving may be futile. The human race is so irresponsible they refuse to stop those in power continuing down a path which every sensible person can see, is leading to a disaster which can't be fixed. Unless you are a complete fool, or refuse to see what is happening all around you, but outside our illusionary comfort zones. Then you can't fail to see the obvious, what we are doing and how we live, is killing everything. It's not our technology which is at fault, but how we implement and use it. Change that approach and we change the world for the better, anything else is irrelevant.
Posted by stormbay, Sunday, 10 May 2009 7:18:52 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
Stormbay

I am in full agreement with your comments. I would go so far to state that the extinction of the human race is the only animal extinction which would actually benefit this planet. However I am not requesting suicide, but we do have to learn to live with the environment, rather than trying to alter it to suit our needs.

We now possess the knowledge and the technology with which to conduct our behaviour responsibly.

A curfew on further infringement into what remains of the wilderness.

Living within our bounds, sustainably and

Not continuing this never ending consumption and breeding.

There are clear benefits for humans as well, a sustainable population would mean an eventual end to the poverty and misery of many human beings.

It could be a win/win, but where is the will?
Posted by Fractelle, Monday, 11 May 2009 9:15:54 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
Protagoras and Kulu,

It is increasingly an exercise in futility posting to OLO as the "contributors" to these sorts of discussions have no interest in honest debate.

I don't know if they work for "vested" interests or what their real agenda might be but they are eloquently described in a book by John Perkins, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man".

While set in an earlier period pre global warming, aka climate change, the book chronicles the ruthless, immoral way in which global corporations manipulate the truth for their own advantage.

One doesn't need to be a "greenie", "leftie" et al to realise that if you deny science perpetually, disseminate "false truths" and pillory any critics you effectively stifle all debate and eventually governments capitulate; observe Kevin and Penny in the last week or two.

I selfishly have no children and am at the end of my working life so in a sense don't care what happens to "good old" planet earth (other than moral imperative) - but I wonder about 'curmudgeon" and the rest of Nero's merry men! What will they say to their children and grand children?
Posted by Peter King, Monday, 11 May 2009 2:27:52 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
Thanks Peter K, I'll try and get hold of that book you recommended.

All

Here is a useful site from which you can watch videos from a range of speakers on various topics including economic, social, environmental and the arts:
http://www.themonthly.com.au/video

Just a thought... the koalas on Kangaroo Island are breeding and eating themselves out of existence. Should we cull them or let them suffer the consequences of their own folly? (Mind you we did introduce them onto the island in the first place.)

The humans on Planet Earth are multiplying and using exhausting its resources promoting their own collapse. Should we cull them or...
Posted by kulu, Monday, 11 May 2009 5:57:14 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
Thanks to David King and kulu for the links. The growth junkies in Australia continue speaking out of self-interest and advocate for higher population which of course gives them more people to sell their widgets to so they continue to manipulate the truth to their advantage while native species are crammed into ever-smaller areas.

Australia continues to use agricultural chemicals, endosulfan and carbendazim. Two-headed bass found in the Noosa River are at the center of a controversy surrounding pesticide drift from neighboring farms in Queensland and the pesticides have been implicated in the contamination of the river, which has yielded thousands of chronically deformed fish.

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?cat=13

The chemical corporation, FMC, flogs carbofuran to farmers in Australia too, to spray on fruits, sugarcane, grains and the garlic industries and this year FMC expressed dismay at the USEPA’s decision to ban the chemical.

US conservationists say carbofuran has killed two million birds, and USEPA spokesman says the latest scientific data shows carbofuran poses a serious health risk to young children.

Kenya’s wildlife is being poisoned by carbofuran, also supplied by FMC throughout Africa. Kenyan herders have been baiting lions with this chemical (to protect their cattle) which has taken a massive toll, not only on lions but hyenas, leopards, jackals, vultures and other birds which are dying in droves.

Dr Laurence Frank from the university of California Berkeley advised that 20 years ago, there were some 200,000 lions in Africa. Today, there are 30,000 and the numbers are going down all the time.

Lions are being poisoned at a staggering rate in Kenya, and there's little chance cubs outside the wildlife reserves there will make it to adulthood. Dr Frank believes that poison, combined with other threats, will make the lion in Africa extinct.

Australia has advised it has no plans to ban carbofuran, however, if large beasts are being slaughtered by carbofuran, which also “poses a serious risk to children,” what impact is this chemical having on Australia’s smaller native species and what chance do they have while the economic predators are in the front line defending this mechanized madness?
Posted by Protagoras, Tuesday, 12 May 2009 12:41:51 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
Turn Right Then Left - you say "Nor, is anyone dumb enough to claim that people don't cause the extinctions of many animals - perhaps not through climate change, but matters such as logging, pollution and so forth"

I assume you are referring to Australia and if so , please give me an example where logging has led to the extinction of a species.
Posted by tragedy, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 6:10:39 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
Tragedy

I'm with TRTL when he states: "Nor, is anyone dumb enough to claim that people don't cause the extinctions of many animals - perhaps not through climate change, but matters such as logging, pollution and so forth." I trust you're not all that dumb Tragedy for you appear to be challenging this statement?

There is a problem for citizens in Australia in obtaining the facts on environmental issues, logging, threatened species or extinctions and in 2007, researchers from UWA revealed that every government in this nation has been guilty of suppressing vital information on environmental matters (and other issues) to which the public are entitled.

In addition, many of the most "glowing" research papers on the logging of our forests are sponsored by or are performed by those who are pillaging the forests' resources. That's a bit like having your family on the jury when you're the defendant eh?

So for instance, let's have a look at a paper on the Jarrah forests in WA - a paper which does not cite industry as their sponsors:

"Six bird species (Golden Whistler Pachycephala pectoralis, Western Gerygone Gerygone fusca, White-naped Honeyeater Melithreptus lunatus, Spotted Pardalote Pardalotus punctatus, Striated Pardalote Pardalotus striatus, and Grey Fantail Rhipidura fuliginosa) all declined in gap and shelterwood areas following logging but before the postlogging burn.

Contd......
Posted by Protagoras, Thursday, 14 May 2009 12:00:51 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
Contd.....

"The first five of these species glean invertebrates in the canopy and sub-canopy, so logging would reduce foraging sites and food supply. The Grey Fantail hawks from low foliage and may have lost perching sites. Three gleaners increased in abundance by using piles of logging slash as a foraging site (Splendid Fairy-wren, Red-winged Fairy-wren, White-browed Scrubwren Sericornis frontalis), but this opportunity would disappear after the postlogging burn.

"Dusky Woodswallows Artamus cyanopterus also increased, presumably because the opening of the canopy improved opportunities for hawking (Craig 1999).

"Significant numbers of Common Brushtail Possums were killed during logging in gap (33 – 35 %) and shelterwood (67 %) (Morris et al. 2000), However, retained habitat trees appeared to encourage persistence of Common Brushtail Possums (Morris et al. 2000).

"Burrows et al. (2001) noted an overall 30-35 % decline in Common Brushtail Possums in logged areas and more severe impacts on Western Ringtail Possums.

"Twelve of the 17 radio-collared Western Ringtail Possums from logged areas died within three weeks of logging and all animals were dead within 20 months of logging. The 12 radio-collared animals on control sites lived longer, but were all dead within 40 months of logging, reflecting an ‘overall decline at the landscape scale.'

http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:9246/jarrahfauna.pdf Page 17

Extinction of and threatened quokka communities Western Australia - (Australian Government:)

"Quokka population (part of the Northern Jarrah Forest population) may have been affected by bauxite mining, which has occurred to within 20 m of the swamp around the upper reaches of the site. The disturbance may have contributed to the local decline of this population (Hayward et al. 2003)."

Findings:

1 Rottnest Island Rottnest Island 8 000-12 000 individuals Nature Reserve

2 - Northern Jarrah Forest (Mining and Logging area):

Serpentine to Jarrahdale Chandler Road <50
Rosella Road <10 State forest
Kesners Swamp <50 State forest
Wild Pig Swamp Presence unconfirmed; presumed locally extinct State forest
Holyoake Presence unconfirmed; presumed locally extinct State forest

3 Central Jarrah Forest:

Harris River Hadfield <50 State Forest
Hoffman Presence unconfirmed; presumed locally extinct State Forest
Victor Road <50 State Forest
Posted by Protagoras, Thursday, 14 May 2009 1:26:42 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
Tragedy,

Protagoras has provided you with some good scientific evidence of the detrimental effects of logging on species numbers.

It should be blatantly obvious that if you destroy a creatures habitat it cannot survive unless it moves on and competes with the already resident populations in an as yet undestroyed area. Habitat destruction is incremental and in Australia never-ending. Local species extinctions are commonplace and the reasons for those extinctions normally are the result of a combination of factors of which habitat destruction is the most significant. Logging is is an excellent way of destroying habitat.

Tragedy, are you concerned about species extinction or are lining up for a job or holding onto a job in the logging industry? Just interested that's all. There is plenty of literature available should you wish to broaden your education on the threats to species viability posed by habit destruction.
Posted by kulu, Thursday, 14 May 2009 4:08:14 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
Kill 'em all. Kill the bloody lot of them!

If God was gonna shed a tear for exterminated marine ecologies he would have by now!

The sooner we make room for 9 billion people to live first world lives the better it will be for economic growth & prime ministerial grand ambitions.

I can't wait to start my own media empire. Think I'll call it Fox & Fiends#1. I'll have to work hard to compete with Fox & Fiends#2 through Fox & Fiends#9,000,000,000.

But with all those whales gone and 9Billion bums on toilet seats poisoning the oceans, their will be no growing, growing, marine ecologies left to absorb equatorial heat. So, my pretties, all the heat in the world will FLOW to the Poles and melt them good! We can then find enough new OIL to drive our crudest ambitions and children and grand children and great-great- ....... children FOREVER.

I just can't, I just can't, I just can't wait.

Kill all the whales and any other heat-absorbing marine ecosystem now.

Yoooo Haaaah!

And if 100Million low landers get killed by floods from glacial melts , whose gonna miss em'. Too low too slow!

Don't you know, its all about US:

I wondered should I go or should I stay,
the band had only one more song to play.
And then I saw you out the corner of my eye,
a little girl, alone and so shy.
I ate the last whale with you,
two lonely people together.
I fell in love with you,
the last whale won't last forever.
But the economics we had were growing strong,
through the oil drilled in the whale&ice-free Arctic we'll get along.
And then the flame of love died in your eye,
my heart was broke in two when you said goodbye.
I ate the last whale with you...
It's all over now, nothing left to say,
just my tears and the orchestra playing.
La-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la.
What's to happen to all our children and great-great ....
La-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la.
I ate the last whale with you...
La-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la.
Posted by KAEP, Thursday, 14 May 2009 5:38:00 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
No answer forthcoming from TRTL, kulu or the reincarnation of dickie to Tragedy's request. And the usual distractions and smears to hide the fact. An example please.
Posted by fungochumley, Thursday, 14 May 2009 8:34:00 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
Keep on sending the message out about our oceans KAEP – we’re reading you.

Kulu has an excellent grip on the issue of threatened species. Currently there are several restoration and recovery programmes implemented to sustain specie numbers but long term results are not yet available - except from the extractive industries.

However the land clearing in Australia continues and in 2001, Australia's rate of land clearing was amongst the highest in the world and the highest in the developed world.

Figures for the year 2000 show it had the sixth highest clearing rate on earth (behind Brazil, Indonesia, Sudan, Zambia and Mexico), at approximately 565 000 ha per annum, a rise of seven per cent over the previous year.

Land clearing also had devastating effects on other vertebrates. Between 1983 and 1993, land clearing led to the deaths of at least a billion reptiles, or more than 100 million reptiles on average each year.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2001-02/02RP02.htm#major

Sept 7, 2008: “Australian koalas are dying by the thousands as a result of land clearing in the country's northeast, while millions of birds and reptiles are also perishing,” conservation group WWF said.

“The environmental body warned that unless urgent action was taken to stop trees being felled, some species would be pushed to the brink of extinction.

“In an annual statement, Queensland state revealed that 375,000 hectares of bush were cleared in 2005-06 -- a figure WWF said would have resulted in the deaths of two million mammals.

Spokesman Nick Heath said WWF's figures were based on earlier scientific assessments of animal density in each area of the state combined with the amount of land cleared over the 2005-2006 period.

16/04/2009: Australia is clearing native vegetation at a rate that amounts to a $2.4 billion annual loss of stored carbon, a Senate climate change inquiry heard yesterday:

http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/land-clearing-still-in-climate-scientists-sights/1488025.aspx

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/1383.0.55.001Main+Features192009
Posted by Protagoras, Friday, 15 May 2009 1:34:21 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
It occurred to me yesterday, reading that journal-of-record mX on the way home in the train, that this whole beat-up is just another version of the cuddly-animals syndrome. You know, the one where it is so much more evil to club baby seals to death than it is to poison a rat.

The article that prompted this thought was one about the introduction by "researchers" in Texas of phorid flies, to kill fire ants.

Apparently, the phorid fly lays eggs on the fire ants, the eggs hatch into maggots inside the ant and eat away at the ant's brain. The ant "wanders around for about two weeks while the maggot feeds [on its brain]. And about a month later, the ant's head falls off".

Would it upset the do-gooders of the world if fire ants became extinct? I suspect not. Because we don't like them, do we?

It would be nice to see some honesty here. It's not about global warming. It's not about the problem of species becoming extinct.

It's because hamsters are cute and wrinkle up their little nosies at us, isn't it?
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 15 May 2009 10:44:29 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
Pericles

I've never met a hamster and I don’t own any “cuddly” animals – nor do I go to zoos to experience that warm and fuzzy feeling.

Rather I ponder the fate of let’s say the dung beetle who is a marvellous little creature for biological control. The flightless dung beetle occurs only in a wilderness area of Daintree National Park where there has been no logging, no road construction and only the occasional foot traverses by bushwalkers.

However, other Australian dung beetle species are not adapted to feeding on cattle dung because cattle are not native to Australia so we imported the African beetle and that has been a great success. Dung beetles also bury animal dung, thus reducing fly numbers and mitigating the risk of contagions.

There is even talk among scientists to use these beetles to clean up doggy doo. However, in Africa, of the 29 species of dung beetles recorded in the Ankasa forest, most have become absent in plantations where assemblages were numerically dominated by species previously recorded in African savannas but the plantation fauna showed significantly lower species richness and diversity.

Africans continue to hunt bushmeat on which the dung beetle depends and of course hunting bushmeat (and intensive farming) is a major cause for the release of lethal pathogens which afflict humans around the planet.

Forest ants are extremely important in the recycling of organic material back into the system and they usually live in forest canopies and hollowed out stems. The reviled cockroach are important scavengers too but one must wonder what happens to the biodiversity in forests after the forestry and agricultural industry dumps tonnes of chemicals – by air or land, to kill off “invasive” pests. And these chemicals land in precious water reserves on which humans and animals depend.

KAEP’s beloved coastlines are sick from human and agricultural wastes and humans (not least the Japanese) are plundering the oceans for the tiny krill on which many larger marine species depend for their survival and many nations depend on the larger marine species for *their* survival. Need I elaborate further?
Posted by Protagoras, Friday, 15 May 2009 1:14:18 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
Just the answers I expected - ad Hominen attacks on me and so-called industry insiders publishing their research. I am still waiting for the evidence that backs up TLTR's statement. I am not interested in the personal attacks, I just want evidence please.

Protagoras trusts I am "not all that dumb Tragedy for you appear to be challenging this statement" but doesn't provide the evidence when I am serious about challenging his/her statement. Instead he provides us with a diatribe about land clearing. I am not interested in species extinction attributable to land clearing I am interested in extinctions atttributable to logging in Australia. If you don't know the difference between land clearing and logging I (and other readers) are wasting our time engaging with you.

I want people to be accountable for the assertions they make. Otherwise I will simply treat their words as opinionated waffle exposing their lack of unbiased knowledge on the subject they are rambling about.
Posted by tragedy, Friday, 15 May 2009 5:52:22 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
A very important issue:

What benchmarks are there to show the oceans are OR are not dying due to human SEWAGE,AGRI, MUNICIPAL & INDUSTRIAL micro effluents?

This paper shows that ocean ecologies are in fact being exterminated by human activity in a very specialised area of the biosphere & that CO2 is not the cause. In fact observations of increased ocean CO2 levels may indeed be the result of oxidation or decay of human effluent poisoned marine ecologies that depend on the air-sea microlayer (SIMC) for their reproduction:

"It is particularly appropriate to use larval stages to
determine microlayer toxicity since many species of
fish and invertebrates have surface dwelling larval
stages which may be exposed to the enriched concentrations of potentially toxic chemicals which occur in the microlayer at the air-sea interface (Kocan et al. 1987, von Westernhagen et al. 1987). Potential toxicants such as copper (Cu), lead (Pb) and tributyltin
(TBT) can be highly enriched in the surface microlayer (SIMC)by as much as "1000"!! times bulkwater values (Pattenden et al. 1981). Even greater enhancements can occur with organic compounds such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
(Baier et al. 1974, Brockman et al. 1976, Cross et al.
1987, Hardy et al. 1987)."

http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/103/m103p103.pdf

Referenced researchers continue to say that we know so little about our oceans .. yet .. we do know that:

* the SIMC microlayer 10-100microns is key to the reproductivity of most marine ecologies especially those at the bottom of the food web

* that SIMC microlayer is under attack from huge athropogenic fluxes of dangerous & persistent toxicants

Therefore the entire marine food web from the bottom, up to large mammals like whales are being poisoned or starved out of existence by human wastewater products fouling up the critical SIMC layer within equally critical estuarial breeding grounds for the majority of marine ecosystems.

The notion that CO2 is the major cause of climate change is pathetic when you do the sums of ENERGY NOT being absorbed, by exterminated marine ecosystems. Instead that heat is gyred into circumpolar currents(roaring 40's) causing global=warming&ice-melts.
Posted by KAEP, Sunday, 17 May 2009 8:11:59 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
Uh, tragedy, I didn't actually specifically nominate Australia, but if I did, Protagoras has provided many concrete examples anyway, which you didn't want to address because actually, you're just sitting at a keyboard playing games with people.

This statement is pretty self-evident, but you're not actually challenging it are you? My point was that we don't need to actually debate whether man is causing climate change, the fact is, species are becoming endangered due to bad environmental practices, with logging nominated as an example. I didn't see you directly challenge this, because as I pointed out, that would be pretty damn foolish.

From where I'm sitting you're just trying to make people run around in circles to prove a point. Maybe you get your jollies from it, but frankly I get sick of such childish games.

I have better things to do.

But go on, feel free to wail about how you've proved your point and added something to some mysterious scoreboard while the rest of us shake our heads about how dumb it sounds. Sorry if this sounds contemptuous, but frankly, there are rare cases where contempt is warranted and this is one of 'em, probably because you're not going to any effort to mount any kind of argument or make any kind of point, you're just trying to get people to put together information which you appear to dismiss anyway. An ugly habit, IMHO.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 18 May 2009 6:51:47 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
TRTL - By trying to attack me personally and avoiding answering my question shows you are the one guilty of childish games.

If you think Protagoras' examples are concrete then you are delusional. For a start he went on about extinctions caused by land clearing, not logging.

I note in your post you are now talking "endangered" instead of extinct. Perhaps, given your inability to provide me with one example to answer my question, you acknowledge that your statement was incorrect.

Ooops sorry, I am now guilty playing "childish games" by exposing your inability to provide facts to back up your argument.
Posted by tragedy, Monday, 18 May 2009 9:31:12 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
A page and then some of evidence from experts on the decline and extinction of native species caused by logging but we've got a sick one here - tragedy's his name and tragic is his nature.

But let's not feed the shifty troll.
Posted by Protagoras, Monday, 18 May 2009 11:49:12 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
Pericles

I am really disappointed by your specious posts on this topic, Protagoras and I have given succinct explanations for the need for retaining the bio-diversity of our planet's ecosystem.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8844&page=0#140951

I have explained why just transferring an endangered species to another area is fraught with problems and therefore it is more imperative to maintain what habitats we do have and to improve on what has been altered.

As well we need to stop the explosion of population of one animal species - ourselves.

While I did use examples of "cute" (I did have direct involvement with study of eco-systems) I also explained the interconnectedness of each ecological community and the need for balance.

You don't have to accept AGW to know that we are destroying our environment and endangering all life.

Do you really believe we can continue "business as usual"?
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 19 May 2009 9:54:32 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
Pericles

Your posts are a cut above the absolute rubbish posted by Tragedy, fungochumley and and others so it would be good if you would answer Fractelles question...

"Do you really believe we can continue "business as usual?"

If you do believe it, for how long and how are the resources of a finite planet going to be made to stretch out for the time you suggest?
Posted by kulu, Tuesday, 19 May 2009 12:28:06 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
Specious, eh Fractelle?

>>I am really disappointed by your specious posts on this topic<<

"Specious adj.
1.Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious
2.Deceptively attractive."

I'd be happy with the second definition. But this isn't about me, it's about my posts, n'est-ce pas?

My first was simply an extended riff on what I consider to be the relative importance of this topic, compared with all the other competing challenges we face every day.

I have no doubt that it is tremendously important to some people that the mountain-dwelling hamsters or the bottle-nosed wombat don't become extinct. My view is that worrying about the possible extinction of this or that individual animal borders on the trivial.

Once you move the discussion to the general - is climate change impacting the future of our planet through the reduction of biodiversity - you enter an entirely new realm of discussion.

Are the animals we are losing ones that the planet can afford to lose? Are there species that will become stronger, as a result of the decrease in biodiversity? Are those (stronger) species welcome, or to be feared - i.e. do they pose a threat in another form?

Since species and subspecies have in the past become extinct on a regular basis, this is not, I would humbly suggest, an unrealistic - or fallacious - position to adopt.

My second post simply underlined this point. What is the ecological underpinning of the desire to save individual species from history's out-tray?

My third post simply pointed out that no-one had provided any justification for supporting the survival of one species over another, in the context of maintaining an overall level of biodiversity. I therefore surmised that any such decision would be based upon the animal's cute-factor.

In the absence of any more scientifically-based rationale, it doesn't sound a particularly fallacious proposition.

In fact, I'd venture to suggest that it had "the ring of truth or plausibility" about it.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 19 May 2009 1:15:09 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
Pericles

The points you keep missing:

1. It is not that species haven't become extinct in the past, but the rate of extinction due to human impact on the environment at present.

2. There is no choosing a particular species for survival, when any species is only as vital as the environment which maintains it. This is why frogs are considered "canaries" of environmental health - if they are dying out then an entire eco-system is under threat.

3. I used the word 'specious' in that I found your posts to be more fanciful than serious. Perhaps I have the meaning of the word wrong.

4. Do you understand what is meant by bio-diversity? Have I and others not been clear enough for you?

5. You still haven't answered my question, do we need to take action to protect our remaining resources/environment?

In other words:

Business as Usual?

Yes or NO.

If "no" please justify.
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 19 May 2009 1:34:25 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
OK, let's try to cut through the smoke and mirrors.

1. TRTL claimed that people cause the extinctions of many animals through logging, pollution and so forth, and that anyone would be dumb to believe otherwise.

2. An example was requested by tragedy in the case of logging.

3. Unless I've missed it, none has been forthcoming.

4. What has come are: insults, attempts to alter the terms (eg. "decline and...", "endangered"), conspiracy theories, assumptions/accusations of vested interests, diversionary questions, difficulties in getting data. That is, variations of the kinds of defenses a 5 year old caught lying would make - "I hate you!", "You hate me!", "No, you broke the vase!" "It's so unfair - you're just out to get me!, "I didn't say I didn't brake the vase! I thought you said..er..the cars!"

5. Please drop the rubbish, provide an example, or acknowledge you haven't.

Let me try to be clear: I am not claiming there haven't been any extinctions due to logging. I am asking for an example to back up the claim that there have been. Contrary to TRTL, I think only the dumb would go through life listening to all and every claim without asking for evidence.

Any response without an example or an ackowledgment will be met with a 'X' from me.

Why is asking for such an example "absolute rubbish" kulu
Posted by fungochumley, Tuesday, 19 May 2009 6:44:40 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
Thanks Fungo chumley you saved me time trying to summarise as well.

Just for the record, Protagoras says "A page and then some of evidence from experts on the decline and extinction of native species caused by logging". Let's have a closer look.

He/she cites a paper on a study of 6 bird species in northern Jarrah forests as his/her evidence of extiction from logging but in his/her words it talks about changing habitat - not extinction- of 6 bird species. The study is simply a look at a habitat at a certain time. No evidence that the birds are not a pre logging levels some time after the logging. You need to do a bit better than that but nice try.

Then examples of impacts on possums is used from a paper by Burrows but hardly evidence that those species became extinct from logging.

Then the corker is the example of effects of bauxite mining on quokkas on Rottnest Island from a bureacrats report. Please. My request was serious...don't patronise us.

It is a simple request. If you can't back up TLTR's claims that I took to task then simply admit you can't as per Fungochuley's succint summary above instead of wasting our time on attacking me personally.
Posted by tragedy, Tuesday, 19 May 2009 9:05:21 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
That's another one of those trick questions, Fractelle.

>>do we need to take action to protect our remaining resources/environment? In other words: Business as Usual? Yes or NO.<<

Much the same structure and intent as "Pericles, have you stopped beating your wife, yes or NO"

Obviously, we should not wantonly destroy the planet upon which we live. That would be stupid. So in the longer term we clearly need to find a more self-sustaining set of methods for energy, food etc.

Though whether we should go about this task in a sane, calm and methodical way, or whether we should rush around in a panic like a bunch of headless chooks seems to be a matter of personal taste. Right at the moment, I'd hazard a guess that there are at least a million people panicking for every one who is actually working on a real solution.

And no, I don't consider a) the Prius b) fluorescent light globes or c) Earth Hour to come under the heading "real solution".

Whatever. But back to the topic, yes, indiscriminate action to "save" every single one of the members of the animal kingdom under the cover-all banner of "we must retain bio-diversity" may make us temporarily warm and fuzzy inside, but strikes me as largely self-indulgent.

Specifically:

>>It is not that species haven't become extinct in the past, but the rate of extinction due to human impact on the environment at present.<<

That doesn't, on its own, strike me as a reason to stop any individual species from dying out.

Also - is it actually true, that we humans have increased the rate of extinction? Surely we're just another historical accident, like that meteor, or a major volcanic eruption.

>>any species is only as vital as the environment which maintains it<<

That's a circular argument. If the environment was different, a different species would be there. Frogs go, snakes come. Dinosaurs die out. Crocodiles survive. Life goes on. For a while.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 19 May 2009 11:07:17 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
A learning disorder for the afflicted involves significant impairment of reading accuracy, speed, or comprehension and these slow learners are known for their recurrent unacceptable behavior.

Enter the tragedy of errors and OLO's resident dimwit, fungochumley:

"I hate you!", "You hate me!", "No, you broke the vase!" "It's so unfair - you're just out to get me!, "I didn't say I didn't brake (sic) the vase! I thought you said..er..the cars!"

"as per Fungochuley's (sic) succint (sic) summary." You call that frenzied rave succinct, Tragic? Is that what your berko mutterings were about?

Are the guys in the white coats on call tonight? Bring two straight jackets please.

Rottnest Island is a nature reserve as stated. Comprehend? There has never been any bauxite mining on Rottnest Island. Catch on? The number of quokkas on Rottnest Island were used as a comparison to areas where logging and mining occur - dolt!
Posted by Protagoras, Tuesday, 19 May 2009 11:37:05 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
Good question you ask Pericles "Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or NO". Me? I haven't even started...yet.

But seriously. You say. "Though whether we should go about this task in a sane, calm and methodical way, or whether we should rush around in a panic...

We need to ask ourselves whether we have TIME to go about the task in a sane??, calm and methodical way. That has been tried since at least the late sixties, early seventies. Results? Negligible if any. The rate of population growth remains at high levels and economic growth (energy and material consumption etc) continues at escalating levels. Ditto biodiversity losses, wild fish stocks collapses and other indicators of increasing environmental stress. Economic and social complexity is also on the increase.

You say... "at least a million people panicking for every one who is actually working on a real solution."

The million people panicking are not for the most part lying around inert, doing nothing. Fractelle, Protagoras, TRTL and others are all doing their bit to educate and activate just by arguing our points on this forum if nothing else. As to panicking, I can't speak for the others but if I were forty years younger I would be panicking.

continued
Posted by kulu, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 1:04:40 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
X
Posted by fungochumley, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 8:09:19 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
Continued (Response to Pericles from yesterday)

Fluorescent light globes etc are not the solution as you say. I would actually suggest that the Prius and light bulb thing are more about greenwash than genuinely about solving the problem. Earth Hour is more about activating and educating and trying to bring pressure on those in power (who do have the potential to bring about solutions) to address the problem.

Now to the matter of extinctions. As I have said before somewhere there is perhaps an exaggerated effort to save species from extinction but that is so because it is only at this point that the normally complacent public and uninterested governments can be induced to commit resources to the effort. Even so if the particular species is unremarkable or unknown and its extinction could be prevented by for instance preventing mining interfering with its niche habitat its existence is more often than not compromised.

Species extinction is incremental. One by one they disappear until hey presto there are only humans, their domestic animals the microbes and a few other adapters left. Of course far fewer humans than we presently have swarming around the planet.

In the end too it is a value thing. You can't force anyone to care.
Posted by kulu, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 2:36:35 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
Well said Kulu.

Pericles

Yes, environments change and either flora and fauna adapt or die out. I am sure that planet earth will endure, but vastly altered from the planet we know. It may or may not be able to sustain a population of humans, but certainly not in the level of comfort that western societies currently enjoy. Either way humans won't be living in a 'magic pudding' economy. We can either take control of how we live or just let come what may.

As for your skirting around "business as usual" am I correct in surmising that you don't see any need to do something now? That later generations can deal with resource depletion and mass extinction of viable eco-systems? That these same generations will wonder at the diversity of animal life that only exist via films and photos.

Things we won't need to photograph:

Cockroaches
Algae
Ants
Algae
Sparrows
More Algae
Maybe some lichen

Cheers
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 3:14:14 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
How many opportunities do you need to come up with one, just one example of a species in Australia that has become extinct due to logging (not likely to or is about to or is incrementally becoming extinct or is at the tipping point or someone feels is disappearing or their studies show a decline). It is a simple request in response to someone’s glib assertion. NAME ONE SPECIES THAT IS NOW EXTINCT DUE TO LOGGING TO BACK UP TLTR's CLAIM. Last chance. Any takers. Going going go…
Posted by tragedy, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 9:21:10 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
Tragedy, for starters, you altered my claim to state 'in Australia.'

I never stated any such thing, and yet, it appears to be the lynchpin of your argument.

The point I was making earlier, was that I loathe people who put in no effort whatsoever, but ask others to do the hard yards to prove simple points.

In fact, you haven't even done us the service of stating categorically that you don't think any species in Australia has been wiped out by logging.

That way, you'd actually put your name to something instead of playing these games.

You'd have to take an actual stance instead of forcing others to do the hard yards - a debate tactic I loathe for its laziness.

So, seeing as you're putting words in my mouth, I'll put some in words - but making other people run around to satisfy this point, you must clearly believe it.

So now I'll prove you wrong, even though you haven't said it.

For starters, lets just look at mammals. Here's a basic list of now-extinct animals in Australia.

http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/nature_conservation/wildlife/threatened_plants_and_animals/extinct_in_the_wild/extinct_in_the_wild_animals/

Now lets get more specific -

The paradise parrot:
http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/nature_conservation/wildlife/threatened_plants_and_animals/extinct_in_the_wild/paradise_parrot/

Reasons for extinction: Land clearing, grazing by sheep and cattle, and changed patterns of burning all contributed to the destruction of the paradise parrot’s habitat and, in particular, the reduction in the availability of native grass seeds.

Point one was 'land clearing.' Now, you can make a point about modern logging being a sustainable practice, something I'm not disputing in some instances - but it has not always been thus, and in many cases (perhaps not all) dating back to the 1920s this parrot was last sighted, logging and land clearing have been one and the same.

Cont'd.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 22 May 2009 4:24:50 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
Now, if you want to make any arguments, I expect you to do more than froth and foam and act like a child.

You'll need to actually provide links and show yourself to be a worthwhile debater instead of a lazy krank who wants us to perform for him, because I'm not in the mood for more silly games.

The point I was making, am making, and have been stating all along, is that this article wasn't about whether global warming is anthropogenic, and like it or not, people are responsible for species being wiped out - so species relocation is a topic worth discussion.

Are you actually challenging this? I don't think you are, because you seem to be picking obscure points then making people run around.

Ball's in your court.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 22 May 2009 4:25:58 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
Nice try TRTL, which I will acknowledge, but another X from me.

Firstly, your claim remains unsubstantiated. End of story really.

But, secondly, despite your attacks on tragedy, there is nothing childish or silly about asking someone to substantiate such a claim. What makes you think your opinion should be accepted as fact?

Thirdly, there is no onus on tragedy or anyone to disprove your claim. It is unreasonable to expect someone to spend there lives trying to prove that they've never murdered anyone - it's up to the person who accuses them to prove it. And no one is under an obligation to do you "the service" of categorically stating the opposite of you - as I tried to make clear. If you find the basics of rational debate irksome, perhaps you should try something else.

So, contrary to your evasive logic and defensive reaction, it is actually making claims without substantiation, or seemingly any willingness to do so, which shows "laziness", both in thinking and in effort.

cont...
Posted by fungochumley, Saturday, 23 May 2009 8:00:10 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
(cont from above)

Under the pump, however, you seem to have put in the "hard yards" of typing "landclearing + extinction" into google, and come up with the Paradise parrot, rare in the late 19th century, and last seen about 85 years ago. Of the thousand or so bird species in Oz, this is what you've come up with. Spare me days!

I won't accuse you of being consciously dishonest in omitting the second sentence of the paragraph from which you quote, on possible reasons for extinction:

"Trapping for aviaries, egg collection, the spread of prickly pear and the occurrence of a series of droughts were also factors that are likely to have contributed to the paradise parrot’s extinction."

In other words, there appear to have been a range of possible factors, including naturally occurring events, mistakes and activities which would not be permitted today.

The parrot is described has having lived within a "fairly restricted range", and as Mathews is quoted in your site, regrettably became extinct "without any lasting record of its life-history being made known.” In other words, it seems little was known about it or it's population. Was it already on "the brink of extinction"? One question it begs is why it disappeared while other species of parrot lived on? Could it have been, dare I say, the sometimes sad reality of evolution in action, one of the parts of nature that environmentalists don't want to know about?

Hard to know, but the key point is that, as wikipedia states:

"The reasons for the sudden decline of the Paradise Parrot remain speculative."

Please resubmit.
Posted by fungochumley, Saturday, 23 May 2009 8:04:03 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
"Reasons for extinction: Land clearing, grazing by sheep and cattle, and changed patterns of burning all contributed to the destruction of the paradise parrot’s habitat and, in particular, the reduction in the availability of native grass seeds."

Quite right TRTL, however, the Queensland EPA omitted to state that the Good Night Scrub, in the Burnett River area was the last known sighting of the extinct paradise parrot. The Good Night Scrub was once heavily logged. That's a touchy subject for the forest mafia and the EPA but it would not be the first time that "forestry" has been disguised as "land clearing".

However, regardless of which activity was ultimately responsible for the paradise parrot extinction, those activities were all anthropogenic but even as we speak, the village idiots bewitched by the logging mafia continue to protest on their behalf.

Nevertheless it has been entertaining to learn from our resident troll, fungochumley, that logging is so beneficial for our biodiversity and has nothing to do with species decline or extinctions and I'm certain too that his fellow trolls under the bridge must be proud. What type of medication has fungo shared with them this week I wonder?

And what more could we, the humourously deprived, ask for? Not one but two whole posts in succession of side-splitting fatuity. Hilarious but hey....he must be getting tired of that taste of shoe leather in his mouth.
Posted by Protagoras, Sunday, 24 May 2009 1:13:14 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
X on that. And now a new one to address:

Protagoras: "it has been entertaining to learn from our resident troll, fungochumley, that logging is so beneficial for our biodiversity and has nothing to do with species decline or extinctions"

Quite the charmer aren't you? Could you point to where I said anything of the sort. Unless you do, or retract this, I will assume you are acknowledging that you are lying (again).
Posted by fungochumley, Sunday, 24 May 2009 8:42:11 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...

I did reference it. It's linked to the EPA right there.

Black. And. White. Linked. Referenced. Parrot = extinct. No longer sighted.

You however, have provided nothing but X's.

I rue the day that marking X's on a page equates to any kind of substantial argument.

I can't even call what you've done a 'nice try' because you haven't tried at all.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 26 May 2009 3:22:51 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
Oh dear, I should be being paid for this.

TRTL,

Where do I begin? Let's take it line by line shall we.

"I did reference it. It's linked to the EPA right there. Black. And. White. Linked. Referenced. Parrot = extinct. No longer sighted."

So? Was this the question in dispute? No. Did I dispute this? No. You were not asked to name an extinct animal. To which I could add:

Black. And. White. Tyrannosaurus Rex = extinct. No longer sighted.

No, you were asked to provide an example of a species proven to have become extinct due to logging. You haven't, and your own links don't, nor can you seem to acknowledge this, consciously or otherwise. I can't say that I understand why.

"You however, have provided nothing but X's."

Well, actually, I have. In fact, I was sprayed by Poisonas for writing two long posts. She responded with words like foolishness and fatuity, but did not offer any comment as to why. Is this what you consider substance? I said I would reply with Xs unless an example was provided or an acknowledgment made, but generously responded to your "nice try" above. I also made a case as to why it is unreasonable to demand that people spend their lives trying to prove that they've never murdered anyone. By your own line of reasoning, I could accuse you (and Poisonas) of not responding with any substance and arguing why this demand IS reasonable.

cont...
Posted by fungochumley, Wednesday, 27 May 2009 8:19:05 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
Let's try another approach. Through your links I was curious to read about the build-up of naturally occurring toxic compounds in rotting backhousia leaf litter. I also read a list of natural foods that are unhealthy for parrots. Let me be clear: I don't know about this stuff (perhaps there's an ornithologist out there), but my curiosity got me wondering if it wasn't relevant. Could the series of droughts (not anthropogenic as falsely claimed by Poisonas) have forced the species to eat too much of this substance? I reiterate that I don't know, but if I had the time I'd love to inquire. I may be off the beam (off the branch), but the POINT is that if I made the claim that this is what caused the "sudden decline" of the Paradise parrot, I would need to provide evidence - that the birds did eat the stuff, that it is toxic for them, maybe droppings analysis, toxicology tests on closely related species, etc. You would be right to ask for this, and if I couldn't (and I can't) provide it, I would be quite happy to acknowledge it, and that the reasons remain "speculative".

The vast majority of extinctions on this planet occurred before humans came along. It seems ludicrous to me, therefore, to think that the small number that have occurred since HAVE to be attributed to mankind, and that previous reasons are somehow no longer possible. Why shouldn't a species die because of eating the wrong food? Getting a disease? Contrary to Poisonas's apparent view, there are naturally occurring substances toxic to particular species (try eating a wild almond if you doubt it). Extinction happens!

Lastly, just for your interest, I will point out there are examples of species believed extinct being rediscovered, eg. the New Zealand storm petrel after being thought extinct for 150 years!

I hope you consider some of this substantial. Personally, I consider 'unsubstantiated' claims, and the failure to acknowledge them, to be 'unsubstantial'. And already rue the abundance of this on OLO.

X for now!
Posted by fungochumley, Wednesday, 27 May 2009 8:29:41 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. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All

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