Why should I care about the Rain Forest? [Archive]

Krill

20 Aug 2006, 08:14 AM

Oh.

What, you too?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0420_040420_earthday.html?

I don't get it.

The exact link, if any, between the increase in carbon dioxide emissions and the higher temperatures is still under debate.

Most scientists believe that humans, by burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum, are largely to blame for the increase in carbon dioxide. But some scientists also point to natural causes, such as volcanic activity.

"Many uncertainties surround global warming," said Ronald Stouffer at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, New Jersey. "How much of it would still occur if humans were not modifying the climate in any way?"

Why might that be? Hmmmm. Try reading the article you cite ;)

The current rate of warning is unprecedented, however. It is apparently the fastest warming rate in millions of years, suggesting it probably is not a natural occurrence.

O rly?

The Earth experiences periodic cycles (Milankovitch cycles) of global warming and cooling. The last temperature maxim occurred nearly 7,000 years ago during the middle Holocene. The analysis of historic climate data during the last 1,000, 15,000, 150,000, 1 million, and 150 million years are evidence of natural cycles of global warming throughout Earth's history.

In any case, rain forest destruction has yet to be listed.

macr0

20 Aug 2006, 08:15 AM

Oh.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0420_040420_earthday.html?

I don't get it.

"Most scientists agree that global warming presents the greatest threat to the environment."

How does someone connect cutting down trees == global warming?

Besides that America has more trees than it did 100 years ago.

lbloom

20 Aug 2006, 08:15 AM

They suck up a decent bit of all that CO2.

Krill

20 Aug 2006, 08:16 AM

They suck up a decent bit of all that CO2.

Shall I repeat?

The exact link, if any, between the increase in carbon dioxide emissions and the higher temperatures is still under debate.

lbloom

20 Aug 2006, 08:16 AM

*feels himself getting sucked into a Krill-a-thon*

lbloom

20 Aug 2006, 08:17 AM

The exact link, if any, between the increase in carbon dioxide emissions and the higher temperatures is still under debate.

That's fine, then, so is the answer to the OP.

macr0

20 Aug 2006, 08:18 AM

Rumor has it, there are lots of naked women in the jungle, one for every tree. When the tree goes, they go :(

Wow, ok... I see now! There really is an answer for everything!

I wish someone would have told me this sooner :)

Krill

20 Aug 2006, 08:20 AM

Wow, ok... I see now! There really is an answer for everything!

I wish someone would have told me this sooner :)

Oh, you didn't know about Dryads?

Wait 'til I introduce you to the Nymphs...

macr0

20 Aug 2006, 08:20 AM

They suck up a decent bit of all that CO2.

I bet if we stopped burning fossil fuels, no one would be talking about CO2.

Krill

20 Aug 2006, 08:21 AM

I bet if we stopped burning fossil fuels, no one would be talking about CO2.

How astute.

(Actually, knowing some eco-freaks, it would take the termination of the human race for them to quite whining about it)

lbloom

20 Aug 2006, 08:21 AM

I bet if we stopped burning fossil fuels, no one would be talking about CO2.

That is definitely a better option. Worth a shot, eh?

dubbeltop

20 Aug 2006, 08:25 AM

http://newsfromrussia.com/fun/2002/12/04/40384_.html

the rain forest isnt called the rain forest for nuthing .......

(the article is about australian women dancing naked for rain...mmmmh)

anyway drought is becoming an increasingly dangerous hazard for humans

With rising temperatures and deforestation, it isnt going to take much before we create a human disaster(ever seen 100.000,000 africans at your doorstep?) which will affect even you....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation

Krill

20 Aug 2006, 08:25 AM

That is definitely a better option. Worth a shot, eh?

Sure. Nuclear power get!

Hey, the French can handle it.

lbloom

20 Aug 2006, 08:26 AM

A feel for the numbers. Also from NatGeo.

Each year humanity dumps roughly 8 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere, 6.5 billion tons from fossil fuels and 1.5 billion from deforestation.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0402/feature5/index.html

Krill

20 Aug 2006, 08:27 AM

A feel for the numbers. Also from NatGeo.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0402/feature5/index.html

How about a feel for the numbers the rest of the natural world puts out, for perspective, eh?

And just to prevent out of context quotes to give people the wrong idea, it continues:

But less than half that total, 3.2 billion tons, remains in the atmosphere to warm the planet. Where is the missing carbon? "It's a really major mystery, if you think about it,"

Les than half actually equaling more like 1/5 the value of the output.

lbloom

20 Aug 2006, 08:31 AM

macr0

20 Aug 2006, 08:32 AM

How about a feel for the numbers the rest of the natural world puts out, for perspective, eh?

And just to prevent out of context quotes to give people the wrong idea, it continues:

Les than half actually equaling more like 1/5 the value of the output.

Right on time.

Krill

20 Aug 2006, 08:33 AM

I don't much feel like a googling battle to back myself up right now. Most of my feel for this stuff is from Bio 101, and energy conservation material. I may be wrong. I believe you got my current viewpoint of the matter, though.

That's fine, I'm mostly asking the questions rhetorically, to make a point about statistics.

For a contrarian source:
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions drop to (11,880 / 509,056) or 2.33% of total of all greenhouse gases, (ignoring water vapor).

lbloom

20 Aug 2006, 08:34 AM

And just to prevent out of context quotes to give people the wrong idea, it continues:

Quote:
But less than half that total, 3.2 billion tons, remains in the atmosphere to warm the planet. Where is the missing carbon? "It's a really major mystery, if you think about it,"

Les than half actually equaling more like 1/5 the value of the output.

Oh well, here's the whole bloomin' paragraph

By rights it should be worse. Each year humanity dumps roughly 8 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere, 6.5 billion tons from fossil fuels and 1.5 billion from deforestation. But less than half that total, 3.2 billion tons, remains in the atmosphere to warm the planet. Where is the missing carbon? "It's a really major mystery, if you think about it," says Wofsy, an atmospheric scientist at Harvard University. His research site in the Harvard Forest is apparently not the only place where nature is breathing deep and helping save us from ourselves. Forests, grasslands, and the waters of the oceans must be acting as carbon sinks. They steal back roughly half of the carbon dioxide we emit, slowing its buildup in the atmosphere and delaying the effects on climate.

Krill

20 Aug 2006, 08:37 AM

Oh well, here's the whole bloomin' paragraph

Forests, grasslands, and the waters of the oceans must be acting as carbon sinks. They steal back roughly half of the carbon dioxide we emit, slowing its buildup in the atmosphere and delaying the effects on climate.

Just think, with rising sea levels we'll have more of those ;)

According to the article cited in my above post (Table 4a), we contribute, via CO2, 0.117% of the Greenhouse Effect

macr0

20 Aug 2006, 08:40 AM

At this point on our little rock, I don't think there's any solid evidence that anthropogenic global warming == death for all, or even "inconvinence for all".

The verdict is still out.

lbloom

20 Aug 2006, 08:42 AM

Krill

20 Aug 2006, 08:44 AM

@Krill: You're incorrigible. :)

I know it's fun to stay up being the devil's advocate all night, seriously. Carry on with the OPoster, I suspect he was looking for a duel too. Me, I'll watch and chill. Maybe a movie later.

*grin* Enjoy, and if you do watch a movie later, enjoy that too!

I'm actually gonna enjoy some shut-eye.

macr0

20 Aug 2006, 08:47 AM

And that reminds me, a long time ago I was watching some show about the banana farmers in South America. Their is some kind of legal tarantula that lives in the bananas. The TV said that 1 out of 15 of the pickers (the people that carry the bananas on sticks) would get bitten by a spider and die.

Therefore, I have proven that bananas are evil.

omnirook

20 Aug 2006, 09:09 AM

I'm not convinced that "global warming" is necessarily due to man-made pollution - there is enough evidence that the planet has periodically warmed up and cooled down throughout the ages, some of which man has been here to see, the most recent Ice Ages, for instance - and the "high heat" that went on in Europe toward the end of the Dark Ages, to be followed by the "sharp cold" of the early Middle Ages: these changes were, in fact, recorded by humans in their records.

That said, it is clear that man-made pollution has affected the environment. There has been a sharp decline in potable fresh water: simply put - we've poisoned quite a good percentage of the lakes and rivers from which we were once able to draw and drink the water. Another human-caused mess has been the mud-slides, caused by deforesting in hilly areas, such as California, where the trees w/their roots kept the soil in place when it rained hard. Many such examples could be provided.

It would not hurt us and it might help us quite a lot to take better care of the environment. The problem, of course, is that doing so costs money, and that always boils down to a question of who pays. And that means a great deal of political pressure. When it comes to bottom line politics, the rich always win - always - at least ultimately. Any measure that is going to take so much as a penny out of the pockets of the rich will be crushed, even if doing so costs millions, stack your evidence from here to the edge of the galaxy and back. It's "principle" - never forget: the United States was founded by trecherous, wealthy scumbags who did not wish to pay what were essentially fair and moderate taxes; they set the tone that has characterized the nation ever since. "Private grandeur and public squalor" - what economist said that? - I forget ... At any rate, so long as some corporation can fund research that will say that there is nothing wrong w/the environment, we will not see any serious attempts to "save" the environment.

Aggrivates the hell out me: the nonsense that scientific research is somehow pure. BULLSHIT. "I can make any bone sing any tune you wish to hear" - Margaret Mead. It's the same for chemistry, biology, and physics.

lbloom

20 Aug 2006, 09:25 AM

According to the article cited in my above post (Table 4a), we contribute, via CO2, 0.117% of the Greenhouse Effect

Follow the trail to Exxon-Mobile. You're smart enough, and I've given you all the search strings you need.

Enough of (mis)-using the net for today, I think I will watch that movie now.

Heleuiski

20 Aug 2006, 09:30 AM

Ok well we just have to look at the news.

US joins Ethiopian flood battle
Ethiopian troops are airlifting help to marooned villagers
US troops have joined emergency rescue operations in Ethiopia where flash floods have killed hundreds of people and left tens of thousands homeless.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5267794.stm

South Korean flood aid for North
South Korean officials met with Northern counterparts on Saturday
South Korea has pledged 100,000 tons of rice and construction material to flood-ravaged North Korea.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5268058.stm

Italian farmers fear pesto penury

Basil is the main ingredient for pesto sauce
Farmers in many parts of northern Italy have called for the declaration of a state of natural disaster.

They say a severe drought and devastating storms have destroyed many crops, including basil.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5267796.stm

Chinese drought affects millions

This is the worst drought in 50 years, Xinhua says
At least 18 million people have been affected by China's worst drought in 50 years, according to the state news agency Xinhua.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5261918.stm

'More disasters' for warmer world

A warmer world could make wildfires more frequent, research shows
Rising temperatures will increase the risk of forest fires, droughts and flooding over the next two centuries, UK climate scientists have warned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4791257.stm?ls

Water shortage 'a global problem'

The report says water loss is a problem facing the whole world
Rich countries face increasing water shortages, a report by conservation organisation WWF warns.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4796909.stm

'Clear' human impact on climate
By Richard Black
Environment Correspondent, BBC News website

A scientific report commissioned by the US government has concluded there is "clear evidence" of climate change caused by human activities.

The report, from the federal Climate Change Science Program, said trends seen over the last 50 years "cannot be explained by natural processes alone".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4969772.stm

Greenland melt 'speeding up'
Break-off point into the ocean of Helheim Glacier in southeast Greenland. (Image: NASA/Wallops).
This Greenland glacier is now one of the fastest moving in the world
The meltdown of Greenland's ice sheet is speeding up, satellite measurements show.

Data from a US space agency (Nasa) satellite show that the melting rate has accelerated since 2004.

If the ice cap were to completely disappear, global sea levels would rise by 6.5m (21 feet).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4783199.stm

I could go on but I won't.

What will be the result of global warming?

Heat, droughts, flooding, whole areas of land under water because of the glacial melt.

More flooding because the forests holding the mountains together are being deforested and so mud slides enshew.

More C02 going up into the atmosphere warming the planet like a blanket because the forests are like the lungs of the planet, soaking up all that c02.

omnirook

20 Aug 2006, 09:47 AM

Heleuiski

20 Aug 2006, 10:02 AM

The problem comes in when nay-sayers can very conveniently point to the equally clear fact that the planet is just about due for another axis-shift (the planet does this every 11 K years or so) and that such a shift has always caused severe changes in the planet's climates ... People want to assign blame - have such a passion for doing so - meanwhile, what, if anything, can be done about "global warming?" I have read a few articles - I think that Time Magazene did a feature - stating that we are beyond the point where anything we did could reverse the process or even slow it significantly ... I don't know. I'm not a scientist. If the planet is going to change beyond recognition, then man might well be added to either the endangered or even the extinct list ... I do believe that the Universe does NOT care what happens to us ...

Ah you mean all that pseudo scientific stuff about their being a magnetic pole shift soon?
Yes that interests me.

I don't know, I just think it would be good if we could keep the planet as clean as we possibly can for future generations, otherwise they will be wading around in their own shit, and that's not particularly nice. Especially when the rest of the world is developing and starting to consume more energy.

macr0

20 Aug 2006, 10:02 AM

I do believe that the Universe does NOT care what happens to us ...

In the same vein, I have a feeling that people like to create a plan around what happens to us that gives them some sense of meaning or purpose.

A friend of mine, a Seventh Day Adventists, was telling me about some land bridge-looking tract of sand at the bottom of the red sea [think Moses] and said, "how can you argue with this evidence?" [We were in the process of talking about theism].

My response was, "We have evidence of a sand tract at the bottom of the sea. What's the point?"

A lot of this stuff becomes evidence when it reinforces your world view. Standing alone it is meaningless. Ever since Global Warming became the "new cause", every flood and land slide that happen suddenly become evidence for anthrogenic Global Warming.

The simple fact that something aweful happened and a lot of people died for no reason what so ever just doesn't cut it for a lot of people I know. There has to be some reason.

And then it's just a snow ball as usual. Commies, corporations, pick your poison. Before long cutting down trees causes mud slides because the people that cut them down are too stupid to reuse the land and plant food and more trees and install proper irrigation systems.

Likewise, with global warming, if humans are affecting the .01 degree temperature rise every year then we have a system to build around it and we can do something about it. We're not just animals on our rock. Since we can affect it, we can change it. Gives people a new cause to fight for.

:mellow: But beyond that, is global warming the only reason to not cut down trees and kill the cute little critters?

Heleuiski

20 Aug 2006, 10:06 AM

:mellow: But beyond that, is global warming the only reason to not cut down trees and kill the cute little critters?

That's a really good question. IMHO it shouldn't be the only reason not to cut down trees. Trees are lovely, they look beautiful and the smell of a damp forest can't be beat.

Similarly isn't it a wonderful thing that we share our world with such a diverse variety of creatures?

Can't we want to keep them just because they "are"?

Heleuiski

20 Aug 2006, 10:08 AM

Why is it that we destroy and sully everything around us? Is it something to do with the inherent self destruct mechanism we seem to have within us?

macr0

20 Aug 2006, 10:10 AM

Similarly isn't it a wonderful thing that we share our world with such a diverse variety of creatures?

Can't we want to keep them just because they "are"?

Yeap it sure is! Or at least, that's what I think.

That's why I'm against destroying the rain forest :)

Heleuiski

20 Aug 2006, 10:14 AM

Yeap it sure is! Or at least, that's what I think.

That's why I'm against destroying the rain forest :)

Rain forests are also host to a diverse plant life that may hold the key to eradicating some diseases, as has happened in the past.

EDIT:- Here's a world map of all the rainforests if you are interested.

http://www.srl.caltech.edu/personnel/krubal/rainforest/Edit560s6/www/where.html

macr0

20 Aug 2006, 10:34 AM

Why is it that we destroy and sully everything around us? Is it something to do with the inherent self destruct mechanism we seem to have within us?

Oh no, a deep question!

In short, yes.

In long, I think that the moment when we are a baby when we realize that there is difference between us and our mothers we are struck terrified and something carnal kicks in. We spend the rest of our lives trying to forget that we are autonomous. Common medicines include: pride, apathy, self-destruction, etc. If we destroy enough then we don't have to remember that we are alive.

Wyatt: What does he need?
Doc: Revenge?
Wyatt: For what?
Doc: Bein' born.

Melody

20 Aug 2006, 11:17 AM

humans sux

unintelligible explanation:
like some lil chicks messing w/ the rooster they gonna get they asses stomped the fuck out psychologically by not getting they asses stomped the fuck out physically. how dare they even think of insinuating they have that much power over nature. in this game if u talk shit u dont get ur ass handed to u; in fact nothing happens at all. nature doesnt give a shit. thats how it goes. u listenin to me, humanity *taps cigar on table, continues speaking through haze* thats how it goes

the benefit i see is that due to the environmental friendliness of many consumers, things such as hybrid gas-electric cars are more common, which means i save money on gas. but in the grand scheme of things... lol no way. we may as well try to get bush reelected for a third term by thinking of going to the bathroom 1 more time each day than we normally would have

a particular thing humans have the tendency to forget is the ocean, which is just this huge thing u know, and it has most of the life on this planet and is effectively a massive damper in the systems architecture sort of way u know. u know when god flooded the earth and stuff the ocean animals were rejoicing, so clearly god has favored the ocean animals before and clearly he may favor them again. and again they will rejoice and generally remain oblivious to terrestrial fads. we could blanket the earth w/ nuclear craters and not only would some humans still survive, the earth would recover in tiny time

they say the flap of a butterfly in tijuana can cause an earthquake in amsterdam, but they just showing lack of understanding of holistic systems. the butterfly is no mainer an actor than every other animal, molecule, etc in this galaxy, universe, etc

weeee *flies around at negligible height*

Sackanaka

20 Aug 2006, 11:20 AM

I still and probably always will respect the pork forker

Melody

20 Aug 2006, 11:40 AM

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?p=23353#post23353 :lol: much <3 2u 2. u hold me to such high expectations that i cant help but meet them :p

rainfall

20 Aug 2006, 11:59 AM

All bunch of non-sense! *gets into hummer*

omnirook

20 Aug 2006, 12:34 PM

Ah you mean all that pseudo scientific stuff about their being a magnetic pole shift soon?
Yes that interests me.

I don't know, I just think it would be good if we could keep the planet as clean as we possibly can for future generations, otherwise they will be wading around in their own shit, and that's not particularly nice. Especially when the rest of the world is developing and starting to consume more energy.
I'm not a scientist; I've not the ability to sift through all the "evidence" that has been presented and say what is good and what is bad ... Yes, we should take care of the world - but we won't, not so long as there is a penny to be made in destroying it ...

Human BULLSHIT ... (excerpt from my "short list")

1 - belief in God and belief in an after life

evidence: fear of death, clinging to life, mourning for the dead

2 - that people care about their children

evidence: the way that people rear their children, the way that people wantonly seek out their own pleasure and comfort, no matter what it means for their children's futures - the national debt is but one example

omnirook

20 Aug 2006, 01:05 PM

In the same vein, I have a feeling that people like to create a plan around what happens to us that gives them some sense of meaning or purpose.

A friend of mine, a Seventh Day Adventists, was telling me about some land bridge-looking tract of sand at the bottom of the red sea [think Moses] and said, "how can you argue with this evidence?" [We were in the process of talking about theism].

My response was, "We have evidence of a sand tract at the bottom of the sea. What's the point?"

A lot of this stuff becomes evidence when it reinforces your world view. Standing alone it is meaningless. Ever since Global Warming became the "new cause", every flood and land slide that happen suddenly become evidence for anthrogenic Global Warming.

The simple fact that something aweful happened and a lot of people died for no reason what so ever just doesn't cut it for a lot of people I know. There has to be some reason.

And then it's just a snow ball as usual. Commies, corporations, pick your poison. Before long cutting down trees causes mud slides because the people that cut them down are too stupid to reuse the land and plant food and more trees and install proper irrigation systems.

Likewise, with global warming, if humans are affecting the .01 degree temperature rise every year then we have a system to build around it and we can do something about it. We're not just animals on our rock. Since we can affect it, we can change it. Gives people a new cause to fight for.

:mellow: But beyond that, is global warming the only reason to not cut down trees and kill the cute little critters?

The human mind works on a cause/effect basis - the motiff, as it were, of human psychology. The very suggestion that something might not have a cause is virtually heresy. I'm a heretic! I'm perfectly comfortable w/the notion that man perhaps invents "causes" to explain the events (phenomena) that he sees ... Maybe there was no beginning; maybe there will be no end. I've long since accepted that time is not at all linear ... Jung, I think, had a point when he remarked that the human brain's anatomy and physiology limited man to experiencing and thinking and feeling in a small range of set patterns, like it or not.

Architectonic

20 Aug 2006, 02:33 PM

macr0 - Why should we care if you wish to be ignorant? I don't, so I'm not going bother..

Krill - dig deeper, its pretty clear you've only scraped off the top and don't quite know what the current scientific consensus is. And be aware of the more recent climate models, notice the areas which are well understood and the areas which still have a great deal of uncertainty. (which goes for anyone else who is serious too...)

Heleuiski

20 Aug 2006, 02:36 PM

Krill

20 Aug 2006, 05:36 PM

Krill - dig deeper, its pretty clear you've only scraped off the top and don't quite know what the current scientific consensus is. And be aware of the more recent climate models, notice the areas which are well understood and the areas which still have a great deal of uncertainty. (which goes for anyone else who is serious too...)

I don't give a small piece of spleen what the 'scientific consensus' is, because, surprisingly, some scientists do have agendas to pull.

Just figured I'd throw that out there.

I'm not opposed to digging deeper though. I did it a couple years back and dug up plenty that says: "Hey, there is no evidence we're having even the slightest effect with our CO2. There are numerous other causes that would be more likely such as, but not limited to: increased solar activity, axis shifts and milankovitch cycles"

You know there was a small freak out about global cooling in the 70's, don't you?

Citing evidence of hot temperatures for one year, or a few is still not evidence that we're going to experience a hot trend for a long period of time. This is unscientific. "Well we're having this realllllly hot summer you see, so that must be evidence of global warming!"

No, it's evidence of the fact that, hay, the earth's climate isn't really THAT stable. It fluctuates. You get colder and warmer years. Until we can establish a specific cause, we will never know when it will decide to stop warming up (if at all).

And call me a capitalist pig, but I think it's not worth imposing restrictions until we're aware that CO2 is the cause (which seems very iffy at best).

mgb

20 Aug 2006, 06:13 PM

I'm not a scientist;

Fuckin' sure have a lot to say on the subject.

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/images/examples.jpg

This was pretty convincing for me. It's getting to be way outside of the norms.

Krill

20 Aug 2006, 06:20 PM

Fuckin' sure have a lot to say on the subject.

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/images/examples.jpg

This was pretty convincing for me. It's getting to be way outside of the norms.

How were the measurements taken?

How does this compare to normal earth weather cycles?

No one's denying the earth is warming, it's why and whether it will last.

"norms" as defined by this century which is miniscule compared to other earth temperature cycles.

Heleuiski

20 Aug 2006, 06:40 PM

Sea level rise
Rising temperatures are thought to cause sea levels to rise as the oceans expand and polar ice melts. The IPCC says sea levels rose between 10 and 20cm worldwide during the 20th Century. It predicts a further rise of between 9cm and 88cm by 2100.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2004/climate_change/default.stm#

abathur

20 Aug 2006, 09:25 PM

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/posts.html?pg=6

Particularly the third and fourth paragraphs.

Krill

20 Aug 2006, 09:45 PM

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/posts.html?pg=6

Particularly the third and fourth paragraphs.

Good journalism likes two sides to every story. Lazy journalism fails to distinguish between objective sources and interested parties – and this issue has interested parties aplenty, from *industry-funded think tanks to hired PR firms, feeding the press the disinformation it needs to make the story sound balanced. This is the media’s own inconvenient truth – that the institution charged with reporting the facts is so easily manipulated by those whose “salary depends upon [our] not understanding” the facts (to reuse Gore’s favorite Upton Sinclair quote). The result is the perfect storm for obfuscation. You can’t buy the story outright, but you can twist it enough that the truth is no longer recognizable.

Because everyone on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) totally doesn't have a salary that's dependent on them being useful, and they definately want to make their jobs entirely meaningless and pointless.

Nor does Al Gore have any bias at all, nor do magazines like National Geographic that have to sell interesting stories.

abathur

20 Aug 2006, 09:58 PM

Since the paragraph is talking about the media, and not the IPCC.

Sure, Al Gore has bias, I realized that before I submitted it. Still, there's a lack of scientific work refuting us as the cause of Global warming, and a significant amount of questioning in the media. Unless we're going to throw out the validity of the scientific community and accept the authority of the mass media, perhaps a hasty conclusion is being reached.

Though, it does seem, the fact that "we" don't know is proving itself to be true--it just seems that "we" doesn't speak for all of humanity and certainly not the scientific community.

Krill

20 Aug 2006, 11:10 PM

Since the paragraph is talking about the media, and not the IPCC.

I know what it's talking about, what I'm saying is the IPCC is in the same position with very similiar motivations and thus just as subject to the bias.

Sure, Al Gore has bias, I realized that before I submitted it. Still, there's a lack of scientific work refuting us as the cause of Global warming, and a significant amount of questioning in the media. Unless we're going to throw out the validity of the scientific community and accept the authority of the mass media, perhaps a hasty conclusion is being reached.

I thought you were supposed to prove a hypothesis before it became theory. All we really know is: We make CO2, CO2 may cause the warming that is occuring. It should be questioned! Just because a group of scientists propose a possible idea does not mean we shouldn't ask for alternate research, ideas and things like that. There are plenty of other potential causes for Global Warming and no scientist has yet to do anything to prove we are the cause.

I have seen much scientific research done establishing that our CO2 emissions are miniscule compared the the natural world, and many that argue that CO2 in general has little effect on the greenhouse compared to water vapor (which we produce even less of compared to the natural world), and that things like The Iris Effect (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/) or Greening Theory (http://www.bydesign.com/fossilfuels/greening_benefits/greening_theory.html) might possibly provide a counteractive response that would negate or severely decrease warming due to CO2 emissions.

If you can link me something that explains a PROOF that we are directly connected to global warming via CO2 emissions in a significant way, then I will be a lot less skeptical.

lbloom

20 Aug 2006, 11:21 PM

Two kinds of "science" threads hit our forum.

The first kind is good. The participants actually care about the subject matter, come in with an opinion, but also with an open mind. Poor language skills, articulation, semantics etc. may impede the thread's progress, but the participants usually are the kind that overlook the frills. A few people direct the effort to cut patiently, but efficiently, to the heart of the matter. Above all, it's characterized by a genuine interest to know. I enjoy this kind.

From the outset of the second kind, it becomes apparent that it's never going anywhere. It asks a question set in a non-science forum, while demanding an answer from science. It is a topic that cannot reach even a poor conclusion, because it cannot do so from discussion, desktop philosophy, or any means other than specialized experimentation, analysis and simulation. It just degrades into mental masturbation.

This one is the second kind.

Krill

20 Aug 2006, 11:30 PM

EDIT: Clarification made, post removed.

mgb

20 Aug 2006, 11:42 PM

How were the measurements taken?

How does this compare to normal earth weather cycles?

No one's denying the earth is warming, it's why and whether it will last.

"norms" as defined by this century which is miniscule compared to other earth temperature cycles.

Reconstructions of temperature rely on 'proxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_%28climate%29)' records. For example, the width of tree rings is related to temperature as is the amount of snowfall over many glacial sites. Further, the isotopic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope) composition of snow, corals, and stalactites can also record temperature changes. Other techniques which have been used include examining the time of crop harvests, the treeline in various locations and other historical records to make inferences about the temperature.
In general, the recent history of the proxy records is calibrated against local temperature records to estimate the relationship between temperature and the proxy. The longer history of the proxy is then used to reconstruct temperature from earlier periods. These records must then be averaged in some fashion if a "global" or "hemispheric" record is desired. Since certain regions contain, for example, a large number of tree ring records, a simple average of all the data would strongly over-weight some small regions - hence data-reduction techniques (PCA) are used to combine some of these regional records before they are globally combined.
An important distinction is between so-called 'multi-proxy' reconstructions, which attempt to obtain a global temperature reconstructions by using multiple proxy records distributed over the globe and more regional reconstructions.
Usually, the data are combined arithmetically, in some weighted average. More recently, Osborn and Briffa used a simpler technique, counting the proportion of records that are positive, negative or neutral in any time period [2] (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/a-new-take-on-an-old-millennium/). This produces a result in general agreement with the conventional multi-proxy studies.

It's pretty obvious that the later part of the graph directly coincides with the arrival of the industrial revolution. I think it would be silly to call it a coincidence or say it coincides with sun activity or something.

You can sit there and say, "We don't really know" and stick your head in the sand, or take a look around and see what's happening, including the destruction of the world's rainforest.

And it's not really fair to use the weather cycles of the entirety of Earth's history. We weren't hit by meteors. There hasn't been a significant rise in geothermal activity. Things are fairly close to what they have been over the past 10000 years, besides man's conquering of the world.

Krill

20 Aug 2006, 11:50 PM

It's pretty obvious that the later part of the graph directly coincides with the arrival of the industrial revolution. I think it would be silly to call it a coincidence or say it coincides with sun activity or something.

I think it would be silly, in science, to assume correlation = causation.

You can sit there and say, "We don't really know" and stick your head in the sand, or take a look around and see what's happening, including the destruction of the world's rainforest.

I'd prefer to stick around, and look around and actually attempt to analyse things and look at various other possible causes rather than fixing my teeth rabidly into one idea.

And it's not really fair to use the weather cycles of the entirety of Earth's history. We weren't hit by meteors. There hasn't been a significant rise in geothermal activity. Things are fairly close to what they have been over the past 10000 years, besides man's conquering of the world.

Are you kidding me?! Earth's temperatures have risen and fallen despite meteors or geothermal activity. Look, because you didn't look up or know what the term was, I'll clarify for you:

http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm

Milankovitch Cycles:

The episodic nature of the Earth's glacial and interglacial periods within the present Ice Age (the last couple of million years) have been caused primarily by cyclical changes in the Earth's circumnavigation of the Sun. Variations in the Earth's eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession comprise the three dominant cycles, collectively known as the Milankovitch Cycles for Milutin Milankovitch, the Serbian astronomer who is generally credited with calculating their magnitude. Taken in unison, variations in these three cycles creates alterations in the seasonality of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface. These times of increased or decreased solar radiation directly influence the Earth's climate system, thus impacting the advance and retreat of Earth's glaciers.

Graph:
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/samson/climate_patterns/milankovitch.jpg

You may notice that each of the peaks on the bottom section of the graph (sea level) has a minor fall before another rise. We appear to, according to the rough measurements in the other peaks, be due for another increase in sea levels.*

*- The above was modified due to a previous improper reading of graphs.

mgb

20 Aug 2006, 11:58 PM

I think it would be silly, in science, to assume correlation = causation.

I'd prefer to stick around, and look around and actually attempt to analyse things and look at various other possible causes rather than fixing my teeth rabidly into one idea.

Are you kidding me?! Earth's temperatures have risen and fallen despite meteors or geothermal activity. Look, because you didn't look up or know what the term was, I'll clarify for you:

http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm (http://www.homepage.montana.edu/%7Egeol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm)

Milankovitch Cycles:

Graph:
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/samson/climate_patterns/milankovitch.jpg

Shouldn't we be in the middle of global ice volume? And isn't all happening kind of fast? Those graphs we occuring of thousands of years. So, like 800,000 years. Isn't a 150 year meteoric rise kind of out of step with the graph you showed?

Did you also notice that Atmospheric C02 has had the highest rise it's ever had?

BUt maybe you are just trying to show that correlation doesn't equal causation and you are just trying to show that those graphs don't really mean anything at all.

Eventually though, there is a causation for everything. You know that right?

lbloom

21 Aug 2006, 12:01 AM

Krill: You made your point within the first few posts: there are naysayers. Point taken.

Like I said yesterday, I may be wrong. I tried to stick to institutions that are atleast reasonably respectable. You posted a link, I spent an hour to find that the original funding agency was Exxon-Mobile. Your iris-effect link piqued my interest a little, coming from NASA, but if you'll follow the page to the bottom, there's the link to the next page: NASA Langley have contradictory results. I'm reduced to digging up the dirt on pages that come up from quick Google searches. That's what I mean by my above, very opinionated, rant.

The thread was worth maybe a page of posts, considering none of us really knows much about it. A page-a-minute linking serves no purpose. My temperament would lead me to get obsessed and spend ten years working on it, while I'm already occupied, so it irritates me. I didn't mean anything personal.

Krill

21 Aug 2006, 12:03 AM

Shouldn't we be in the middle of global ice volume? And isn't all happening kind of fast? Those graphs we occuring of thousands of years. So, like 800,000 years. Isn't a 150 year meteoric rise kind of out of step with the graph you showed?

Did you also notice that Atmospheric C02 has had the highest rise it's ever had?

Actually CO2 stops at 300 some thousand years, I think they couldn't get enough data beyond that.

Why do people keep mentioning meteors? Did I miss something?

BUt maybe you are just trying to show that correlation doesn't equal causation and you are just trying to show that those graphs don't really mean anything at all.

What I'm trying to show is you can read other possible causations.

Such as solar activity:

http://www.msu.edu/~ranckjoh/sunny.gif

Eventually though, there is a causation for everything. You know that right?

Yeah, but that doesn't mean CO2 is necessarily the cause.

Like I said yesterday, I may be wrong. I tried to stick to institutions that are atleast reasonably respectable. You posted a link, I spent an hour to find that the original funding agency was Exxon-Mobile

Well, let's imagine it this way: Exxon doesn't want environmentalist doomsayers putting large restrictions on their business or whatever without good reason. So they decided to fund research.

Point being: the environmentalists have as much investment as anyone else. Funding by Exxon is not inherently meaningful.

Your iris-effect link piqued my interest a little, coming from NASA, but if you'll follow the page to the bottom, there's the link to the next page: NASA Langley have contradictory results.

I never stated it was truth or there wasn't any evidence against it. It's still in debate, which is why I worded my post carefully "might possibly". They are theories, they are not proven, I am under no such pretentions. There may even be evidence against them, but the point is: there's a bigger picture. I would assume that anyone who read the article would see the big link saying there was evidence against it. Even the page itself doesn't purport it to be proven.

I'm reduced to digging up the dirt on pages that come up from quick Google searches. That's what I mean by my above, very opinionated, rant.

Well the google searches are largely because all the research I did for projects back in the day is gone. Although I wouldn't call any of the above 'dirt'.

The thread was worth maybe a page of posts, considering none of us really know much about it. A page-a-minute linking serves no purpose. My temperament would lead me to get obsessed and spend ten years working on it, while I'm already occupied, so it irritates me. I didn't mean anything personal.

Sorry to have gone off like that then. I can see your frustration. I'll probably stop after a couple more posts anyways.

Stoic

21 Aug 2006, 12:09 AM

I've been hearing environmentalist pandering since I was born. I don't mean to come off as a troll, but I'm really, really curious.

Why should a person care about the rain forests? Why should people care if species becomes extinct?

At least 99% of all species who have ever lived on this planet are already extinct.

If someone thinks that a grasshopper is the same as a human being, then this is obviously a stupid thread. Beyond that though...

Because being pro-rain forest preservation is a hella easy position to defend.

And there is a small to decent chance that it could effect you, and a big chance it will effect others, so empathy has to come into play.

abathur

21 Aug 2006, 12:37 AM

Krill

21 Aug 2006, 12:50 AM

Ok, we'll try this:

Let's say you make it to your 18th birthday and you have some fluctuation in your mood over time, and even one depressive episode in there for a few months. Then, we'll say you start drinking after your 18th birthday, and within a few weeks your mood begins perpetually worsening over a period of months until it's obvious that you're about as depressed as you've ever been.

Well, let's add a couple of other things: let's say that roughly once a year around your birthday, you hit a somewhat depressing streak, of varying potency. It's a part of the natural cycle of things.

Let's also say, your high-school sweetheart, the sun around which you orbit, and you have recently had a fight.

Then it becomes an issue.

You can certainly argue that correlation, here, is not causation, but let's examine rectifying the problem. Do you:

A.) quit drinking while you further examine the problem
B.) keep drinking while you further examine the problem

This is quite agreeable, however, the consequences of severe environmental restrictions could be devastating. The Kyoto Protocol, for instance, would have had a major effect on our economy and a tiny effect on global CO2 emissions. The question is whether or not withdrawal is going to make us severely ill.

Basically, if it were about as easy as giving up drinking after a few weeks, I'd be right with you.

I'm quite the skeptic myself, and up until the past year or so I was VERY skeptical of global warming claims. However, it seems rather foolish to, essentially, assume we are NOT a significant contributor to global warming and cannot do anything to mitigate the situation by waiting to take action until we know, positively, what the causes are. If we figure out that we've got nothing to do with it down the road, we can ease restrictions on CO2 emissions.

Well, depending on your views on Exxon funded research, we're a tiny contributor to climate composition modification (i.e. CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmostphere). ;)

I'm not assuming we don't have a large effect, although I am leaning towards it based on research I've seen. Most of the statistics provided for global warming being man-caused don't provide information on the percentage of man's contribution to Greenhouse gases within the perspective of the grand scheme of things, something I find iffy.

*note: meteoric is also a descriptive word for the speed at which something occurs, sheesh. :p

Sorry, it's not a usage I'm used to so that's why I didn't understand.

For kicks:

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

abathur

21 Aug 2006, 01:03 AM

Oh, but it is. Every one of us can drive fewer miles each week, carpool, buy fewer products that result in high CO2 emissions, etc.

I won't inherently say that Exxon's research is unsound, but I will say that you should be, at minimum, as skeptical of the research of a firm with such a heavy monetary interest in the results of the research as you are of those who claim we cause global warming. Being a skeptic is fine, but I'm not sure yours isn't a similarly biased skepticism.

As I said, I'm quite the skeptic myself, and I won't blindly believe that it is or isn't being caused by us. But it looks quite unwise to lounge around until my skepticisim has been satiated. Likewise, we'd probably find firms complain FAR less about the costs of environmental regulation compliance if they're doing so because their customers refuse to buy from them if they don't comply.

lbloom

21 Aug 2006, 01:07 AM

Also for kicks, in case you haven't seen it already.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end.php

Krill

21 Aug 2006, 01:10 AM

Oh, but it is. Every one of us can drive fewer miles each week, carpool, buy fewer products that result in high CO2 emissions, etc.

Something which I encourage actually. I believe a shift in the consumer market in energy is in order both to be safe about climate change and for increased efficiency and economic independence.

I won't inherently say that Exxon's research is unsound, but I will say that you should be, at minimum, as skeptical of the research of a firm with such a heavy monetary interest in the results of the research as you are of those who claim we cause global warming. Being a skeptic is fine, but I'm not sure yours isn't a similarly biased skepticism.

Truth be told, the scientists in the IPCC have their jobs on the line. Climate research has to be significant or they won't get paid nearly as much or have quite as many jobs open there. I'd say they have almost as much as, if not as much as the same investment.

Of course, like all human beings I do have bias, so I don't proclaim not to.

As I said, I'm quite the skeptic myself, and I won't blindly believe that it is or isn't being caused by us. But it looks quite unwise to lounge around until my skepticisim has been satiated. Likewise, we'd probably find firms complain FAR less about the costs of environmental regulation compliance if they're doing so because their customers refuse to buy from them if they don't comply.

Agreed. I just think strict regulations aren't a wise decision either.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end.php

Classic :)

abathur

21 Aug 2006, 01:12 AM

Certainly. I'm a capitalist at heart. Sometimes, though, when the people are too fucking apathetic for their own good, the government DOES need to step in and force some change.

macr0

21 Aug 2006, 01:20 AM

From the outset of the second kind, it becomes apparent that it's never going anywhere. It asks a question set in a non-science forum, while demanding an answer from science. It is a topic that cannot reach even a poor conclusion, because it cannot do so from discussion, desktop philosophy, or any means other than specialized experimentation, analysis and simulation. It just degrades into mental masturbation.

This one is the second kind.

I think this might have something to do with how my intention was never to turn this thread into another Global Warming fiasco, or a google feast about the "science" of global warming.

Activism versus Skeptisim is pretty boring I think, and nothing constructive can come out of it.

Oh well, you ride the wave.

macr0

21 Aug 2006, 01:26 AM

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/posts.html?pg=6

Particularly the third and fourth paragraphs.

I've only read the Wired interview from the magazine about Al Gore and his GW campaign, but it would seem like he is at least sincere. At this point, who knows though after the spin cycle.

macr0

21 Aug 2006, 01:29 AM

Also for kicks, in case you haven't seen it already.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end.php

I love this video. Hilarious stuff.

Architectonic

21 Aug 2006, 08:39 AM

macr0, do you believe there is any value in knowledge?
There is an easy way and a hard way to study biology, what are those ways?

I don't give a small piece of spleen what the 'scientific consensus' is, because, surprisingly, some scientists do have agendas to pull.
[cut]

Wow, you seem to have done your best to miss the point....

1. You clearly don't understand the scientific community very well - yes some scientists have agendas - but the thing is, science is based on factual evidence - so those biased scientists don't tend to last very long.

Scientists are not paid to tell us what we want to hear (those people are called politicians, PR reps etc), they are paid to report on the facts.

2. You're pretty gullible if you believe that a significant number of people were concerned about cooling in the 1970s.
3. You're right that ancedotal evidence doesn't matter - that's why anyone who is serious doesn't refer to evidence like that.
4. Yes, there are multiple variables in play, a sound climate model should (and often do) account for all of those effects. However, those particular variables tend to have more of an effect when looking at longer term timeframes where there is much greater variability.
I'm guessing you are not so aware of the significant geological evidence that correlates higher temperatures with particular atmospheric conditions. Believe it or not, the effects of atmospheric CO2 is quite well understood. What we don't understand so well is the effects of some of the other shit which we also dump into the atmosphere.

I found one of the diagrams I was looking for on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IPCC_Radiative_Forcings.png - note the relative level of understanding of each effect.

5. Who called you a capitalist pig? Anyhow, I don't really think that is relevant - actually, it'd be better if we were to totally ignore the politics and government policy suggestions..

Anyway, if you are truly sceptical, then you would actually go and read all of the published papers you can find before you form an opinion. Have you noticed that I haven't yet posted my opinion?

macr0

21 Aug 2006, 11:52 AM

macr0, do you believe there is any value in knowledge?
There is an easy way and a hard way to study biology, what are those ways?

I think that this is rhetorical. However...

I believe that knowledge is the only thing that intrinsically has value at all.

I might go as far to say that I believe knowledge is sacred.

What the Holy Roman Church taught before the scientific revolution was also called "knowledge" in its day. As society, we haven't come very far (think teaching creationism in biology class).

Therefore, I think that knowledge is something to be protected. Like open source software which does not move at the speed of capitism, I don't believe scientific enquiry moves at the speed of public discourse.

An easy way to destroy knowledge is to put it into the alarmist, political, spin zone.

Anyone can dig up what they want on Wikipedia or Google to say anything that they want. I see no difference between that and someone who uses the Bible to prove that whatever they believe is morally correct.

When I read an article in Nature or Scientific America, I am less skeptical. When someone shows me something off Wikipedia or some news station, not so much.

But I use a heuristic to determine my weighted skepticism on Wikipedia articles or BBC. The more connected something "scientific" is to current events, the more inherit skeptisim I hold.

If I'm reading an article on topology-based quantum computers, not so much. If I'm reading an article on weather patterns, you bet'cha!

Somehow today, the answer "more data and analysis is needed" means "I concede that you are right and I have nothing to put up against you and I don't care". I don't believe this.

Just read some of the news articles that have been posted at the thread. Just look at the title of the article versus the content. Al Gore saying, "The press likes two sides of the story" could mean one of two things:

- there really are two sides of the story
- it's just media spin

Who the hell knows?

Wow, you seem to have done your best to miss the point....

1. You clearly don't understand the scientific community very well - yes some scientists have agendas - but the thing is, science is based on factual evidence - so those biased scientists don't tend to last very long.

Scientists are not paid to tell us what we want to hear (those people are called politicians, PR reps etc), they are paid to report on the facts.

Just my thoughts on this, partially in agreement.

Science isn't a democracy. Some scientists have an agenda but the system is set up so that those who do have an agenda are marginalized. Real scientists call them "wack jobs". News stations call them "experts".

But I think the word agenda needs to be clarrified here. If there are a set of competing theories in the scientific community then proponents of one theory clearly have an agenda. However, the "playing field" is endorsed by the scientific community and the data. These aren't the agendas most people care about (string theory, gravitons, etc...)

Anyway, if you are truly sceptical, then you would actually go and read all of the published papers you can find before you form an opinion. Have you noticed that I haven't yet posted my opinion?

My question is: why, at this stage, does anyone need to have an opinion? People don't need to have some super activist agenda to do the right thing. Why must I cry revolution to be justified?

I want to buy a flex fuel car because I think it's the right thing to do. Why do I have to be a scientist or an activist to feel this way?

Maybe I hate oil companies. Maybe I hate car companies. Maybe I hate all companies. Maybe I want to help the environment b/c of global warming. It doesn't matter. But when I put hate oil companies + global warming together just because of a shared hatred, then something's not kosher.

Of course, I know this wasn't directed at me, so I'm not really giving a personal response. I'm just saying how I feel about the scientific enquiry -> (option) -> cause for action.

Or put another way, let's say I concede that it's the end of the world as we know it because of GW. What do I do now?

Architectonic

21 Aug 2006, 12:35 PM

macr0, do you believe there is any value in knowledge?
There is an easy way and a hard way to study biology, what are those ways?

Anyone else want to answer this question?

I'll reply soon (after I finish this damned homework) - macr0's last post might take this thread on a more interesting tangent...

lbloom

21 Aug 2006, 12:46 PM

@macr0: methinks you have a fine sense of the general skepticism/authority issue, as it pertains to science.

omnirook

21 Aug 2006, 01:08 PM

macr0

21 Aug 2006, 01:43 PM

Heh, for some reason that "knowledge" asking question made me feel like ranting a little bit. I put up a little paper over in the Rant section if anyone cares.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=13624

macr0

21 Aug 2006, 02:03 PM

@macr0: methinks you have a fine sense of the general skepticism/authority issue, as it pertains to science.

That's one!

Heleuiski

21 Aug 2006, 02:34 PM

Notice that I did not say that I was not an opinionated asshole w/a big mouth.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

:banana:

Heleuiski

21 Aug 2006, 02:34 PM

Forests are nice aren't they?

Why can't we have forests because they are cool things?

Architectonic

21 Aug 2006, 02:54 PM

macr0, do you believe there is any value in knowledge?
There is an easy way and a hard way to study biology, what are those ways?

The hard way: recreating biological life and complex ecosystems from scratch.
The easy way: learning from those systems that already exist. There is a huge amount to learn from the natural world. But most people believe that their small minded personal experience is more important, such that they aren't even aware of many of the consequences of their decisions. (and how those outcomes relate to their values)
If they haven't experienced/observed it, then it doesn't exist.
I remember reading an article about this in Scientific American (http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/430964/4866352/), 'thinking green'.

macr0

21 Aug 2006, 02:55 PM

The hard way: recreating biological life and complex ecosystems from scratch.
The easy way: learning from those systems that already exist. There is a huge amount to learn from the natural world. But most people believe that their smallminded personal experience is more important, such that they aren't even aware of the consequences of many of their decisions. If they haven't experienced/observed it, then it doesn't exist. I remember reading an article about this in Scientific American (http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/430964/4866352/), 'thinking green'.

Ahh. Kind of like people who think that driving a car is safer than flying because they're behind the wheel? heh.

ok...bad analogy.

Heleuiski

21 Aug 2006, 03:01 PM

The hard way: recreating biological life and complex ecosystems from scratch.
The easy way: learning from those systems that already exist. There is a huge amount to learn from the natural world. But most people believe that their small minded personal experience is more important, such that they aren't even aware of many of the consequences of their decisions. (and how those outcomes relate to their values)
If they haven't experienced/observed it, then it doesn't exist.
I remember reading an article about this in Scientific American (http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/430964/4866352/), 'thinking green'.

Ya a lot of people are very blinkered. Indeed.
*sagenod*

Apostasius

21 Aug 2006, 03:17 PM

Why should a person care about the rain forests? Why should people care if species becomes extinct?

I think part of the argument comes down to what people value. I value the environment, so I don't like to see wanton destruction of it. Whether or not people care, the following reasons may speak in favor of protecting rain forests.

A less value based argument possibly could be that as the Amazon rainforest is destroyed, rainfall patterns are disrupted locally and, in conjuction with global warming, can be disrupted globally.

The Amazon rainforest alone produces nearly a quarter of the oxygen in the atmosphere. Significant planting would have to result in order to balance out this loss.

The clearing of rainforests makes little economic sense as the soil is poor and is poorly suited for agricultural uses. Ecotourism could potentially bring in more money than clearing the land. Lumber profits will be useful in the short term, but due to the soil problems and the necessary ecosystem to sustain the vegetation and trees of the current rainforest, reforestation is problematic at best. Harvesting the fruits, nuts, and medicinal plants would seem to have greater value and may be sustainable.

Numerous organisms have yet to be classified and studied. Pharmaceutical discoveries, as yet unmade, could be lost. Rainforest biodiversity is key to helping scientists understand ecosystems. Rainforests are valuable troves of scientific knowledge including, wildlife biology (ornithology, herpetology etc.), botany, entomology, and microbiology.

earwax

21 Aug 2006, 03:18 PM

I've been hearing environmentalist pandering since I was born. I don't mean to come off as a troll, but I'm really, really curious.

Why should a person care about the rain forests? Why should people care if species becomes extinct?

At least 99% of all species who have ever lived on this planet are already extinct.

If someone thinks that a grasshopper is the same as a human being, then this is obviously a stupid thread. Beyond that though...
Do you believe we are a product of our environment?

If so, then you might want to be cautious about fucking around with it.

Krill

21 Aug 2006, 03:25 PM

Wow, you seem to have done your best to miss the point....

Sorry, it wasn't intentional :)

1. You clearly don't understand the scientific community very well - yes some scientists have agendas - but the thing is, science is based on factual evidence - so those biased scientists don't tend to last very long.

Scientists are not paid to tell us what we want to hear (those people are called politicians, PR reps etc), they are paid to report on the facts.

Let me put it this way: if they are paid to report on the facts, the 'consensus' wouldn't necessarily be an issue. 'Scientific consensus' is something that's often pulled to try and get people to nod in agreement and walk on believing what they've been told. I'm not at all saying that's what you're doing, but I'll believe the consensus when I see scientists that don't disagree.

2. You're pretty gullible if you believe that a significant number of people were concerned about cooling in the 1970s.

You know there was a small freak out about global cooling in the 70's, don't you?

(Just to clarify)

4. Yes, there are multiple variables in play, a sound climate model should (and often do) account for all of those effects. However, those particular variables tend to have more of an effect when looking at longer term timeframes where there is much greater variability.
I'm guessing you are not so aware of the significant geological evidence that correlates higher temperatures with particular atmospheric conditions. Believe it or not, the effects of atmospheric CO2 is quite well understood. What we don't understand so well is the effects of some of the other shit which we also dump into the atmosphere.

I found one of the diagrams I was looking for on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IPCC_Radiative_Forcings.png - note the relative level of understanding of each effect.

I'll take a look!

5. Who called you a capitalist pig? Anyhow, I don't really think that is relevant - actually, it'd be better if we were to totally ignore the politics and government policy suggestions..

That was mostly a joke. No one's called me a capitalist pig surprisingly.

Anyway, if you are truly sceptical, then you would actually go and read all of the published papers you can find before you form an opinion. Have you noticed that I haven't yet posted my opinion?

Well, if you consider 'I don't think we can establish the nature of it very well' an opinion, then I've opined. Otherwise I have yet to do so.

At some point I will continue research. I just have to make the time.

macr0

21 Aug 2006, 03:29 PM

The clearing of rainforests makes little economic sense as the soil is poor and is poorly suited for agricultural uses. Ecotourism could potentially bring in more money than clearing the land. Lumber profits will be useful in the short term, but due to the soil problems and the necessary ecosystem to sustain the vegetation and trees of the current rainforest, reforestation is problematic at best. Harvesting the fruits, nuts, and medicinal plants would seem to have greater value and may be sustainable.

What about the countries and governments where the rain forest is? I really don't know a lot about the region, but aren't the governments down there really bad news, especially dealing with ecotourism.

I have a friend going to Brazil this week. I'll defaintely have to talk to him about this when he gets back.

The one piece of information I do know is that Brazil is one of the largest producers of pulp wood.

What about the opinion that the countries who have the rainforests can do whatever they want with them? May seem a bit short sighted, but would the US listen to some other country telling them what to do with Alaska?

Heleuiski

21 Aug 2006, 03:30 PM

What about the countries and governments where the rain forest is? I really don't know a lot about the region, but aren't the governments down there really bad news, especially dealing with ecotourism.

I have a friend going to Brazil this week. I'll defaintely have to talk to him about this when he gets back.

The one piece of information I do know is that Brazil is one of the largest producers of pulp wood.

What about the opinion that the countries who have the rainforests can do whatever they want with them? May seem a bit short sighted, but would the US listen to some other country telling them what to do with Alaska?

Sustainable management of forests.. the Swedish and Norwegians seem to be doing ok.

Architectonic

21 Aug 2006, 03:38 PM

Apostasius

21 Aug 2006, 04:00 PM

Let me put it this way: if they are paid to report on the facts, the 'consensus' wouldn't necessarily be an issue. 'Scientific consensus' is something that's often pulled to try and get people to nod in agreement and walk on believing what they've been told. I'm not at all saying that's what you're doing, but I'll believe the consensus when I see scientists that don't disagree.

It seems rather common as of late to equate all sorts of malevolent motivations to scientists (c.f., the creationist/intelligent design debate). It seems one cannot trust anything they say, therefore license is given to go on believing whatever happens to be convenient.

Scientific knowledge is tentative. Yet, scientific consensus is the best available current picture of the state of science. Disagreement will always be present, but to ignore scientific consensus is rather arrogant. Most people are not even remotely qualified to judge scientific consensus.

If a scientific maverick wants to come along and challenge the scientific consensus, then great. Such a scientist can provide testable predictions and other scientists can determine if those ideas have merit (i.e., peer review). This is not to say that some scientists aren't territorial, stubborn, and overly fond of particular things that may be shown false. But in the end, as paradigms shift (per Popper), the more successful theories will come out on top (e.g., plate tectonics, natural selection etc).

The vast majority of scientists wouldn't presume to "get people to nod in agreement and walk on believing what they've been told." There are hundreds if not thousands of peer reviewed science articles that one can investigate on a given topic (e.g., global warming). When many scientists speak, they speak with authority because they are qualified to do so and can back it up with research and data. Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority is not actually an authority.

Apostasius

21 Aug 2006, 04:14 PM

What about the countries and governments where the rain forest is? I really don't know a lot about the region, but aren't the governments down there really bad news, especially dealing with ecotourism.
Madrigal might better be able to speak to the political situation in that region. I don't doubt that the governments are a bit seedy.

What about the opinion that the countries who have the rainforests can do whatever they want with them? May seem a bit short sighted, but would the US listen to some other country telling them what to do with Alaska?
The US wouldn't listen. Brazil won't listen unless they perceive it is in their best interests. Economic pressure may help them determine what is in their best interests.

If you have several landowners with riverside property and one river owner dams up the river, because he can do what he wants on his own property, I think the other landowners could be forgiven for raising strong objections. If China dramatically increases coal mining and coal-based technologies and pollution increases in California as a result, are Californians justified in raising concerns and trying to find ways to keep China from polluting their air? I think that the environment is a global concern, but I recognize others disagree.

INTrPosr

21 Aug 2006, 04:20 PM

Why should a person care about the rain forests? Why should people care if species becomes extinct?The arrogance of mankind will seal it's own fate, as it did during the prehistoric era. I like Agent Smith's theory to Morpheus that man is a disease and the planet is/will rid itself of the disease. There is so much we don't know in how the balancing of nature occurs. Yet, we keep doing gross stupid things like destroying our planet. HUMANKIND DESERVES IT'S FATE.

Heleuiski

21 Aug 2006, 05:50 PM

The arrogance of mankind will seal it's own fate, as it did during the prehistoric era. I like Agent Smith's theory to Morpheus that man is a disease and the planet is/will rid itself of the disease. There is so much we don't know in how the balancing of nature occurs. Yet, we keep doing gross stupid things like destroying our planet. HUMANKIND DESERVES IT'S FATE.

What happened in the prehistoric era?

Heleuiski

21 Aug 2006, 05:51 PM

Madrigal might better be able to speak to the political situation in that region. I don't doubt that the governments are a bit seedy.

The US wouldn't listen. Brazil won't listen unless they perceive it is in their best interests. Economic pressure may help them determine what is in their best interests.

If you have several landowners with riverside property and one river owner dams up the river, because he can do what he wants on his own property, I think the other landowners could be forgiven for raising strong objections. If China dramatically increases coal mining and coal-based technologies and pollution increases in California as a result, are Californians justified in raising concerns and trying to find ways to keep China from polluting their air? I think that the environment is a global concern, but I recognize others disagree.

Yes it is a global concern.

http://users.gazinter.net/melan/Warn/Warnenu.htm

Interesting site.

Krill

22 Aug 2006, 05:39 AM

The arrogance of mankind will seal it's own fate, as it did during the prehistoric era. I like Agent Smith's theory to Morpheus that man is a disease and the planet is/will rid itself of the disease.

Agent Smith's theory was that AI (He uses "we") was the cure, not that the planet would rid itself of the 'disease'.

Furthermore it wasn't so much a disease as a virus. We just spread and consume resources, like a virus, until there is no more/move on.

Everything does that.

"Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.

CEO Nwabudike Morgan
"The Ethics of Greed""

(Boy, I bet you feel great thinking that all of mankind is a malevolent organism that needs to be destroyed. Why not start with those that can reproduce, then the kids, then the old people)

There is so much we don't know in how the balancing of nature occurs. Yet, we keep doing gross stupid things like destroying planet. HUMANKIND DESERVES IT'S FATE.

Yeah, so I guess it follows that because we don't know much about how nature balances out that we do know we will end up imbalancing it. Or that we won't find better energy alternatives. Or that we might not simply move.

charred_heart

22 Aug 2006, 06:51 AM

I've been hearing environmentalist pandering since I was born. I don't mean to come off as a troll, but I'm really, really curious.

Why should a person care about the rain forests? Why should people care if species becomes extinct?

At least 99% of all species who have ever lived on this planet are already extinct.

If someone thinks that a grasshopper is the same as a human being, then this is obviously a stupid thread. Beyond that though...you'll miss it when it's gone. A group of rain forests is much more beautiful than 8.6 million km2 of sun scorched sand and rock, plagued by deadly sand storms.

Krill

22 Aug 2006, 06:54 AM

you'll miss it when it's gone. A group of rain forests is much more beautiful than 8.6 million km2 of sun scorched sand and rock, plagued by deadly sand storms.

Because all of us who appreciate it so much have been there and seen its beauty, or are planning vacations of hacking through insect infested overgrowth, wading through leech infested water, and dealing with a wide variety of predators that might not enjoy our encroaching on their territory. :)

Really, c'mon. You see it from afar via photos and stuff. Photos last don't they?

Plus, aesthetics aren't absolutes. I might just find sun scorched sand and rock with deadly sand storms a pretty neato sight. One might also consider that I prefer sublime arctic tundra or great hulking mountains. I might find rainforests ugly.

In fact I do, all of the previous statement is true.

charred_heart

22 Aug 2006, 07:12 AM

Really, c'mon. You see it from afar via photos and stuff. Photos last don't they?You don't know what you're talking about :mellow:
A desert is a wasteland, it is a place where you see nature oppressing life itself. In earlier ages desert dwellers would wage war on an oasis or a well, such was the value of anything that sustained life in the vast emptiness.

Because all of us who appreciate it so much have been there and seen its beauty, or are planning vacations of hacking through insect infested overgrowth, wading through leech infested water, and dealing with a wide variety of predators that might not enjoy our encroaching on their territory. :)

Really, c'mon. You see it from afar via photos and stuff. Photos last don't they?how will a photo keep you alive when there's no water, no shade, no food for miles? Dealing with a lot of things is a relief when compared to dealing with "nothing".

Plus, aesthetics aren't absolutes. I might just find sun scorched sand and rock with deadly sand storms a pretty neato sight.heh, try travelling in an area where the only water you'll ever find is the one you brought with you in a bottle (or more realistically, in a crate of water containers)

Rooster

22 Aug 2006, 07:13 AM

My only comment on this strange thread is that I doubt that the earth would be better off without rainforests. The planet is on such an intricate balance that the slightest changes can have some pretty devastating effects. I think the human race is a little too high up the food chain to survive if we fuck up the world by removing the largest producer of oxygen on the planet. Although according to Hawkings, we are all fucked anyway unless we spread throughout the universe, so what the hell. According to the conservatives, Jesus is comin back to save our asses, so who cares what we do to the planet.

Heleuiski

22 Aug 2006, 08:32 AM

Really, c'mon. You see it from afar via photos and stuff. Photos last don't they?

Plus, aesthetics aren't absolutes. I might just find sun scorched sand and rock with deadly sand storms a pretty neato sight. One might also consider that I prefer sublime arctic tundra or great hulking mountains. I might find rainforests ugly.

In fact I do, all of the previous statement is true.

You are only talking about the aesthetics of a rainforest.

Rainforests play an important part in the global environment.

Rain forests are home to two-thirds of all the living animal and plant species on the planet. It has been estimated that many hundreds of millions of new species of plants, insects, and microorganisms are still undiscovered and as yet unnamed by science. Tropical rain forests are called the "jewel of the earth", the "Earth's lungs", and the "world's largest pharmacy" because of the large amount of natural medicines discovered there.

temperate rain forests have been subjected to heavy logging and agricultural clearance throughout the 20th century, and the area covered by rainforests around the world is rapidly shrinking. It is estimated that the rainforest was reduced by about 58,000 km? annually in the 1990s. Rainforests used to cover 14% of the Earth's surface. This percentage is now down to 6% and it is estimated by some that the remaining natural rainforests could disappear within 40 years (mid-21st century).

Clearing and burning rainforests releases vast amounts of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere. Each year, deforestation contributes 23-30 percent of all carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is believed to be responsible for approximately half of global warming.

Not only do rainforest look beautiful, they provide a home for two thirds of all living animal and plant species on the planet. They are the lungs of the planet, in a rainforst it is almost constantly raining, cleaning and purifying the air and water.

Krill, do you really believe the argument you just presented? Or are you playing devils advocate?

According to the conservatives, Jesus is comin back to save our asses, so who cares what we do to the planet.

That's a joke... right?

Krill

22 Aug 2006, 01:31 PM

You don't know what you're talking about :mellow:
A desert is a wasteland, it is a place where you see nature oppressing life itself. In earlier ages desert dwellers would wage war on an oasis or a well, such was the value of anything that sustained life in the vast emptiness.

how will a photo keep you alive when there's no water, no shade, no food for miles? Dealing with a lot of things is a relief when compared to dealing with "nothing".

heh, try travelling in an area where the only water you'll ever find is the one you brought with you in a bottle (or more realistically, in a crate of water containers)

I assumed 8.6 million kilometeres (squared) was the area of total rainforests. Not the globe or whatever. In which case I do find water and things like that pretty beautiful =P

But I find it hard to believe that cutting down the rainforests (maybe all forests) will turn the entire world into an apocalyptic wasteland.

You are only talking about the aesthetics of a rainforest.

you'll miss it when it's gone. A group of rain forests is much more beautiful than 8.6 million km2 of sun scorched sand and rock, plagued by deadly sand storms.

I assumed that was the argument charred_heart was making. I misunderstood how much area that was.

Krill, do you really believe the argument you just presented? Or are you playing devils advocate?

Well, it's really only applicable if aesthetics are used as an argument, which it appears they weren't. That is, however, an argument I have heard in the past.

Not only do rainforest look beautiful,

To you. Not to me. I think they look sorta ugly from what I can tell.

they provide a home for two thirds of all living animal and plant species on the planet.

Yippee for those species.

temperate rain forests have been subjected to heavy logging and agricultural clearance throughout the 20th century, and the area covered by rainforests around the world is rapidly shrinking. It is estimated that the rainforest was reduced by about 58,000 km? annually in the 1990s. Rainforests used to cover 14% of the Earth's surface. This percentage is now down to 6% and it is estimated by some that the remaining natural rainforests could disappear within 40 years (mid-21st century).

Just over half are gone, therefore they are important?

Clearing and burning rainforests releases vast amounts of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere. Each year, deforestation contributes 23-30 percent of all carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is believed to be responsible for approximately half of global warming.

Now that I want to see some sources on. Specifically:

deforestation contributes 23-30 percent of all carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is believed to be responsible for approximately half of global warming.

According to the conservatives, Jesus is comin back to save our asses, so who cares what we do to the planet.

Yes, that is indeed a joke. I have met a lot of conservatives, on the extreme and moderate end of things, and none of them make that argument.

Also, conservative =/= Christian. That stereotype is irritating. While there is a 'religious right' it does not mean all right-wingers are religious or use it as a part of their political views.

wildcat

22 Aug 2006, 02:57 PM

Why do the forest fires take place exclusively between the border zone between Russia and Europe?
Is it an accident, ha?

It is dry also elsewhere.
They do not have such fires there in the inland, now do they? Not in Russia.

Ukraina and Finland are politically at the crossroads.

Of course it has nothing to do with the forest fires. Queer accidents take place by themselves!

Northern Russia is forest
all around.
Do the fires of Russia take place throughout the country?

Answer: No.

What is the US: stand ?

We are against the terrorists.
See Grozny.

Heleuiski

22 Aug 2006, 03:01 PM

Why do the forest fires take place exclusively between the border zone between Russia and Europe?
Is it an accident, ha?

It is dry also elsewhere.
They do not have such fires there in the inland, now do they? Not in Russia.

Ukraina and Finland are politically at the crossroads.

Of course it has nothing to do with the forest fires. Queer accidents take place by themselves!

Northern Rusia is forest
all around.
Do the fires of Russia take place throughout the country?

Answer: No.

What is the US: stand ?

We are against the terrorists.
See Grozny.

:wtf:

earwax

22 Aug 2006, 03:09 PM

According to the conservatives, Jesus is comin back to save our asses, so who cares what we do to the planet.
Unfortunately, I HAVE heard this argument.

This is also why they welcome war... It is REQUIRED to fulfill the prophecies.

Heleuiski

22 Aug 2006, 03:29 PM

Also, conservative =/= Christian. That stereotype is irritating. While there is a 'religious right' it does not mean all right-wingers are religious or use it as a part of their political views.

That is true however that does seem to be the case in the US more often than not.

Heleuiski

22 Aug 2006, 03:29 PM

Unfortunately, I HAVE heard this argument.

This is also why they welcome war... It is REQUIRED to fulfill the prophecies.

Hang on Earwax, you're telling me people think that we are coming to the end of the world?

Wounded Townsmen

22 Aug 2006, 04:30 PM

Most of the "green rhetoric" tossed around has more to do with anti-corporation political agendas then it does protecting anything. The problem (as it seems to be) is a convoluted and speculatory range of opinions that shift ambiguity to the valid and irrefutable. This concept is strengthed when I read topics about the rainforest that consist mostly of arguments about global warming.

Yippee for those species.

To note, I think the Endangered Species Act is load of shit. While I don't care about the extinction of any number of random species of blue jay birds - I don't share the same thoughts about plants that produce insect repelling alkaloids we humans often use as medicine.

- Experts estimates that we are losing 137 plant, animal and insect species every single day due to rainforest deforestation. Currently, 121 prescription drugs sold worldwide come from plant-derived sources. While 25% of Western pharmaceuticals are derived from rainforest ingredients, less that 1% of these tropical trees and plants have been tested by scientists.

- The Rosy Periwinkle (catharanthus roseus) is a species of the Madagascar periwinkle genus in the apocynaceae and Kareen family and is native to Madagascar. Substances (Vinblastine and vincristine) extracted from the plant are used in the treatment of leukemia and Hodgkin's disease. It is an endangered rainforest plant.

- Cinchona, or quinine bark, is one of the rainforest's most famous plants and most important discoveries. Throughout the mid-1600s to mid-1800s quinine bark was the primary treatment for malaria and it evidenced remarkable results. It was also used for fever, indigestion, mouth and throat diseases, and cancer.

- There were an estimated ten million Indians living in the Amazonian Rainforest five centuries ago. Today there are less than 200,000. In Brazil alone, European colonists have destroyed more than 90 indigenous tribes since the 1900's. When a medicine man dies without passing his arts on to the next generation, the tribe and the world loses thousands of years of irreplaceable knowledge about medicinal plants.

earwax

22 Aug 2006, 04:38 PM

Hang on Earwax, you're telling me people think that we are coming to the end of the world?
Yes.

Hopefully it's not a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Heleuiski

22 Aug 2006, 04:48 PM

Wounded Townsmen

22 Aug 2006, 04:59 PM

I'm not anti corporation but I am anti suicide for the human race.

I'm in agreement to that sentiment, but it's just become increasingly difficult to seperate hysteria from valid concern. It's not encouraging to only find a slight reference to the latter in such a large discussion.

earwax

22 Aug 2006, 05:18 PM

Yippee for those species.
I made a stop at Carlsbad Caverns on my last vacation. The ranger told us that they have discovered over 100 miles of other caverns in the area. They have discovered new forms of bacteria in these caverns that seem to inhibit the growth of human cancer cells. Of course, more research is needed.

Kind of makes me wonder what other lifeforms we may have already lost.

Heleuiski

22 Aug 2006, 05:23 PM

I'm in agreement to that sentiment, but it's just become increasingly difficult to seperate hysteria from valid concern. It's not encouraging to only find a slight reference to the latter in such a large discussion.

We are so damn lucky to be here on this amazing planet with weird and wonderful creatures and all we want to do is fuck it over, ending ultimately in our own destruction.

Sad really.

macr0

3 Sep 2006, 11:48 AM

macr0

3 Sep 2006, 11:51 AM

Hang on Earwax, you're telling me people think that we are coming to the end of the world?

:wtf:

People have thought that the world was coming to an end since the birth of humanity. Look at what those poor sumerians thought.

sdalek

3 Sep 2006, 12:18 PM

Why should a person care about the rain forests? Why should people care if species becomes extinct?

Because parrots and poison arrow frogs come from there, and they are both cool creatures and need homes, too. Not to mention some of the orchid species that come from there...

Purple-Silver Fox

3 Sep 2006, 12:35 PM

:wtf:

People have thought that the world was coming to an end since the birth of humanity. Look at what those poor sumerians thought.
Their world did end.

Poster

3 Sep 2006, 12:40 PM

macr0

3 Sep 2006, 12:40 PM

Because parrots and poison arrow frogs come from there, and they are both cool creatures and need homes, too. Not to mention some of the orchid species that come from there...

By far the best response I've read! "Species" are boring and suck, but poison arrow frogs? Now those things are cool. Save the frogs!

http://zoltantakacs.com/zt/im/scan/reptiles/15823-120.jpg

Heleuiski

3 Sep 2006, 02:59 PM

Read the other rainforest threads.

macr0

3 Sep 2006, 04:31 PM

Read the other rainforest threads.

I don't see em! I don't know how to work a puter!

attila_the_hunny

3 Sep 2006, 04:46 PM

Because it supplies 20% of the air you breathe.

Heleuiski

3 Sep 2006, 08:44 PM

I don't care about the rain forest. There are more pressing issues in the world to lose sleep over. It absolutely chafes me when people give priority to environmental issues and not conflicts, war crimes, etc.

You don't care?

Oh you are such a hard man aren't you?

The only arguement that is against look after the rainforest has been a silly macho man one.

Macho macho man.. I don't care about rainforests, they are ugly and I don't care so nuh. really mature arguement.

macr0

3 Sep 2006, 08:48 PM

You don't care?

Oh you are such a hard man aren't you?

The only arguement that is against look after the rainforest has been a silly macho man one.

Macho macho man.. I don't care about rainforests, they are ugly and I don't care so nuh. really mature arguement.

Does this mean it's button pressing time?

Heleuiski

3 Sep 2006, 08:52 PM

Because it supplies 20% of the air you breathe.

Yeah who cares about 20% of the air I breathe?

Macho macho man.

I don't care because I'm sooo bad assssss.

moni

3 Sep 2006, 08:56 PM

what south park thinks of the rain forest :-p
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKDIyAl9t6I

macr0

3 Sep 2006, 09:03 PM

what south park thinks of the rain forest :-p
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKDIyAl9t6I

There's a place called the rain forest and it truly sucks ass. Let's knock it all down and get rid of it fast?

... :wahmbulance: ...

=)) =)) =))

Spartan26

3 Sep 2006, 10:02 PM

Upfront, I'll say that I only skimmed through some of these pages.

As for the original question of "why should the I care about the Rain Forest," I don't know if proponents/advocates really need to convince you, (or others) to care. That may be a problem with a lot of causes is that they're looking for conversion when really altering behavior or reaching the ultimately desired conservation of the rain forest could occur without a paradigm shift.

About 20 years ago, (crap, has it been that long?!) I went to a wedding and they gave everybody birdseed to throw at the bride and groom as they exited the church instead of rice. The explanation was that birds eat the dry rice and there's a possibility that when they drink water the rice could expand in their throat or belly and kill them. To me at the time I thought 1). what are really the odds of that happening??? How many birds actually die from this each year? 2). It'll probably be a pigeon that's just gonna dump on my car anyway.

I'm not so sure that if anyone in the wedding party saw a pigeon hobbling along with a broken wing or injured torso that that person wouldn't thought, "oh gee, that's too bad," then continued walking on. So the point was that they didn't so much "care" about the birds as they did correct a habit or behavior that could lead to a future hazard. It was an easy fix. I'm sure other people there would consider doing the same for their weddings as well. I would probably do it for mine and I still don't care.

A friend of mine had a lamp with these cool lightbulbs. They were such-and-such precentage brighter while using a fraction of the energy. Like, I really don't know how much energy one lamp puts out in the grand scheme of things. I don't know how much I "care" about energy (I'm not apathetic but I have other entities I give my time/money to) but if I were in the market for a new lamp or was out and saw these cool new bulbs, I'd probably make the decision to buy them. They're a little more expensive but the shelf life is substantially greater. It's not like my yearly expenditures on lightbulbs isn't negligiable, true. But it at least this adds some security that when I turn on the switch late at night the bulb isn't going to pop out. Because that's the greatest indignity is being w/out enough light when I need it and having to move bulbs around so I don't have to drive to the store at 11 o'clock at night. These bulbs would probably last as long as I keep the lamp.

So because I've never been south of a Mexican border town and I certainly have to plans to take a McCullough 360 down to Peru to play Paul Bunyon any time soon, making me "care" about the rain forest is probably not the most judicious use of time or energy. It's like, I'm not puttering around for NASCAR, how is it that I'm part of the problem??? What I would need would be an alternative. Give me an option of something I can do besides having to download a Sting song. Maybe it's a different type of trashbag. Maybe it's putting recycled paper plates next to the styrofoam ones in the store. Even if I'm not convinced or don't "care" about a problem, if a solution to a problem can be quickly corrected or marketed within a product that would be a selling point. At some point, like dolphin-safe tuna, the alternative becomes the industry standard and people's lives are allowed to carry on.

Ferrus

3 Sep 2006, 10:04 PM

Well, Oxygen is rather useful.

macr0

3 Sep 2006, 10:11 PM

What I would need would be an alternative. Give me an option of something I can do besides having to download a Sting song. Maybe it's a different type of trashbag. Maybe it's putting recycled paper plates next to the styrofoam ones in the store. Even if I'm not convinced or don't "care" about a problem, if a solution to a problem can be quickly corrected or marketed within a product that would be a selling point. At some point, like dolphin-safe tuna, the alternative becomes the industry standard and people's lives are allowed to carry on.

I think that is a very relevant point and hits the nail head on. At the same time, I really wonder why the American Green movement has went to the American Anti-corporation movement.

For example, take GE. I believe I read this in Wired (could be wrong though), but GE has budged about 60% of it's R&D budget over the next few years for developing green technologies. That's multi-billion dollars.

Do I think more of GE because of this? Yes, I do. Would I buy a GE product now among reasonable alternatives? Possibly.

I see this as big, good news.

The thing is, I wonder how many activities will sing such praises? GE is an evil MEGA-corporation.

Architectonic

4 Sep 2006, 07:26 AM

Because it supplies 20% of the air you breathe.

So? Oxygen is pretty poisonous anyway. :p

darlets

4 Sep 2006, 08:06 AM

At least 99% of all species who have ever lived on this planet are already extinct.

It could save YOUR life and stop YOU becoming extinct.
"Experts estimates that we are losing 137 plant, animal and insect species every single day due to rainforest deforestation. That equates to 50,000 species a year. As the rainforest species disappear, so do many possible cures for life-threatening diseases. Currently, 121 prescription drugs sold worldwide come from plant-derived sources. While 25% of Western pharmaceuticals are derived from rainforest ingredients, less that 1% of these tropical trees and plants have been tested by scientists."
or
"The U.S. National Cancer Institute has identified 3000 plants that are active against cancer cells. 70% of these plants are found in the rainforest. Twenty-five percent of the active ingredients in today's cancer-fighting drugs come from organisms found only in the rainforest."
or
"In 1983, there were no U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers involved in research programs to discover new drugs or cures from plants. Today, over 100 pharmaceutical companies and several branches of the US government, including giants like Merck and The National Cancer Institute, are engaged in plant research projects for possible drugs and cures for viruses, infections, cancer, and even AIDS."

Trees act as a Carbon dioxide store.
"Clearing and burning rainforests releases vast amounts of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere. Each year, deforestation contributes 23-30 percent of all carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is believed to be responsible for approximately half of global warming."

It's not a problem for the future, YOU'll live to see it.
"We are losing Earth's greatest biological treasures just as we are beginning to appreciate their true value. Rainforests once covered 14% of the earth's land surface; now they cover a mere 6% and experts estimate that the last remaining rainforests could be consumed in less than 40 years."
Now some of the rain forest are in reserves so this quote is abit off base but the fact remains at current rates we'll churn through it in our lifetime.

It could provide alternate foods for YOU
"At least 3000 fruits are found in the rainforests; of these only 200 are now in use in the Western World. The Indians of the rainforest use over 2,000."

YOU will be alive on the planet whilst half of the species on it become extinct
"More than half of the world's estimated 10 million species of plants, animals and insects live in the tropical rainforests. One-fifth of the world's fresh water is in the Amazon Basin."

And lastly, one day hopefully you'll have a grand child sit on your knee and go, "Thanks for caring about the rain forest"