• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Some informative time-lapse pictures of the planet

wait. dubia is building that many "island" type things? wow.

sad to see deforestation. We could use hemp to slow that down and "wood farms"
 
sad to see deforestation.

From Wikipedia:

It has been estimated that about half of the Earth's mature tropical forests—between 7.5 million and 8 million km2 (2.9 million to 3 million sq mi) of the original 15 million to 16 million km2 (5.8 million to 6.2 million sq mi) that until 1947 covered the planet—have now been destroyed. Some scientists have predicted that unless significant measures (such as seeking out and protecting old growth forests that have not been disturbed) are taken on a worldwide basis, by 2030 there will only be 10% remaining, with another 10% in a degraded condition. 80% will have been lost, and with them hundreds of thousands of irreplaceable species.[

We in the US don't seem to notice much, as we're a rare country forests are increasing.
 
I wish this issue were given more prominence in the media, as I think it's a far bigger problem than a lot of the other items contributing to the climate change.
 
I wish this issue were given more prominence in the media, as I think it's a far bigger problem than a lot of the other items contributing to the climate change.

I was thinking about this a bit and it seems to me it sort of comes down to a failure of democracy in large part.

Authoritarian forms of government put the burden of deciding what's good for society, things like 'protecting the planet for future generations', on a king or similar.

But in a democracy, the people are given basically unlimited power, and 'the people' don't always 'do the right thing'.

What if 'the people' stand to gain by doing short-sighted things that destroy the planet for future people? Where is the retraint other than their deciding to do the right thing?

And there seems to be plenty of evidence that many times people are a bit selfish on it.

Making things far, far worse is the fact that a few people who stand to make a lot of money have highly disproportionate influence on the decision. They're the ones spending millions on ad campaigns, on lobbyists, pressuring policymakers to do what's good for them usually with next to no concern for what's good for society. They can afford to spend millions, while citizens usually aren't about to spend that money on the other side.

This is really an argument for creating insulated organizations to set better policies for society - but then a bad, well-funded president and congress get elected and it's gutted.

This thread is not about climate change, but that issue is a pretty strong example of this, with hundreds of millions spent to create FUD with the public for a few to make money.

The public plays a role also in the media issue - the media is typically not going to 'push' a story the people aren't demanding, especially one that upsets big companies.

The media is primarily an 'entertainment product' with some but a modest market for 'issues' like this.

One problem is that there's no trigger for a story. With forests being destroyed over a period of time, there isnt' an event where suddenly a huge amount are gone as 'news'.

Why would it be 'news' more one day than the next? But it is a huge story, you're right.

This is where advocacy groups seem the best thing we have, but they are pretty limited also. They have a hard time competing with big bucks.

One of our major political factions seems basically hostile to the whole idea of 'sacrifice to protect the planet and future people'. Not accidentally, there's funding for that view.

It's not an easy issue. Arguments like 'reducing the problem will cost jobs' are very effective politically. Can mankind act better than short-sighted interests?
 
People keep wanting to not address population growth. Get used to this, it will only get worse (all so women can 'practice their rights' and so people needing economies propped up can keep them propped up for their desires).
 
Feminism is responsible for overpopulation? That has to be the most illogical argument I've seen since... the last time I opened a thread in P&N.
 
Feminism is responsible for overpopulation? That has to be the most illogical argument I've seen since... the last time I opened a thread in P&N.

I would think Feminism had the opposite effect. More strong, independent women that focus on their career and don't have kids. Plus, the oddball hairy leg / armpit feminist that hates men not having kids.
 
I would think Feminism had the opposite effect. More strong, independent women that focus on their career and don't have kids. Plus, the oddball hairy leg / armpit feminist that hates men not having kids.

She probably hates men because men hate her, because she has hairy armpits and legs.
 
From Wikipedia:



We in the US don't seem to notice much, as we're a rare country forests are increasing.

Depends. So much water is being piped to southern California that the Eel river is a shadow of itself and the Redwoods, the tallest trees on the planet are in danger because of insufficient water.

This is in California. If people want to talk about rain forests all around the world we should start actively conserving our own.
 
Depends. So much water is being piped to southern California that the Eel river is a shadow of itself and the Redwoods, the tallest trees on the planet are in danger because of insufficient water.

This is in California. If people want to talk about rain forests all around the world we should start actively conserving our own.

That feeds into my point about democracy. Where are the people - the forest or the city?
 
Feminism is responsible for overpopulation? That has to be the most illogical argument I've seen since... the last time I opened a thread in P&N.

No no Charles, that's not what I meant at all - at least, not really. My point is, you will have both all the religous people up in arms about gods will and Jesus gave me a womb so I can have 5 kids while living in suburbia people, plus, yes, you'll have feminists that go apesh1t because you're even suggesting that letting women do whatever they want with their bodies regardless of the consequences to the planet (the planet as it affects humanity at least) might be something we'd want to at least warn against.

On top of that, population decline means economy decline unless managed actively and responsibly like a hawk - and even then, it will in all likelihood mean some degree of economic decline. Because of this, those in business and politics, and, especially those in politics because that woman vote will be making their voting intentions known, won't be onboard with society pumping out less babies either.

So, what in the end will be done, and, what should be done now, is never going to happen save for efforts such as China has undertaken, along with special societal circumstances such as Japan. No one wants to own up to the long term Realities, they just like to make rosy comments like, 'I have confidence we'll figure it out as we advance'. Hell of an assumption to make given the consequences if wrong...

Chuck
 
That feeds into my point about democracy. Where are the people - the forest or the city?

You show the deforestation in Brazil as being a horrifying ecological disaster. A place where they're actually increasing crop production to feed starving citizens and to improve economically. The expansion of Dubai, much the way that the Netherlands increased usable land centuries ago. A small blip in temperatures where one particular glacier is in retreat, where other glaciers are expanding. And finally the expansion of a city in the US, sorry, but whoop-de-doo it's hardly the chest beating, hair pulling frenzy of global eco-degradation that entails shifting power and money into the hands of eco-alarmists.

http://geography.about.com/od/specificplacesofinterest/a/dykes.htm

http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm
 
You show the deforestation in Brazil as being a horrifying ecological disaster. A place where they're actually increasing crop production to feed starving citizens and to improve economically. The expansion of Dubai, much the way that the Netherlands increased usable land centuries ago. A small blip in temperatures where one particular glacier is in retreat, where other glaciers are expanding. And finally the expansion of a city in the US, sorry, but whoop-de-doo it's hardly the chest beating, hair pulling frenzy of global eco-degradation that entails shifting power and money into the hands of eco-alarmists.

http://geography.about.com/od/specificplacesofinterest/a/dykes.htm

http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

Yes, the leading cause of deforestation is increasing crops. That's a reason, but it does not change the harm it does. No one is alleging the cause is crazy tree haters.

Rather than respond to the rest of your weak editorializing on the topic, I'll mention this about your link to support your point.

I clicked on it, and it's a page on a site called 'iceagenow'. It's a site proclaiming wild things attacking scientists on climate change, from a guy who's not a scientist.

I found the following article quickly, by someone who actually looked a bit into this guy - and found that his numbers were from a Lyndon LaRouche site, with no support.

Climate change denial, as David Bellamy’s claims show, is based on pure hocus pocus



By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 10th May 2005

For the past three weeks, a set of figures has been working a hole in my mind. On April 16th, New Scientist published a letter from the famous botanist David Bellamy. Many of the world’s glaciers, he claimed, “are not shrinking but in fact are growing. … 555 of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland, have been growing since 1980.”(1) His letter was instantly taken up by climate change deniers. And it began to worry me. What if Bellamy was right?

He is a scientist, formerly a senior lecturer at the University of Durham. He knows, in other words, that you cannot credibly cite data unless it is well-sourced. Could it be that one of the main lines of evidence of the impacts of global warming – the retreat of the world’s glaciers – was wrong?

The question could scarcely be more important. If man-made climate change is happening, as the great majority of the world’s climatologists claim, it could destroy the conditions which allow human beings to remain on the planet. The effort to cut greenhouse gases must come before everything else. This won’t happen unless we can be confident that the science is right. Because Bellamy is president of the Conservation Foundation, the Wildlife Trusts, Plantlife International and the British Naturalists’ Association, his statements carry a great deal of weight. When, for example, I challenged the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders over climate change, its spokesman cited Bellamy’s position as a reason for remaining sceptical.(2)

So last week I telephoned the World Glacier Monitoring Service and read out Bellamy’s letter. I don’t think the response would have been published in Nature, but it had the scientific virtue of clarity. “This is complete bullshit.”(3) A few hours later, they sent me an email.

“Despite his scientific reputation, he makes all the mistakes that are possible”. He had cited data which was simply false, failed to provide references, completely misunderstood the scientific context and neglected current scientific literature.(4) The latest studies show unequivocally that most of the world’s glaciers are retreating.(5)

But I still couldn’t put the question out of my mind. The figures Bellamy cited must have come from somewhere. I emailed him to ask for his source. After several requests, he replied to me at the end of last week. The data, he said, came from a website called www.iceagenow.com.

Iceagenow.com was constructed by a man called Robert W. Felix to promote his self-published book about “the coming ice age”. It claims that sea levels are falling, not rising; that the Asian tsunami was caused by the “ice age cycle”; and that “underwater volcanic activity – not human activity – is heating the seas”.

Is Felix a climatologist, a vulcanologist, or an oceanographer? Er, none of the above. His biography describes him as a “former architect”.(6) His website is so bonkers that I thought at first it was a spoof. Sadly, he appears to believe what he says. But there indeed was all the material Bellamy cited in his letter, including the figures – or something resembling the figures – he quoted. “Since 1980, there has been an advance of more than 55% of the 625 mountain glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring group in Zurich.”(7) The source, which Bellamy also cited in his email to me, was given as “the latest issue of 21st Century Science and Technology”.

21st Century Science and Technology? It sounds impressive, until you discover that it is published by Lyndon Larouche. Lyndon Larouche is the American demagogue who in 1989 received a 15-year sentence for conspiracy, mail fraud and tax code violations.(8) He has claimed that the British royal family is running an international drugs syndicate,(9) that Henry Kissinger is a communist agent,(10) that the British government is controlled by Jewish bankers,(11) and that modern science is a conspiracy against human potential.(12)

It wasn’t hard to find out that this is one of his vehicles: Larouche is named on the front page of the magazine’s website, and the edition Bellamy cites contains an article beginning with the words “We in LaRouche’s Youth Movement find ourselves in combat with an old enemy that destroys human beings … it is empiricism.”(13)

Oh well, at least there is a source for Bellamy’s figures. But where did 21st Century Science and Technology get them from? It doesn’t say. But I think we can make an informed guess, for the same data can be found all over the internet. They were first published online by Professor Fred Singer, one of the very few climate change deniers who has a vaguely relevant qualification (he is, or was, an environmental scientist). He posted them on his website www.sepp.org, and they were then reproduced by the appropriately named junkscience.com, by the Cooler Heads Coalition, the National Center for Public Policy Research and countless others.(14) They have even found their way into the Washington Post.(15) They are constantly quoted as evidence that manmade climate change is not happening. But where did they come from? Singer cites half a source: “a paper published in Science in 1989″.(16) Well, the paper might be 16 years old, but at least, and at last, there is one. Surely?

I went through every edition of Science published in 1989, both manually and electronically. Not only did it contain nothing resembling those figures; throughout that year there was no paper published in this journal about glacial advance or retreat.

So it wasn’t looking too good for Bellamy, or Singer, or any of the deniers who have cited these figures. But there was still one mystery to clear up. While Bellamy’s source claimed that 55% of 625 glaciers are advancing, Bellamy claimed that 555 of them – or 89% – are advancing. This figure appears to exist nowhere else. But on the standard English keyboard, 5 and % occupy the same key. If you try to hit %, but fail to press shift, you get 555, instead of 55%. This is the only explanation I can produce for his figure. When I challenged him, he admitted that there had been “a glitch of the electronics”.(17)

So, in Bellamy’s poor typing, we have the basis for a whole new front in the war against climate science. The 555 figure is now being cited as definitive evidence that global warming is a “fraud”, a “scam”, a “lie”. I phoned New Scientist to ask if he had requested a correction. He had not been in touch.(18)

It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in your palm. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world’s most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals. You must, if you are David Bellamy, embrace instead the claims of an eccentric former architect, which are based on what appears to be a non-existent data set. And you must do all this while calling yourself a scientist.

www.monbiot.com
 
The Las Vegas one is pretty shocking. What are these idiots going to do when that little lake to the east gets sucked dry? Oh yeah... run a pipeline to lake michigan.
 
Yes, the leading cause of deforestation is increasing crops. That's a reason, but it does not change the harm it does. No one is alleging the cause is crazy tree haters.

Because in your opinion it's better if those brown-skinned Brazilians starved to death rather then use the natural resources in their own country.


Moonbat? Were you kidding?
 
That's sort of the point though: Humans only care about the short and medium term, never the long term. Short term, even medium term, cutting down all those trees isn't a problem. Long term, the vast majority will be gone. Long term, we'll have to deal with the affects of that. The Earth will keep kicking along, but humans (and the animals and ecosystems we affect) will deal with our impacts to the planet surface environment.
 
Because in your opinion it's better if those brown-skinned Brazilians starved to death rather then use the natural resources in their own country.


Moonbat? Were you kidding?

Clicking the button to see a post from an ignored user is almost always a mistake, and here you go falsifying what I said and my position - likely against the rules.

You are asserting there are only two options - destroying the rainforests almost entirely, or widespread starvation.

You're incorrect. There are better options we need political organiztion to choose.
 
Last I knew, most of the cattle products produced in what used to be rainforest get exported. Brazil is at the very least the #2 beef exporter in the world. That much I do know. And I also know that they are an importer of dairy products. At any rate it is incredibly stupid that they would chop down an ecosystem that is worth tens of thousands of dollars per acre to convert it to grazing land which is worth a tiny fraction. But I guess its a variation of that old line: a rich starving man would sell an ounce of gold for a $1 cheeseburger.
 
Clicking the button to see a post from an ignored user is almost always a mistake, and here you go falsifying what I said and my position - likely against the rules.

You are asserting there are only two options - destroying the rainforests almost entirely, or widespread starvation.

You're incorrect. There are better options we need political organiztion to choose.

I did notice this rule for the Discussion club.

"No posting of others' copyrighted material." Do not post entire articles or news stories -- it could get the site in trouble. An excerpt with a link is generally fine.

So thanks for posting the entire Monbiot article.
 
Because in your opinion it's better if those brown-skinned Brazilians starved to death rather then use the natural resources in their own country.


Moonbat? Were you kidding?

The Mayans basically deforested themselves out of existence--for agriculture and to make their shiny white plaster.

So, no...didn't really work well for them. But you know, let's do that again, anyway.
:hmm:
 
Back
Top