Global Warming

Probably is a relationship yes....warmer=more energy, it's high school stuff. But our weather is limp as hell anyway, and how do we KNOW it's "freak weather" when we have records for only 150 years or so...IS it freak weather if measured from the time the Earth cooled? I doubt it. More human arrogance, it's like the Earth has only existed as long as man or something.

PS, EVERy species affects it's environemt....you don't see beavers holding mass rallies to discuss alternatives to dams because "rising water levels" are killing other woodland beasites.

PPS...erm 1987, which according to greenies, we are now MUCh hotter than, had no storms at all then?

ally wrote:

Doctor Clayhead wrote: The Met Office told the Daily Express:

are you doing reading that paper, Frads?

Know thy enemy, Ally.

Global Warming will mean that in the next 50 years we will have the same climate as Ibiza.

In the words of Ally G, LET'S MAKE IT 'APPEN

:clicksfingersgangsterstylee:

It pains me to say it,but I'm with Cambo all the way on this one.(so far)

Missy Jem wrote: Global Warming will mean that in the next 50 years we will have the same climate as Ibiza.

In the words of Ally G, LET'S MAKE IT 'APPEN

By den you is gonna huv ricotta fighs, so don' go wearin' no bikini to Tesco's, aiiiiiight ...

:\pimp3:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote: I give the human race 500 more years. We're all gone by then. Any bets?

We won't be around to collect!

Missy Jem wrote:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote: I give the human race 500 more years. We're all gone by then. Any bets?

We won't be around to collect!

We should really rape it out of him now,to be on the safe side! He won't mind,being a man of the cloth.It's just business

Easter eggs are arriving earlier every year, a clear indication methinks.

I've just had an email from EIL.COM warning me that Christmas is only 354 days away.

:dead:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Well, lobbyists are just hired guns. But there are certainly lobbyists with a lot of money pushing the views of their clients on global warming.

But what I meant was "follow the money to those who have the financial interest in maintaining the status quo."

Who stands to benefit from maintaining the status quo on global warming? Who stands to lose from doing something about global warming? And how do their views match with the nearly universal global scientific consensus on the subject?

So do lobbiests control the Discovery channel?

The “doubt” in the “debate” is being spun out of oil company war-rooms. That doubt isn’t a part of the nearly universal scientific consensus. That a television station would discuss “doubt” when there is no scientific doubt demonstrates the political strength of the oil companies in getting their message out.

Cozzie has a right to be confused, since there are jackasses on both sides blowing things out of proportion to get people to side with them.

Cozzie’s confused because she doesn’t know who to believe. And that is the goal of the oil companies. If there’s confusion, if there’s doubt, if the science is “uncertain,” if we need “more science,” then the oil companies can continue business as usual, and those “jackasses”—the vast majority of the world’s climatologists—will be ignored.

Doctor? wrote: Fact: this is the interglacial phase of an ice age.

Until the ice caps are TOTALLY GONE we should not worry about global warming.

Why is that? Because climate is so totally controllable that we can put the ice caps back the next day? Because we can somehow prevent all of the extinctions that will follow the loss of the ice caps?

Humans are such arogant cunts

As your own comments above amply demonstrate. Hoist by your own petard, eh Doc?

they think that a planet that can withstand gamma ray bursts, coronal mass ejections, cometry impacts, and even it's own inside spewing out in flood bassalt planes....is going to blow up and fall into the sun because we drive SUV's...sorry 4wheel drives, forgot I speak English there.

There’s a difference between an iron-rock mass withstanding those catastrophic events, and implying that the Earth’s species can survive whatever we throw at them. Or for that matter, implying that we can survive whatever we do. Cobalt bomb, anyone? But let’s suppose we do survive in the physical sense. Will our economies survive as growing seasons change, as temperate regions shift, as fresh water becomes a scarce resource? Your own government believes the economic impact alone will be disastrous.

I appreciate we're doing no good, but it's only ourselves who will really suffer.

Patent nonsense.

Anyway, like I say, the Earth only has 30 or 40 years of this shit to deal with, then we run out of fossil fuels anyway…

So, WAS venus's "runaway greenhouse effect" caused by cars?

Another 30-40 years of burning oil will only make matters worse. And after the oil is gone, what do the global warming ostriches propose to use for lubricating machinery? Or are we just going to go back to the stone age after we’ve burned the last drop?

Venus demonstrates the dangers of a runaway greenhouse, but we’re demonstrating that we can create the same effect.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: Global warming is good for Alaska, so I'm for it.

The Alaska natives don’t think it’s good for Alaska. So why do you? Polar bears are about to be placed on the Endangered Species list because of the loss of the polar ice caps. You think this is a positive development? Vast areas of land that is currently temperate farm land will become arid desert. You think Alaska getting warmer outweighs that?

Doctor? wrote: Hey, the global warming debate is no place for science CTB.

Forget explaining evolution and cell mutation to this lot mate.....

Spoken by the guy who claims that oil comes from animals. Better hit the books Doc, evolution has little to do with cell mutation.

While we're doing facts.....

…

Life will be back in under a million years.

100 million years for a complete recovery. But you go on thinking you’re science literate. Throw enough bullshit against the wall, some of it will stick.

Doctor? wrote: Probably is a relationship yes....warmer=more energy, it's high school stuff. But our weather is limp as hell anyway, and how do we KNOW it's "freak weather" when we have records for only 150 years or so...IS it freak weather if measured from the time the Earth cooled? I doubt it. More human arrogance, it's like the Earth has only existed as long as man or something.

Hit the climate books while you’re at it, Doc. You’ll discover that scientists actually have climate records going back – gasp!—millions of years, long before weather records began to be kept.

CTB wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: The temperature varies over the course of geologic time. Species go extinct over the course of geologic time.

The difference this time is we've appropriated so much of the planet that affected species will have no way to migrate-- there will be no place to migrate to. Species will die. New species adapted to the hotter climate won't be evolve. The earth will be a poorer place for it. But that's OK as long as we have the freedom to burn oil until the last drop is gone? And then we'll stop, because we have no choice?

Biomes (forests, etc.) migrate. This time, they won't be able to, because we're standing in their path. Entire biomes will disappear...

And before that happens, our economies, and our ability to feed ourselves, and to have fresh water, will crash and burn.

But somehow it's all worth it...

Wow, some serious misconceptions are being cited as fact - pardon me for butting in here Comrade, it's not you that I'm singling out, but evolution and ice ages are kinda my thing (PhD and all).... what evidence is there new species adapted to a hotter environment won't evolve?

I’m relying on two phenomena as evidence. First, we’re in the midst of a great extinction as massive as the last five. Of course, as species die off, suddenly vacant niches will become available for exploitation… Except for the fact that species are dieing off because we’re appropriating their habitat. With the habitat gone, the niche disappears, so there’s no opportunity for species to evolve to fill that niche. Second, the loss of species across the board means there’s a loss of genetic material from which species can evolve to fill the vacant niches. As E.O. Wilson puts it, recovery from each of the last mass extinctions took on the order of 100 million years or so; new species may evolve, but not within a length of time that has any meaning for contemporary humanity.

One thing we have to look forward to is an increase in the rate of evolution thanks to higher levels of UV radiation (you know that hole in the ozone layer? That is speeding up the occurence of mutations, which have been recognised for years as the mechanism that drives evolution.)

Genetic mutation is the mechanism that drives evolution? I think at best there’s a highly overstated importance attached to genetic mutation. I would argue that natural selection, determined by fitness, is what drives evolution, with occasional leaps made possible through genetic mutation.

This misconception that "humanity is killing the planet" smacks of an inflated sense of self-importance that some of us humans have. Why do we think that just because we do it, it's "unnatural"? Where exactly did humans evolve, in God's petri dish? There's a theory that humanity is little more than a noxious weed of a species destined to clear a path for the next 'dominant lifeform', expanding like a bacterial colony until the resources run out then dropping back to tiny pockets of isolated populations, if not entirely extinct. We won't kill the planet, we may momentarily speed up the mechanism that drives evolution, but that's it.

And what’s the point of killing off most of the earth’s species? What’s the point, for that matter, of killing ourselves off?

As for global warming, this is far more complex than any of us are led to believe. I'm all for ensuring the next generation of humans is not impacted negatively by our unsustainable resource gorging, but consider this: 900 years ago Vikings (no, not Jarvis, though he is quite old) were cultivating crops in Greenland, which is now covered in ice. An inconvenient truth? You better believe it.

The minor climatic variations—a warmer period in Greenland before the 12th century, followed by a little ice age—were not long-term trends in the Earth’s climate. Global warming is. The earth has been a lot hotter than it is now, and a lot colder.

The oil companies believe that it’s in their short-term best interest for us to burn the last of the Earth’s oil, right down to the last drop. The question for us, as we ponder whether to burn the last of the Earth’s oil right down to the last drop, is whether extreme temperature change is in our long-term best interest.

Commie....

1. lubricating oil doesn't cause global warming you fucking spastic, you need to burn it releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

2. All those things the (ahem) "iron" mass of the planet ( most of it is nickel actually) survived, you;re right life could never survive them, we are therefor all a product of each other's derranged immagination.

3. The planet's natural, default, and most commonly occuring condition is to have NO ICE CAPS AT ALL...ICE CAPS MEAN YOU'RE IN AN ICE AGE FFS!

of course global warming is a real thing, but so unbelievably insignificant in terms of Earth's function of raising life (not HUMAN life, we're not important), that all this running around waving arms in the air is just another monet making scheme....yes folks you heard it here first..>AL GORE CHARGES MONEY FOR HIS HOLY MESSAGE...AND PRESSES IT ON POLYCABONATE DVD'S MADE FROM? PETRO-FUCKING-CHEMICALS

Go on, next time a greenie starts on you....ask them if they uses any fossil fuels getting to the street they're bothering you in...ask them for that leaflet for free, surely saving the planet and everything on it ( as they delude themselves), is surely not a work to be profited from.

The things that always amuses me, is typified by the BBC's excellent series "coast". During the course of the series, they constantly show how this or that bit of coast line has change in either geologic or even human time, how towns that were on the sea 100 years ago are miles inland ( global cooling?), and such like. The overall message is "nature is a dynamic system which NEVER remains the same"....then 5 mins later there's some cack on about protecting some strech of coast forever so it doesn;t change.....and the irony of this is totally lost on both the producers and the presenters.

"Genetic mutation is the mechanism that drives evolution? I think at best there’s a highly overstated importance attached to genetic mutation. I would argue that natural selection, determined by fitness, is what drives evolution, with occasional leaps made possible through genetic mutation."

LOL

point missed yes natural selection drives evolution...but there is only ONE majot mechanism by which you create anything to select between....ionising radiation causing cell mutation. You can't find out that a red beak attracts more mates than a yellow one if no bird ever mutated to have a red beak. I gues this comes from evolution being iliegal in the land of the free eh?

Ah well, your fundamental lack of understanding regarding this somewhat key point of DNA's existence on this planet shows exactly the kind of wooly logic involved on both sides of the GW debate.

EDIT: how can it take 100 million years to recover from our CO2 emissions when far more CO2 was released during flood bassalt events, the last of which was quite a lot less than 100million years ago, and the next of which is overdue. Oh and I am quite aware that about 85% of oil is actually algae, but it also containts lots of dead sea creatures. Then again, people whinge about saving trees when algae are MUCH more efficient CO2-O2 processors.

And one more thing, columbo styleeeee..... The icecaps have been receeding for about 20000 years ( or is it 40)...lots of prehistoric oil barons were there?

Doctor? wrote: Commie....

1. lubricating oil doesn't cause global warming you fucking spastic, you need to burn it releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

Or maybe it's just READING COMPREHENSION you need to brush up on? Or are you just constructing strawman arguments? I mentioned lubricating oil because it comes from petroleum. If we burn all of our petroleum, where are we going to get lubricating oil from?

The short answer is soybeans.

To do that, we'll have to plant even more acres in soy, resulting in even more loss of habitat. We might even have to stop feeding soy to cattle, resulting in meat becoming an expensive commodity. I'm just scratching the surface here, but one thing we can be sure of is replacing petroleum with soy will bring new problems for us.

2. All those things the (ahem) "iron" mass of the planet ( most of it is nickel actually) survived, you;re right life could never survive them, we are therefor all a product of each other's derranged immagination.

Well, if you don't take a Eurocentric perspective, many Asian religions do hold that this is all illusion.

On the other hand, putting Asian religion aside for the moment, It's taken us 5 billion years to get where we are today. Five starts, five stops, each mass extinction resulting in 100s of millions of years needed for life on Earth to recover. The fact that life did recover, eventually, is hardly an argument for continuing to destroy life on Earth.

3. The planet's natural, default, and most commonly occuring condition is to have NO ICE CAPS AT ALL...ICE CAPS MEAN YOU'RE IN AN ICE AGE FFS!

We are not in an ice age now, and we have ice caps. As you yourself have said, we are in an interglacial period. Whether the "default" position is no ice caps, or not, I don't know. What I do know is global warming-- or another ice age, for that matter-- will not be an "improvement" in the climate for our species.

of course global warming is a real thing, but so unbelievably insignificant in terms of Earth's function of raising life (not HUMAN life, we're not important), that all this running around waving arms in the air is just another monet making scheme....yes folks you heard it here first..>AL GORE CHARGES MONEY FOR HIS HOLY MESSAGE...AND PRESSES IT ON POLYCABONATE DVD'S MADE FROM? PETRO-FUCKING-CHEMICALS

So the poor widdle oil companies-- who hardly are making a penny on sales of oil-- are just trying to follow nature's plan-- or God's plan, if one prefers-- for the Earth, and along came Al Gore with a sure-fire money-making scheme...

... And all those climatologists are just a part of his nefarious scheme...

Ermmmm An Ice Age is defined as any period where ice caps are present. Interglacial just means that the glaciers have retreated above the arctic circle.......and what warmed the earth to drive them there.

Oh, and if it akes 100's of millions of years, explain the rather green and pleasant planet around us, a mere 65million years from the last mass extinction event.

Doctor? wrote: "Genetic mutation is the mechanism that drives evolution? I think at best there’s a highly overstated importance attached to genetic mutation. I would argue that natural selection, determined by fitness, is what drives evolution, with occasional leaps made possible through genetic mutation."

LOL

point missed yes natural selection drives evolution...but there is only ONE majot mechanism by which you create anything to select between....ionising radiation causing cell mutation.

More patent nonsense.

Variation, Doc. Variation.

You can't find out that a red beak attracts more mates than a yellow one if no bird ever mutated to have a red beak. I gues this comes from evolution being iliegal in the land of the free eh?

Well, it ain't illegal there, and you know fuck-all about evolution.

Ah well, your fundamental lack of understanding regarding this somewhat key point of DNA's existence on this planet shows exactly the kind of wooly logic involved on both sides of the GW debate.

Again, you know fuck-all about evolution. It's about variation and natural selection, and usually not about "mutations," very very few of which are successful. Natural selection is a genetic response to environmental pressures, derived from genetic variation in the species. It is not a random, chance occurrence that just happened to be the right mutation needed for that species at that time.

EDIT: how can it take 100 million years to recover

The average recovery time from major extinction events has been 100 million years or so.

from our CO2 emissions when far more CO2 was released during flood bassalt events, the last of which was quite a lot less than 100million years ago, and the next of which is overdue. Oh and I am quite aware that about 85% of oil is actually algae, but it also containts lots of dead sea creatures. Then again, people whinge about saving trees when algae are MUCH more efficient CO2-O2 processors.

So you're aware that oil is not derived from animals, and yet when it's convenient to your argument, you claim it is made from animals. Says a lot.

And one more thing, columbo styleeeee..... The icecaps have been receeding for about 20000 years ( or is it 40)...lots of prehistoric oil barons were there?

Point to one scientist who has ever said that global warming can only be caused by burning oil.

Doctor? wrote: Ermmmm An Ice Age is defined as any period where ice caps are present. Interglacial just means that the glaciers have retreated above the arctic circle.......and what warmed the earth to drive them there.

OK, fair enough, I just wiki'd it. But if the Earth's default climate is no ice caps, and we're an ice age species, then no ice caps is a bad thing for us.

Oh, and if it akes 100's of millions of years, explain the rather green and pleasant planet around us, a mere 65million years from the last mass extinction event.

I was relying on memory. My error, it takes tens of millions of years, but one recovery took 100 million years. here's the quote, from E.O. Wilson:

"To summarize: life was impoverished in five major events, and to lesser degree here and there around the world in countless other episodes. After each downturn it recovered to at least the original level of diversity. How long did it take for evolution to restore the losses after the first-order spasms? The number of families of animals living in the sea is as reliable a measure as we have been able to obtain from the existing fossil evidence. In general, five million years were only enough for a strong start. A complete recovery from each of the five major extinctions required tens of millions of years. In particular, the Ordovician dip needed 25 million years, the Devonian 30 million years, the Permian and Triassic (combined because they were so close together in time) 100 million years, and the Cretaceous 20 million years. These figures should give pause to anyone who believes that what Homo sapiens destroys, Nature will redeem. Maybe so, but not within any length of time that has meaning for contemporary humanity."

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Doctor? wrote: Ermmmm An Ice Age is defined as any period where ice caps are present. Interglacial just means that the glaciers have retreated above the arctic circle.......and what warmed the earth to drive them there.

OK, fair enough, I just wiki'd it. But if the Earth's default climate is no ice caps, and we're an ice age species, then no ice caps is a bad thing for us.

Oh, and if it akes 100's of millions of years, explain the rather green and pleasant planet around us, a mere 65million years from the last mass extinction event.

I was relying on memory. My error, it takes tens of millions of years, but one recovery took 100 million years. here's the quote, from E.O. Wilson:

"To summarize: life was impoverished in five major events, and to lesser degree here and there around the world in countless other episodes. After each downturn it recovered to at least the original level of diversity. How long did it take for evolution to restore the losses after the first-order spasms? The number of families of animals living in the sea is as reliable a measure as we have been able to obtain from the existing fossil evidence. In general, five million years were only enough for a strong start. A complete recovery from each of the five major extinctions required tens of millions of years. In particular, the Ordovician dip needed 25 million years, the Devonian 30 million years, the Permian and Triassic (combined because they were so close together in time) 100 million years, and the Cretaceous 20 million years. These figures should give pause to anyone who believes that what Homo sapiens destroys, Nature will redeem. Maybe so, but not within any length of time that has meaning for contemporary humanity."

You're both wrong.......

...not if I firebomb them all, could do in a matter of weeks

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Doctor? wrote: Ermmmm An Ice Age is defined as any period where ice caps are present. Interglacial just means that the glaciers have retreated above the arctic circle.......and what warmed the earth to drive them there.

OK, fair enough, I just wiki'd it. But if the Earth's default climate is no ice caps, and we're an ice age species, then no ice caps is a bad thing for us.

Oh, and if it akes 100's of millions of years, explain the rather green and pleasant planet around us, a mere 65million years from the last mass extinction event.

I was relying on memory. My error, it takes tens of millions of years, but one recovery took 100 million years. here's the quote, from E.O. Wilson:

"To summarize: life was impoverished in five major events, and to lesser degree here and there around the world in countless other episodes. After each downturn it recovered to at least the original level of diversity. How long did it take for evolution to restore the losses after the first-order spasms? The number of families of animals living in the sea is as reliable a measure as we have been able to obtain from the existing fossil evidence. In general, five million years were only enough for a strong start. A complete recovery from each of the five major extinctions required tens of millions of years. In particular, the Ordovician dip needed 25 million years, the Devonian 30 million years, the Permian and Triassic (combined because they were so close together in time) 100 million years, and the Cretaceous 20 million years. These figures should give pause to anyone who believes that what Homo sapiens destroys, Nature will redeem. Maybe so, but not within any length of time that has meaning for contemporary humanity."

You're both wrong.......

...not if I firebomb them all, could do in a matter of weeks

No, I'm still right, because we're talking about recovery.

And really, with enough nukes, it shouldn't take too long...

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

CTB wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: The temperature varies over the course of geologic time. Species go extinct over the course of geologic time.

The difference this time is we've appropriated so much of the planet that affected species will have no way to migrate-- there will be no place to migrate to. Species will die. New species adapted to the hotter climate won't be evolve. The earth will be a poorer place for it. But that's OK as long as we have the freedom to burn oil until the last drop is gone? And then we'll stop, because we have no choice?

Biomes (forests, etc.) migrate. This time, they won't be able to, because we're standing in their path. Entire biomes will disappear...

And before that happens, our economies, and our ability to feed ourselves, and to have fresh water, will crash and burn.

But somehow it's all worth it...

Wow, some serious misconceptions are being cited as fact - pardon me for butting in here Comrade, it's not you that I'm singling out, but evolution and ice ages are kinda my thing (PhD and all).... what evidence is there new species adapted to a hotter environment won't evolve?

I’m relying on two phenomena as evidence. First, we’re in the midst of a great extinction as massive as the last five. Of course, as species die off, suddenly vacant niches will become available for exploitation… Except for the fact that species are dieing off because we’re appropriating their habitat. With the habitat gone, the niche disappears, so there’s no opportunity for species to evolve to fill that niche. Second, the loss of species across the board means there’s a loss of genetic material from which species can evolve to fill the vacant niches. As E.O. Wilson puts it, recovery from each of the last mass extinctions took on the order of 100 million years or so; new species may evolve, but not within a length of time that has any meaning for contemporary humanity.

Notwithstanding the fact that Wilson was not without critcs (the likes of Steven Jay Gould amongst them) to the theories you quote, you are making a huge leap in flawed logic here; if we are indeed in a naturally-occurring mass-extinction event, how can it possibly be due to human activity? The Holocene Mass-extinction Theory which apparently explains the current extinctions and the extinction of the Megafauna puts a bit of a downer on the idea that human activity is responsible for the 'current' extinction event - not a lot of petrochemical usage in the Pleistocene that I was aware of. Also, since it's only been 65MY since the last extinction event, I think mammals have done fairly well out of it, since by this logic species diversity still hasn't recovered from the KT event, wouldn't you agree?

One thing we have to look forward to is an increase in the rate of evolution thanks to higher levels of UV radiation (you know that hole in the ozone layer? That is speeding up the occurence of mutations, which have been recognised for years as the mechanism that drives evolution.)

Genetic mutation is the mechanism that drives evolution? I think at best there’s a highly overstated importance attached to genetic mutation. I would argue that natural selection, determined by fitness, is what drives evolution, with occasional leaps made possible through genetic mutation.

But what is the source of this genetic variation? No dispute at all that natural selection of the best fit drives evolution, but the genetic variation responsible for it is initiated by mutations, which isn't exactly a "highly overstated importance". Since Wiki has been cited before, you'll find this summary fairly sound: "Most biologists believe that adaptation occurs through the accumulation of many mutations of small effect. However, macromutation is an alternative process for adaptation that involves a single, very large-scale mutation." (this is a quote from here)

This misconception that "humanity is killing the planet" smacks of an inflated sense of self-importance that some of us humans have. Why do we think that just because we do it, it's "unnatural"? Where exactly did humans evolve, in God's petri dish? There's a theory that humanity is little more than a noxious weed of a species destined to clear a path for the next 'dominant lifeform', expanding like a bacterial colony until the resources run out then dropping back to tiny pockets of isolated populations, if not entirely extinct. We won't kill the planet, we may momentarily speed up the mechanism that drives evolution, but that's it.

And what’s the point of killing off most of the earth’s species? What’s the point, for that matter, of killing ourselves off?

I was just trying to demonstrate what I regards as the overimportance placed on human 'non-natural' activity. Humans are after all just another form of life endemic to the earth, so by definition our activities, for better or worse, can never be regarded as unnatural.

As for global warming, this is far more complex than any of us are led to believe. I'm all for ensuring the next generation of humans is not impacted negatively by our unsustainable resource gorging, but consider this: 900 years ago Vikings (no, not Jarvis, though he is quite old) were cultivating crops in Greenland, which is now covered in ice. An inconvenient truth? You better believe it.

The minor climatic variations—a warmer period in Greenland before the 12th century, followed by a little ice age—were not long-term trends in the Earth’s climate. Global warming is. The earth has been a lot hotter than it is now, and a lot colder.

How can you possibly know this for sure? "They weren't long-term trends. This is". Just playing Devil's advocate here, but how can you state for sure we aren't currently experienceing 'minor climatic variations'? Caution also has to be applied given the miniscule sample size we have for weather records.

The oil companies believe that it’s in their short-term best interest for us to burn the last of the Earth’s oil, right down to the last drop. The question for us, as we ponder whether to burn the last of the Earth’s oil right down to the last drop, is whether extreme temperature change is in our long-term best interest.

A very interesting discussion this, although somewhat let down by my inability to quote previous posts properly, but hopefully this lot is largely comprehensible. Cheers CTB

CTB wrote: Notwithstanding the fact that Wilson was not without critcs (the likes of Steven Jay Gould amongst them) to the theories you quote, you are making a huge leap in flawed logic here; if we are indeed in a naturally-occurring mass-extinction event, how can it possibly be due to human activity?

Loss of habitat.

The Holocene Mass-extinction Theory which apparently explains the current extinctions and the extinction of the Megafauna puts a bit of a downer on the idea that human activity is responsible for the 'current' extinction event - not a lot of petrochemical usage in the Pleistocene that I was aware of.

I'm relying on memory here, but I believe that the two main factors driving the Pleistocene megafauna extinctions were climate change and human hunting.

Also, since it's only been 65MY since the last extinction event, I think mammals have done fairly well out of it, since by this logic species diversity still hasn't recovered from the KT event, wouldn't you agree?

That was my error, it was tens of millions of years for recovery from the Cretaceous event. But yes, mammals did quite well when the dinosaurs went extinct.

But what is the source of this genetic variation? No dispute at all that natural selection of the best fit drives evolution, but the genetic variation responsible for it is initiated by mutations, which isn't exactly a "highly overstated importance". Since Wiki has been cited before, you'll find this summary fairly sound: "Most biologists believe that adaptation occurs through the accumulation of many mutations of small effect. However, macromutation is an alternative process for adaptation that involves a single, very large-scale mutation." (this is a quote from here)

As I understand it, variation is the result of genetic recombination. Sex for the rest of you lot. We're carrying around a lot of information within our genes, some of which is expressed physically, because those alleles are dominant, and some of which is passed on to the next generation, perhaps to appear as a physical expression if the next genetic recombination works out that way. If genetic variation is expressed in Boatraceface through an extraordinarily large cock that splits his foreskin, and in other Redcar males with varying cock sizes--some extraordinarily small, some extraordinarily average-- and if that extraordinarily large cock gives Boatraceface some survival advantage, he will pass that trait on to his offspring, and if that gives them a survival advantage, they will pass that trait on to their offspring. Eventually, all male inhabitants of Redcar will have extraordinarily large cocks.

I was just trying to demonstrate what I regards as the overimportance placed on human 'non-natural' activity. Humans are after all just another form of life endemic to the earth, so by definition our activities, for better or worse, can never be regarded as unnatural.

It's still an unnecessary-- and preventable-- occurrence. The difference between the previous 5 extinction events and this one is that for the first time, mass extinction is occurring through the activities of one of Earth's species.

As for global warming, this is far more complex than any of us are led to believe. I'm all for ensuring the next generation of humans is not impacted negatively by our unsustainable resource gorging, but consider this: 900 years ago Vikings (no, not Jarvis, though he is quite old) were cultivating crops in Greenland, which is now covered in ice. An inconvenient truth? You better believe it.

The minor climatic variations—a warmer period in Greenland before the 12th century, followed by a little ice age—were not long-term trends in the Earth’s climate. Global warming is. The earth has been a lot hotter than it is now, and a lot colder.

How can you possibly know this for sure? "They weren't long-term trends. This is". Just playing Devil's advocate here, but how can you state for sure we aren't currently experiencing 'minor climatic variations'?

I can't, and I don't know whether or not climatologists can, but when they have consensus that this is a serious problem, I don't need to go get a degree in climatology before I can make a decision.

Commie, you just aren't getting it mate.

to roughly quote you.... "maybe no ice caps is the correct condition of the planet but we have ice caps now so losing them is a bad thing."

WHY THE FUCK SHOULD THE EARTH CEASE TO BE DYNAMIC JUST COS WE ARE HERE NOW?????????

How unbelievably arrogant. The Earth has constant changed, but ow the great and amazing human race is here to maintain it at it's 20th century condition forever.

ludicrous nonsense.

Doctor? wrote: Commie, you just aren't getting it mate.

to roughly quote you.... "maybe no ice caps is the correct condition of the planet but we have ice caps now so losing them is a bad thing."

WHY THE FUCK SHOULD THE EARTH CEASE TO BE DYNAMIC JUST COS WE ARE HERE NOW?????????

It doesn't cease to. Volcanoes continue to erupt, humanity or no humanity. Tectonic plates still collide, humanity or no humanity.

The question isn't whether the Earth should cease to be dynamic; the question is whether we should continue a human activity that is going to make human life more difficult, and will lead to extinction for many species.

How unbelievably arrogant. The Earth has constant changed, but ow the great and amazing human race is here to maintain it at it's 20th century condition forever.

ludicrous nonsense.

I would argue that saying humanity is the only species affected is the unbelievably arrogant position.

And from the standpoint of our own species, yes, keeping the climatic conditions under which our species arose and to which our species is adapted-- especially when we have a choice in the matter-- is far more preferable to altering those climatic conditions to something more inhospitable for our species.

Kind of like keeping the oxygen content of our atmosphere is far more preferable for our species than replacing the oxygen with ammonia.

Our species evolved in the African planes, and lived through fully glacial phases of ice ages. So, we're fine with anyting from near boiling to below freezing.

So......who made the ice sheets dissappear before, and why are we still here.

SPECIES ARE UNIMPORTANT, ONLY THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF DEOXYRIBONUCLEIC ACID, THE TRUE LIFEROM OF THE PLANET MATTERS.

100 years, the time we have been and will be poluters for is an unmeasurable amount of time.

And do you refute that the sun is getting hotter, and that this might make the Earth warmer too? Presumably once we run out of oil, and the planet continues to warm, we'll send greenbrains to Sol to cool it down?

CTB wrote: Notwithstanding the fact that Wilson was not without critcs (the likes of Steven Jay Gould amongst them) to the theories you quote, you are making a huge leap in flawed logic here; if we are indeed in a naturally-occurring mass-extinction event, how can it possibly be due to human activity?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Loss of habitat.

What's that got to do with climate change though? That's the point of the thread afterall. The fossil record implies accelerated speciation could be a result of dynamic climatic conditions, so pairing habitat loss with climate change seems a flawed argument to me; that's the point I'm trying to make. No argument whatsoever that humans have had a huge impact on habitat loss, (and to a lesser degree, the creation of habitats too - check out your local landfill for a species-rich habitat).

The Holocene Mass-extinction Theory which apparently explains the current extinctions and the extinction of the Megafauna puts a bit of a downer on the idea that human activity is responsible for the 'current' extinction event - not a lot of petrochemical usage in the Pleistocene that I was aware of.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I'm relying on memory here, but I believe that the two main factors driving the Pleistocene megafauna extinctions were climate change and human hunting.

Very contentious area of research, with many theories. However, would you consider the possibility that the same climate change you cite here as contributing to the megafaunal extinction is part of the current climatic phenomena?

.....

But what is the source of this genetic variation? No dispute at all that natural selection of the best fit drives evolution, but the genetic variation responsible for it is initiated by mutations, which isn't exactly a "highly overstated importance". Since Wiki has been cited before, you'll find this summary fairly sound: "Most biologists believe that adaptation occurs through the accumulation of many mutations of small effect. However, macromutation is an alternative process for adaptation that involves a single, very large-scale mutation." (this is a quote from here)

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: As I understand it, variation is the result of genetic recombination. Sex for the rest of you lot. We're carrying around a lot of information within our genes, some of which is expressed physically, because those alleles are dominant, and some of which is passed on to the next generation, perhaps to appear as a physical expression if the next genetic recombination works out that way. If genetic variation is expressed in Boatraceface through an extraordinarily large cock that splits his foreskin, and in other Redcar males with varying cock sizes--some extraordinarily small, some extraordinarily average-- and if that extraordinarily large cock gives Boatraceface some survival advantage, he will pass that trait on to his offspring, and if that gives them a survival advantage, they will pass that trait on to their offspring. Eventually, all male inhabitants of Redcar will have extraordinarily large cocks.

I'm really reluctant to continue with the analogy of Boaty's cock here, but what you are describing is the inheritance and expression of genes already in existence in the genepool. The point I'm getting at is that mutations add new characteristics to this genepool spontaneously that are not an effect of recombination of exiting characteristics. For example a mutation that is expressed as, say, males having two cocks (stay with me here). If this 2-knob characteristic is expressed and turns out to be a survival advantage (can't think of one just yet, would make post-pub weeing a nightmare), then they will pass that trait on to their offspring, etc. No dispute over the process itself, though.

I was just trying to demonstrate what I regards as the overimportance placed on human 'non-natural' activity. Humans are after all just another form of life endemic to the earth, so by definition our activities, for better or worse, can never be regarded as unnatural.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: It's still an unnecessary-- and preventable-- occurrence. The difference between the previous 5 extinction events and this one is that for the first time, mass extinction is occurring through the activities of one of Earth's species.

Once again, depends on how much credence you put in the mass extinction theory. I think of it more as yes, we are able to recognise that it is a preventable occurence, but is it an innate characteristic of humans to do anything to prevent it? This is getting more philosophical than scientific, but it's still interesting to discuss.

As for global warming, this is far more complex than any of us are led to believe. I'm all for ensuring the next generation of humans is not impacted negatively by our unsustainable resource gorging, but consider this: 900 years ago Vikings (no, not Jarvis, though he is quite old) were cultivating crops in Greenland, which is now covered in ice. An inconvenient truth? You better believe it.

The minor climatic variations—a warmer period in Greenland before the 12th century, followed by a little ice age—were not long-term trends in the Earth’s climate. Global warming is. The earth has been a lot hotter than it is now, and a lot colder.

How can you possibly know this for sure? "They weren't long-term trends. This is". Just playing Devil's advocate here, but how can you state for sure we aren't currently experiencing 'minor climatic variations'?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I can't, and I don't know whether or not climatologists can, but when they have consensus that this is a serious problem, I don't need to go get a degree in climatology before I can make a decision.

..and I'm not for a second suggesting that is the case. It's not my intention to make this discourse argumentative, but I guess all I'm saying is that anyone can make a decision as to what theory they believe, or perhaps formulate their own, but that doesn't translate as the right to regurgitate it as fact - to presume we know the answer to everything is the antithesis of the nature of science. This isn't targeted specifically at you Comrade as you clearly have given this thought and research; it's a pity more don't do the same. CTB

Sorry, I right-royally fucked up the format of that last post...and I can't be arsed fixing it CTB

CTB wrote:

.....

But what is the source of this genetic variation? No dispute at all that natural selection of the best fit drives evolution, but the genetic variation responsible for it is initiated by mutations, which isn't exactly a "highly overstated importance". Since Wiki has been cited before, you'll find this summary fairly sound: "Most biologists believe that adaptation occurs through the accumulation of many mutations of small effect. However, macromutation is an alternative process for adaptation that involves a single, very large-scale mutation." (this is a quote from here)

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: As I understand it, variation is the result of genetic recombination. Sex for the rest of you lot. We're carrying around a lot of information within our genes, some of which is expressed physically, because those alleles are dominant, and some of which is passed on to the next generation, perhaps to appear as a physical expression if the next genetic recombination works out that way. If genetic variation is expressed in Boatraceface through an extraordinarily large cock that splits his foreskin, and in other Redcar males with varying cock sizes--some extraordinarily small, some extraordinarily average-- and if that extraordinarily large cock gives Boatraceface some survival advantage, he will pass that trait on to his offspring, and if that gives them a survival advantage, they will pass that trait on to their offspring. Eventually, all male inhabitants of Redcar will have extraordinarily large cocks.

I'm really reluctant to continue with the analogy of Boaty's cock here, but what you are describing is the inheritance and expression of genes already in existence in the genepool. The point I'm getting at is that mutations add new characteristics to this genepool spontaneously that are not an effect of recombination of exiting characteristics. For example a mutation that is expressed as, say, males having two cocks (stay with me here). If this 2-knob characteristic is expressed and turns out to be a survival advantage (can't think of one just yet, would make post-pub weeing a nightmare), then they will pass that trait on to their offspring, etc. No dispute over the process itself, though.

Exactly... (continuing with the analogy)...Lets say the small cock gene does not give an advantage to survival then by your reckoning comrade it would be replaced by the dormant big cock gene and that would be passed down...thus creating a world with only large cocked males...This is not however true.(Sighs)

On a more sensible note If this was how evolution worked then surely a HUGE boon to survival would be for evolution to rid us of faulty genes that cause cancer in our offspring. Unfortunately it is not