How Silly is Climate Change Denial?

[mike]

I never said the Earth could bring back a species we made extinct. Man is responsible for making many species extinct. However, that's just a drop in a bucket in the history of extinction. 90% of all species that ever lived are extinct and man had little to nothing to do with it.

Life has existed on Earth for over 3.5 billion years. Over 95% of the species that ever existed have gone extinct. So why should we be concerned about current extinction rates and conserving biodiversity?
Currently the planet is inhabited by several million species in about 100 different phyla (Dirzo & Raven 2003). About 1.8 million have been described by scientists (Hilton- Taylor 2008), but conservative estimates suggest that there are 5-15 million species alive today (May, 2000), since many groups of organisms remain poorly studied. Over 15,000 new species are described each year (Dirzo & Raven 2003), and new species are evolving during our lifetimes. However, modern extinction rates are high, at 100 to 1000 times greater than background extinction rates calculated over the eras. Although new species appear, existing species go extinct at a rate 1000 times that of species formation (Wilson 2003). Many biologists agree that we are in the midst of a mass extinction, a time when 75% or more of species are lost over a short geological time scale (Raup 1994). The last great mass extinction was 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous, when the dinosaurs went extinct. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature estimates that 22% of known mammals, 32% of amphibians, 14% of birds, and 32% of gymnosperms (all well-studied groups) are threatened with extinction (Hilton-Taylor 2008). Species that were abundant within the last 200 years have gone extinct. For example, passenger pigeons, which numbered three to five billion in the mid-1800s (Ellsworth & McComb 2003), are now extinct.
Why should we be concerned about this loss of biodiversity? The answer lies in the fact that, for the first time in Earth’s history, single species, HOMO SAPIENS, could cause a mass extinction, precipitating its own demise. The primary cause of today’s loss of biodiversity is habitat alteration caused by human activities. Let’s think about the meaning of biodiversity. Most people understand that biodiversity includes the great heterogeneous assemblage of living organisms. This aspect of biodiversity is also known as species diversity. Biodiversity includes two other components as well- genetic diversity and ecosystem diversity.

Yes animals go extinct, but the rate of man made extinction is obscene and unnecessary, its being done for the sake of growing an already overpopulated species at the expense of the others.

Your argument seems to be akin to "well people get run down by cars and killed, its been happening for years, lots of people have been killed by cars, so its no big deal if i go out and run people down"

Not withstanding if we upset the eco balance on earth too much, we may well screw it up to the point where we kill ourselves as a result.

As the scientist who helped eradicate smallpox he certainly know a thing or two about extinction.
And now Professor Frank Fenner, emeritus professor of microbiology at the Australian National University, has predicted that the human race will be extinct within the next 100 years.
He has claimed that the human race will be unable to survive a population explosion and 'unbridled consumption.’
Fenner told The Australian newspaper that 'homo sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within 100 years.'
'A lot of other animals will, too,' he added


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1287643/Human-race-extinct-100-years-population-explosion.html#ixzz32sOus6FR

 

[mike]

Again you display an inability to grasp the deeper concept of the math involved

Barnosky calculates that humans are now creating a mass extinction on the same scale – the planet's sixth one – through a combination of habitat encroachment and fragmentation, hunting, climate change, pollution, and the spread of disease and introduced species. As many as 30% of all species may be lost over the next four decades, conservationists estimate.
Extinction is actually a natural and common phenomenon – of the roughly 4 billion species estimated to have evolved on Earth, some 99% are gone. In the past, the extinction rate has been balanced by the evolution of new species, but the current, human-caused extinction is happening so fast that evolution cannot keep pace. Barnosky estimates that the current rate is 1,000 times the natural rate

The Anthropocene, or Age of Man, will be marked by a rapid decline in biodiversity as animals and plants disappear from the planet forever. It won't just be the individual creatures that vanish, but also their descendants on the evolutionary tree – whole lines of phyla will prematurely cease.

BBC - Future - A looming mass extinction caused by humans

Instead, in our human world, we must decide what type of ecosystems we would collectively like, and set about creating and protecting them. In the Anthropocene, we are no longer just another part of the natural world, we are the planet's gardeners. And that means we must develop our nurturing skills.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Mike, I'm not sure you realize this but even if we were completely gone tomorrow the earth will still have extinctions. Most will be on a small scale but there will be routine major mass extinctions. All of these extinctions will continue until all life is completely wiped off the planet when the planet can no longer sustain life.

The point is not to stop extinctions. The point is to limit man-made extinctions. The species that are on the way out, like Pandas, should be allowed to go out in peace.

 

[mike]

Mike, I'm not sure you realize this but even if we were completely gone tomorrow the earth will still have extinctions. Most will be on a small scale but there will be routine major mass extinctions. All of these extinctions will continue until all life is completely wiped off the planet when the planet can no longer sustain life.

The point is not to stop extinctions. The point is to limit man-made extinctions. The species that are on the way out, like Pandas, should be allowed to go out in peace.

but the current, human-caused extinction is happening so fast that evolution cannot keep pace. Barnosky estimates that the current rate is 1,000 times the natural rate

This is unjustified, avoidable and unnecessary.

Again your premise seems to be that since people have been getting run over and killed by cars for years, and will continue to do so for years, its ok for you to go out on a rampage and mow down as many pedestrians as you can find, that its no big deal if you do so

The issue is responsibility, background extinction and natural events are one thing
Unjustified ecocide is another

Just as road accidents happen, but deliberate homicide is wrong

 

[mike]

Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day

We can see that the planet is already stressed by human overpopulation and consumption

Species diversity ensures ecosystem resilience, giving ecological communities the scope they need to withstand stress.



No group of animals has a higher rate of endangerment than amphibians. Scientists estimate that a third or more of all the roughly 6,300 known species of amphibians are at risk of extinction [6]. The current amphibian extinction rate may range from 25,039 to 45,474 times the background extinction rate [7].

Frogs, toads, and salamanders are disappearing because of habitat loss, water and air pollution, climate change, ultraviolet light exposure, introduced exotic species, and disease. Because of their sensitivity to environmental changes, vanishing amphibians should be viewed as the canary in the global coal mine, signaling subtle yet radical ecosystem changes that could ultimately claim many other species, including humans.
Birds occur in nearly every habitat on the planet and are often the most visible and familiar wildlife to people across the globe. As such, they provide an important bellwether for tracking changes to the biosphere. Declining bird populations across most to all habitats confirm that profound changes are occurring on our planet in response to human activities.

Perhaps one of the most striking elements of the present extinction crisis is the fact that the majority of our closest relatives — the primates — are severely endangered. About 90 percent of primates — the group that contains monkeys, lemurs, lorids, galagos, tarsiers, and apes (as well as humans) — live in tropical forests, which are fast disappearing. The IUCN estimates that almost 50 percent of the world’s primate species are at risk of extinction. Overall, the IUCN estimates that half the globe’s 5,491 known mammals are declining in population and a fifth are clearly at risk of disappearing forever with no less than 1,131 mammals across the globe classified as endangered, threatened, or vulnerable. In addition to primates, marine mammals — including several species of whales, dolphins, and porpoises — are among those mammals slipping most quickly toward extinction.

The Extinction Crisis

 

[mike]

And as ive said earlier in this thread, the chances of us getting off this planet, before we wipe ourselves our with our stupidity and greed, decreases faster and faster as we continue to push our only home beyond its limits.

“The biodiversity crisis - the rapid loss of species and the rapid degradation of ecosystems - is probably a greater threat than global climate change to the stability and prosperous future of mankind on earth,”

Biodiversity crisis overshadows climate changes - Thaindian News


Washington, September 24 (ANI): In a new international research, scientists have determined that human activities have already pushed the Earth system beyond three of the planet’s biophysical thresholds, with consequences that are detrimental or even catastrophic for large parts of the world.
The research was conducted by 29 European, Australian and US scientists.
Scientists have been warning for decades that the explosion of human activity since the industrial revolution is pushing the Earth’s resources and natural systems to their limits.

 

[mike]

It takes no stretch of the imagination to see that the human species is now an agent of change of geologic proportions.
We literally move mountains to mine the earth’s minerals, redirect rivers to build cities in the desert, torch forests to make
way for crops and cattle,and alter the chemistry of the atmosphere in disposing of our wastes.

At humanity’s hand, the earth is undergoing a profound transformation one with consequences we cannot fully grasp.
It may be the ultimate irony that, in our efforts to make the earth yield more for ourselves, we are diminishing its ability to sustain life
of all kinds humans included. Signs of environmental constraints are now pervasive. Cropland is scarcely expanding any more,
and a good portion of existing agricultural land is losing fertility. Grasslands have been overgrazed and fisheries overharvested, limiting the
amount of additional food from these sources

Water bodies have suffered extensive depletion and pollution,severely restricting future food production and
urban expansion. And natural forests-which help stabilize the climate, moderate water supplies, and
harbor a majority of the planet’s terrestrial biodiversity continue to recede.

http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/2198.pdf

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Some videos on the current global cooling period we are now in and how it might last another 40 years or more. It's connected to Sun cycles. However, I think some of what this guy says is a bit too alarmist. I'm not an alarmist and I don't think it's right for scientists to try to scare the public. For example, some Russian scientists believe this cooling period could last for 250 years. I am skeptical of such at this point.

 

[mike]

Mike, I'm not sure you realize this but even if we were completely gone tomorrow the earth will still have extinctions. Most will be on a small scale but there will be routine major mass extinctions. All of these extinctions will continue until all life is completely wiped off the planet when the planet can no longer sustain life.

The point is not to stop extinctions. The point is to limit man-made extinctions. The species that are on the way out, like Pandas, should be allowed to go out in peace.

You use the panda example like their situation is natural it is not

Development activities such as deforestation for agricultural land and logging are on going to cope with the ever increasing population of China. These activities are carried out at the expense of the habitat of the pandas, forcing them to move higher up the mountains and isolating them in to discrete groups. In the past two decades, the size of pandas' habitat has decreased by 50%. Now their habitat only offers a total area is about 14,000 km2, divided into 10-20 isolated areas. In some smaller groups of pandas, only 3-5 individuals are found.

China's endangered giant panda is threatened by the rapid expansion of the national highway network, which causing fragmentation of its natural habitat, according to Chinese state media.

The problem greatest in the country's northwest where new highways have separated the local panda population of 100 into five different habitats. Such habitat fragmentation has been shown to result in reduction of biodiversity.

Read more at http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1205-pandas.html#BpOwdyvMfeeBlUy0.99

And again your attitude can be illustrated in a real world parallel.

Yes species have been going extinct long before man became industrialised.
But the current rate of human caused extinction is much much higher that the background rate.

Its akin to living in a city where 2 pedestrians are struck and killed everyday by cars, and using this statistic to justify going out with your jeep and mowing down 200 innocent people killing them (thats a conservative example btw).

Natural extinction/road accidents rates are one thing

Deliberate ecocide or homicide is another

Your comments mark you as a sociopath

 

[Tyger]

Mike, the Earth is a self-regulating system. We can't restore it to pristine pre-human times. [...] I'm not saying trash the planet. I'm saying that when we finally leave the Earth will completely heal itself.

You know this - how? What science is informing this opinion? How does the earth 'heal itself' after we are no more? The earth will certainly go on - but what constitutes a 'healing' of itself'? One could say that the Moon 'healed itself' into a lifeless rock. Or that Mercury 'healed itself' into a fiery inferno.

What makes you think we're leaving, too? What makes you think humanity - as we are - can survive space? Humanity may be a function of earth - may be a function of earth's ecosystem of trees and grass and elephants and kittens and ants. We may discover that we cannot think - just hallucinate and go mad - separated from earth. The winking out of species may be the winking out of humanity - ever think of that? Though we are also finding 'new' species all the time - never before encountered species.

As far as the Earth developing a new intelligent species, doubtful.

So certain. You know this - how?

Again, there's only 800 million years left. By then the sun will destroy all life on the planet. It will kill off the plants first and then the animals will follow. In fact, the only way to stop it is to generate enough CO2 to keep the plants alive. But I'm not sure how long that would work.

It's fun to extrapolate. Where did you get 800 million years? LINK: Future of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Text: The biological and geological future of the Earth can be extrapolated based upon the estimated effects of several long-term influences. These include the chemistry at the Earth's surface, the rate of cooling of the planet's interior, the gravitational interactions with other objects in the Solar System, and a steady increase in the Sun's luminosity. An uncertain factor in this extrapolation is the ongoing influence of technology introduced by humans, such as geoengineering,[2] which could cause significant changes to the planet.[3][4] The current biotic crisis[5] is being caused by technology[6] and the effects may last for up to five million years.[7] In turn, technology may result in theextinction of humanity, leaving the planet to gradually return to a slower evolutionary pace resulting solely from long-term natural processes.[8][9]

Mike, I'm not sure you realize this but even if we were completely gone tomorrow the earth will still have extinctions. Most will be on a small scale but there will be routine major mass extinctions. All of these extinctions will continue until all life is completely wiped off the planet when the planet can no longer sustain life.

You know this - how? Are you a zoologist? I ask just to get a sense from where your 'knowledge' is coming from - since you never cite. (I don't mean YouTube videos).

The point is not to stop extinctions. The point is to limit man-made extinctions. The species that are on the way out, like Pandas, should be allowed to go out in peace.

How do we do that? Wouldn't maintaining the eco-system help stop man-made extinctions?

 

[BoyintheMachine]

You use the panda example like their situation is natural it is not

Development activities such as deforestation for agricultural land and logging are on going to cope with the ever increasing population of China. These activities are carried out at the expense of the habitat of the pandas, forcing them to move higher up the mountains and isolating them in to discrete groups. In the past two decades, the size of pandas' habitat has decreased by 50%. Now their habitat only offers a total area is about 14,000 km2, divided into 10-20 isolated areas. In some smaller groups of pandas, only 3-5 individuals are found.

China's endangered giant panda is threatened by the rapid expansion of the national highway network, which causing fragmentation of its natural habitat, according to Chinese state media.

The problem greatest in the country's northwest where new highways have separated the local panda population of 100 into five different habitats. Such habitat fragmentation has been shown to result in reduction of biodiversity.

Read more at http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1205-pandas.html#BpOwdyvMfeeBlUy0.99

And again your attitude can be illustrated in a real world parallel.

Yes species have been going extinct long before man became industrialised.
But the current rate of human caused extinction is much much higher that the background rate.

Its akin to living in a city where 2 pedestrians are struck and killed everyday by cars, and using this statistic to justify going out with your jeep and mowing down 200 innocent people killing them (thats a conservative example btw).

Natural extinction/road accidents rates are one thing

Deliberate ecocide or homicide is another

Your comments mark you as a sociopath

Yes, Panda habitation is being destroyed. However, because they are so finicky eaters and breeders they are doomed. Humans may have speed up their extinction but they were on the way out no matter what. I mean seriously, they are bears and can still digest meat but they refuse to eat it. Even if we completely restored their habitat they would die out as soon as the local bamboo did. Their daily existence is a teeter-totter of possible starvation. It would be wrong for us to try to save them when they have very little interest in sex and won't eat anything else.

My advice: Domesticate them and turn them into pets. Bears are distantly related to dogs so it's possible. Otherwise we need to let them go in peace.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

You know this - how? What science is informing this opinion? How does the earth 'heal itself' after we are no more? The earth will certainly go on - but what constitutes a 'healing' of itself'? One could say that the Moon 'healed itself' into a lifeless rock. Or that Mercury 'healed itself' into a fiery inferno.

What makes you think we're leaving, too? What makes you think humanity - as we are - can survive space? Humanity may be a function of earth - may be a function of earth's ecosystem of trees and grass and elephants and kittens and ants. We may discover that we cannot think - just hallucinate and go mad - separated from earth. The winking out of species may be the winking out of humanity - ever think of that? Though we are also finding 'new' species all the time - never before encountered species.

So certain. You know this - how?

It's fun to extrapolate. Where did you get 800 million years? LINK: Future of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Text: The biological and geological future of the Earth can be extrapolated based upon the estimated effects of several long-term influences. These include the chemistry at the Earth's surface, the rate of cooling of the planet's interior, the gravitational interactions with other objects in the Solar System, and a steady increase in the Sun's luminosity. An uncertain factor in this extrapolation is the ongoing influence of technology introduced by humans, such as geoengineering,[2] which could cause significant changes to the planet.[3][4] The current biotic crisis[5] is being caused by technology[6] and the effects may last for up to five million years.[7] In turn, technology may result in theextinction of humanity, leaving the planet to gradually return to a slower evolutionary pace resulting solely from long-term natural processes.[8][9]

You know this - how? Are you a zoologist? I ask just to get a sense from where your 'knowledge' is coming from - since you never cite. (I don't mean YouTube videos).

How do we do that? Wouldn't maintaining the eco-system help stop man-made extinctions?

Seriously? Your questions/statments are on the gradeschool level. The earth has suffered multiple mass extinctions prior to our arrival on the planet. The earth will continue to experience mass extinctions long after we are gone. Over 90% of all species which have ever lived are now extinct and most have nothing to do with humanity.

And yes, in about 800 million years all life as we are familiar with it will be destroyed. The CO2 cycle will be destroyed and plants will use up the remaining CO2 in the atmosphere. When it reaches the point where plants can no longer photosynthesize they will die. Then the animals will die next.

 

[Tyger]

Seriously? Your questions/statments are on the grade school level.

If that is so - then they should be easy to answer. Fact is, the questions are a bit more complicated than you seem to realize - and you didn't answer them. The questions go to the essence of your assumptions. You said the earth would 'heal itself' after humanity was gone - how does the earth 'heal itself'? What does that mean to you?

The earth has suffered multiple mass extinctions prior to our arrival on the planet. The earth will continue to experience mass extinctions long after we are gone. Over 90% of all species which have ever lived are now extinct and most have nothing to do with humanity.

So your answer is based on what you have read, correct? Can you cite where you get your statistics? Plus -these extinctions happened why? Just because - or were there instigating conditions?

And yes, in about 800 million years all life as we are familiar with it will be destroyed. The CO2 cycle will be destroyed and plants will use up the remaining CO2 in the atmosphere. When it reaches the point where plants can no longer photosynthesize they will die. Then the animals will die next.

I asked for a cite for the 800 million years number. You haven't supplied it.

You never answered why you think humanity will be able to exist off earth.

 

[mike]

Genetic evidence suggests the ancestors of giant pandas diverged from other bears 18 million to 22 million years ago. However, much remains uncertain about what early giant pandas were like and how this lineage of bears changed over time — before the new find, the earliest undisputed giant panda fossils recovered were about 8.2 million years old at most, and were from China.

And now they are endangered, their reproductive issues were not an issue until man started destroying their habitat and hunting them

The greatest present threat to the panda's survival is the loss of its habitat. Their range is steadily shrinking due to logging operations, fell trees, and peasants clearing the land for farming or harvesting vegetation for fuel. The panda's populations are already small and isolated, confined to high ridges and hemmed in by cultivation. Poaching was once a serious problem but has dropped off, and it is no longer considered a major problem in substantial portions of the range. Furthermore, pandas' body parts are no longer sought for use in traditional Chinese medicine. Giant pandas are, however, victims of snares set for musk deer by poachers.

An indirect threat relates to the panda's reliance on bamboo for food. Bamboo stands are subject to periodic large-scale die-offs. In the past, when bamboo died off, pandas could migrate to areas with healthy bamboo. But a fragmented habitat makes this impossible. With better public education and awareness, the Panda's status as a Nation Treasure has helped to bring about a better understanding of it's endangered status as well. The Chinese Government has inacted harsher penalties for those that poach Pandas.

They are a specialist species, meaning they cant adapt to new habitats like say a rat can.

But the fact remains the greatest threat to pandas is habitat loss, and thats down to man

Your gleeful insistance its all their fault and they deserve to die out in peace is disgraceful

 

[mike]

Seriously? Your questions/statments are on the gradeschool level. The earth has suffered multiple mass extinctions prior to our arrival on the planet. The earth will continue to experience mass extinctions long after we are gone. Over 90% of all species which have ever lived are now extinct and most have nothing to do with humanity.

.

Actually its your replies that are childish in their over simplistic reply.

Yes extinctions are normal, no the current level of clearly man made extinction levels are not.

The calculated increase in the extinction rate should also be compared to another study of thresholds of resilience for the natural world by Swedish scientists, who warned that anything over 10 times the background rate of extinction – 10 species in every million per year – was above the limit that could be tolerated if the world was to be safe for humans, said Stuart.
"No one's claiming it's as small as 10 times," he said. "There are uncertainties all the way down; the only thing we're certain about is the extent is way beyond what's natural and it's getting worse."

You are trying to suggest that current extinctions are normal/natural. they are not

Although animal extinction is part of the natural cycle, humankind's presence on the earth has accelerated the rate at which species are disappearing.
The list of endangered species around the world is growing due to a range of causes from overhunting to a loss of habitat.

In repeating your mantra of "extinction is normal and natural" you miss the real point being discussed, the current rates of extinction are not.

The only point you are proving to the audience is your inabilty to grasp the deeper context of the issues being discussed.

Its like trying to have a grown up discussion on pubic transport issues, only to have a 4 year old keep interjecting with "I like trains, thomas the tank engine is my favourite"

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Mike,

No offense but I've been humoring you. This thread started with climate change and you keep adding every single thing and the kitchen sink.

Feel free to continue wasting your life in that dark, alarmist, misanthropic mind frame. Perhaps you and Tyger can play a game of who can scare each other silly first.

I'm not joking. All of your posts, every single one, is misanthropic.

 

[mike]

Almost half of all primates face 'imminent extinction'
Of 634 primate species, 48% are on the IUCN's 'red list' of animals under threat as loggers, hunters and smugglers thrive
Almost half of the world's primate species – which include apes, monkeys and lemurs - are threatened with extinction due to the destruction of tropical forests and illegal hunting and trade.
In a report highlighting the 25 most endangered primate species, conservationists have outlined the desperate plight of primates from Madagascar, Africa, Asia and Central and South America, with some populations down to just a few dozen in number.

With some populations of primates down to just a few hundreds or thousands, many species are at imminent risk of extinction. "There are no small disasters for small populations, the disasters are always big," said Schwitzer. "Even if they are a few thousand, they can be wiped out by a couple of events like cyclones. It's very easy for these populations to fail."

Almost half of all primates face 'imminent extinction' | Environment | The Guardian

But dont worry about folks, the planet will blow up one day anyway and they will all be dead, so who cares if we pull the trigger on them now.

 

[mike]

Mike,



I'm not joking. All of your posts, every single one, is misanthropic.

Im almost embarrased to expose this fraud its so easy.

Many of my posts have linked to articles that make the explicit point that our current behaviours not only threaten the biosphere, but humanity along with it.
I have specifically highlighted text from quotes that makes the point that our un sustainable behaviour threatens humanity as well as the rest of our planetary family

Just from this page alone

Why should we be concerned about this loss of biodiversity? The answer lies in the fact that, for the first time in Earth’s history, single species, HOMO SAPIENS, could cause a mass extinction, precipitating its own demise

He has claimed that the human race will be unable to survive a population explosion and 'unbridled consumption.’

vanishing amphibians should be viewed as the canary in the global coal mine, signaling subtle yet radical ecosystem changes that could ultimately claim many other species, including humans

It may be the ultimate irony that, in our efforts to make the earth yield more for ourselves, we are diminishing its ability to sustain life
of all kinds humans included.

by Swedish scientists, who warned that anything over 10 times the background rate of extinction – 10 species in every million per year – was above the limit that could be tolerated if the world was to be safe for humans,

Im arguing to preserve the biosphere and all the species within including us

You........

Bugger the biosphere, dont worry about the ecocide we are causing, keep paving paradise to put up parking lots, and ignore the risk as expressed by the experts that such behavior, could kill us as well

 

[Tyger]

Mike,

No offense but I've been humoring you. This thread started with climate change and you keep adding every single thing and the kitchen sink.

Feel free to continue wasting your life in that dark, alarmist, misanthropic mind frame. Perhaps you and Tyger can play a game of who can scare each other silly first.

I'm not joking. All of your posts, every single one, is misanthropic.

Somehow I don't think so. This is a deflection away from the fact that you appear unable to synthesize information, mesh global information and debate the facts. You as well seem unable to cite and provide background for your categoric statements.

As for being scared - it is you who always mentions 'alarmist' - facts are facts that require action. You want it to be a status quo that requires no effort - it just is what it is, and we should all relax because it's all going to be gone anyway. Relax for sure - we all can use a relaxing day in the sun - but the fact is, it will be what we make it to be - it's in our hands. Work and intelligent action is required. Simple.

 

[mike]

Mike,

No offense but I've been humoring you. This thread started with climate change and you keep adding every single thing and the kitchen sink.

.

Here we go with the cracked record, weve already done this

There is a large body of scientific consensus

The InterAcademy Panel Statement on Population Growth is an international scientist consensus document discussing and demanding a halt of the population expansion. This was the first worldwide joint statement of academies of sciences, and their cooperative InterAcademy Panel on International Issues. It was signed by 58 member academies and hence ratified in 1994.
The Problem
The world is undergoing an unprecedented population expansion. Within the span of a single lifetime, world population has more than doubled to 5.5 billion and even the most optimistic scenarios of lower birth rates lead to a peak of 7.8 billion people in the middle of the next century. In the last decade, food production from both land and sea declined relative to world population growth.
The relationships between human population, economic development and natural environment are complex and not fully understood. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the threat to the ecosystem is linked to population size and resource use. Increasing greenhouse gas emissions, ozone depletion and acid rain, loss of biodiversity, deforestation and loss of topsoil, shortages of water, food and fuel indicate how the natural systems are being pushed ever closer to their limits.

All my posts have therefore been directly relevant to climate change in the context of man made greenhouse gas emissions.

Your objection seems to be that these relevant factors are outside your cracked record mantra of CO2 isnt to blame, repeated ad nauseum and thus you cant refute or debate them.

Thats more a function of you being un educated on the subject than it is they being relevant to the topic, i cant help you there

The recent rapid increase in human population over the past two centuries has raised concerns that the planet may not be able to sustain present or larger numbers of inhabitants. Steve Jones, head of the biology department at University College London, has said, “Humans are 10,000 times more common than we should be”. The InterAcademy Panel Statement on Population Growth has stated that many environmental problems, such as rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, global warming, and pollution, are aggravated by the population expansion. Other problems associated with overpopulation include the increased demand for resources such as fresh water and food, starvation and malnutrition, consumption of natural resources faster than the rate of regeneration

The scientific consensus is that overpopulation is the problem, and that global warming is one aspect of the problem.
Im just adding the other aspects to the discussion, your inability to logically refute those aspects is why you keep trying to stop me from doing so.

The audience i trust can see the tactic for what it is.

The reason why you cant justify the destruction of the biosphere in the name of human greed, the un sustainable depletion of a multitude of renewable resources faster than they can renew. The unnecessary ecocide and extinction of our planetary family species, including half of the primates our closest relations......... Is because its not justifiable.

If the only thing on the other side of the scales to all that awful impact is more humans, then its not a fair swap. Its not fair or reasonable or balanced.

Its stupid, greedy and ultimately self destructive