Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Biodiversity thread Pt. 2(merged)

Unread postby JohnDenver » Sat 05 Mar 2005, 10:59:47

Some more specific information debunking species loss alarmism:

"The International Institute of Tropical Forestry, part of the US Forest Service, is located in an overgrown gray stone building in San Juan's Botanical Gardens. Ariel E. Lugo, a slim, gray-bearded man in a silver-green forest service uniform, is director.

He's also a world-class expert on tropical forests and species extinction. A native of Puerto Rico, Lugo was educated in San Juan through his master's degree, came to the mainland, got a PhD in plant ecology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, then taught botany for 10 years at the University of Florida. He spent two years at the Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources and two more years on Jimmy Carter's Council on Environmental Quality in Washington, DC. Finally, he went back to San Juan as director of the Institute, a position he's held for the last 17 years.

"I see myself as in the middle of the road," he says. "On the right of me is Julian Simon, who sees nothing wrong. You know, 'We're doing just fine.' I don't want you to put me at that extreme."

Still, Lugo is not what could be called a major supporter of Wilson's theory of island biogeography, or of the species-area equation that forms its mathematical centerpiece. The equation is simple enough: S = CAz where S is the number of species, A is the area, and C and z are constants for the type of species in question, its location, and other factors. The apparent certainty it embodies, however, is an illusion, according to Lugo.

"The first uncertainty is that we don't know how many species there are. The margin of error is enormous: depending on who you talk to there is anywhere between 5 million and 100 million species, but science has described only a million species. How can you predict how many species are lost if you don't know how many species you're dealing with?"

The second problem is that the equation was never intended to describe extinctions to begin with. "It was a device for explaining the number of species on islands," he says. Generally, the bigger the island, the more species it has, other things being equal. But even if cutting down an island's forests causes species to leave the area, that's not the same thing as making those species extinct. "The presence or absence of a species in a particular area is one thing, whereas wiping out the genome of that species is another thing altogether - wiping out the seed, wiping out the mechanisms for hibernation, wiping out its dispersal, wiping out the management of the species. That's a completely different biology.

"And what is the relationship between deforestation and species loss to begin with?" he asks. "Do we understand that? Do we know that when you deforest an acre, you lose x proportion of species, to extinction? Well, I'm afraid that nobody knows that. There is not one study that can claim to have understood the relationship between deforestation and species lost to extinction.

"And so if you're an objective scientist," he says, "you cannot put a number to the rate of species lost. But I believe we're exaggerating the numbers.

"What's unstated in all this is that when you deforest, you go to zero, that you go to pavement. That's how I put it, that 'you go to pavement.' This is why people get mad at me, because at this point in my talks I show a slide of pavement, but the pavement has weeds growing through it. I can take you to places of abandoned roads in the rain forest that have trees growing out of them."

Trees sprouting from the asphalt! Birds perching on the branches, insects crawling, worms boring, bees buzzing, lizards walking, moss growing on the tree trunk!

"Look at the example of Puerto Rico," Lugo says. "This island has a documented deforestation rate of 90 percent, and it has a documented loss of primary forest of 97 to 98 percent. So here's an island that has lost in the past, in the recent past, up to the '50s - I was already born when the island was at the peak of deforestation - it's lost almost all of its forest.

"The first surprise is that there are more bird species here now than ever, in part due to the invasion of nonindigenous species. The second surprise is that much of the forest has grown back."

On Lugo's conference table is a book open to two photographs.

"Now, where I'm gonna send you today," he says, "is here."

He points to a road that winds through the western fringe of El Yunque, the Caribbean National Forest, the only tropical rain forest in the US national forest system. Picture One, an aerial photograph taken in 1951, shows the area on the west side of the road:clear-cut, mowed down, absolutely denuded of trees. It looks like stumps and dead grass. The east side of the road, by contrast, is deep, dark, and flush with vegetation, an untouched virgin rain forest.

Picture Two shows the same area 13 years later: from the aerial photograph, both sides of the road are identical.

"You can see that it recovered," says Lugo. "So, you take your car and you ride through these forests, and you tell me."

Puerto Rico Route 186 is not far away, about 30 minutes by traffic jam. The road is paved but unmarked, slightly more than a lane wide, just enough space for two cars to pass without the sound of impact. You drive toward the mountains, white clouds bunched above, isolated raindrops spattering the windshield, and in five or six minutes there's tropical forest on both sides. Tall ferns, flame trees, mahogany trees, humongous green leafy plants, plus massive clumps of bamboo - stalks that tower 20 or 30 feet overhead."
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffsimon_pr.html
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby holmes » Sat 05 Mar 2005, 11:40:32

So species loss is alarmism now? This puerto rico example is one of many success stories. Nothing surprising to me. have many peers wotrking down in the tropics and S.A. who are working bringing back second growth forests. Nothing new. However my reports are of less vibrancy and diversity. They look great but the productivity is much less. Which is nothing surprising. But I dont know how species loss is alarmist. The soils in these forests are thin and when you wack them out at exponential rates species loss is just one thing. The problem also is buffer capacity. This example u use had a buffer forest. most have no buffer for species to retreat to. either the forests are burning down or are cleared out. so species loss is still exponential and 7 species a day go extinct (conservative estimate). Then also much of the rainforests dont grow back they become monculture grasslands or deserts.
holmes
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2382
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 05 Mar 2005, 13:15:19

The debate regarding the value of biodiversity and the need to protect it is still very hotly contested. But, almost all cultures have in some way or form recognized the importance that nature, and its biological diversity has had upon them and the need to maintain it. Arguments for protecting biodiversity fall into two very different philosophies: One which views nature as innately valuable and one that regards it as economically valuable.

1.Biodiversity has an intrinsic value that is worth protecting regardless of its value to humans.

2.Biodiversity performs a number of ecological services for humankind that have economic, aesthetic or recreational value.

The first argument for the intrinsic value of biodiversity, John Denver, is the funny notion that humans are part of nature. Imagine that concept. It seems to escape you. Then there is the Noah principle, which argues that the usefulness of a species is not considered when discussing its conservation, but rather its very presence in the long history of evolution is sufficient to warrant its preservation. To help preserve our biodiversity is our duty, and responsibility, as stewards of the earth.

While intrinsic arguments for protection of biodiversity are compelling, it is ultimately arguments of human benefit that pragmatic conservationists focus on. As humans, we are inextricably and wholly dependent on this diversity of living things for survival. Biodiversity actually boosts ecosystem productivity where each species, no matter how small, all have an important role to play and that it is this combination that enables the ecosystem to possess the ability to prevent and recover from a variety of disasters. This is obviously useful for mankind as a larger number of species of plants means more variety of crops and a larger number of species of animals ensure that the ecosystem is naturally sustained. Biodiversity also insures genetic diversity, which is critical for the stability of any given species on its’ evolutionary road.

As most of you know, I am a former National Park Ranger. I worked first hand in Yellowstone NP with grizzly bears. Currently, there are perhaps two hundred grizzlies left in Yellowstone National Park and five to six hundred around Glacier National Park and the national forest wilderness in northwest Montana. The survival of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) is tenuous at best. The continued loss of habitat and uncontrolled killing by people may well decimate the remaining population. Even if the Yellowstone population doesn't reach outright extinction, it may become biologically extinct. Over generations of inbreeding, a gene pool this small of any animal becomes predisposed to genetic defects. There is also the question of whether there are sufficient adult female grizzlies to bear offspring to even keep up with the illegal killing, much less the natural background levels of mortality.

Man's impact on his environment is so persuasive that he can no longer be considered merely a part of nature, for modern technology is so powerful it seems to take on a life of its’ own, irrespective of whatever may be gained or lost. We may have eliminated so much of the natural world that the complex ecological web may never be unraveled, for man's intervention so disrupts the natural processes as to obscure or even obliterate the subtleties that tie it all together.

Yes, of course, some species have adapted well to our anthropic ecosystems. Maybe John Denver does, but I don't think I want to live in a world where the dominant wildlife is house sparrows, starlings, and brown rats. I sometimes wonder if there is any life here on earth that we can just let be.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Unread postby ECM » Sat 05 Mar 2005, 13:30:45

3) Previous mass extinctions have not caused the extinction of life itself. Therefore, even verterbrates can survive despite wholesale destruction of ecological services.


Life continued after mass extinctions because of biodiversity. The more variety in species and habitats you have in nature the less likely a single event or chain of events will be to wipe everything out.
User avatar
ECM
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Unread postby BlisteredWhippet » Sat 05 Mar 2005, 16:48:40

Okay, but what if you were really forced to choose, in a tough case? For example, suppose some country is getting really overpopulated, but they've got a big nature reserve, which they could farm more intensively. On the one hand, you could say: We can't clear the reserve, because people are depending on the ecological services provided by those species. On the other hand, you could say: We should farm the reserve, because those species are consuming ecological services needed by real people. The threat to human life seems to favor farming the reserve. Sure, if we farm the reserve, we might cause a nebulous threat to humankind, but the threat is remote.


This is interesting because it illustrates the problem of humanity. We don't take what we need, we take what we want. Your scenario is unrealistic. The expansion of industrial farming is prosecuted on a pure profit basis, not "need".

As far as I know, the destruction of a nature reserve has never caused a single death (or even illness) due to the elimination of ecological services. So what you have is a foggy, unlikely threat to mankind on the whole, versus a real, direct threat on the lives of the people who need to farm the reserve.


Your argument utterly reeks of rationalization and a barely hidden contempt for tthe natural world. You want to find a justification for industrial civilization? The big gaping hole in your argument is the implication that the loss of "ecological services" don't affect lives. Thats false-even if you don't only count human lives! What about the lives of the animals and species that live in these areas and depend on the "ecological services" you describe?

For example, how many dammed rivers did it take before the Pacific salmon runs were so depleted a moratorium on fishing was declared? And becuse its so important to you, how many people's lives were affected by this? Mercury from coal-fired power plants deposited in Salmon fat giving little kids brain damage.

Furthermore, I've been to "Biosphere". It was a joke. I have videotape that shows the structure was breached by an ant colony- for one example. It was a big expensive mistake. Top-down dumbass science in the worst possible sense. These are people that can't understand the value of something like biodiversity without creating a life-size model to study.

There is no comparison between a petri dish and the biosphere. You either get it or you don't. Comparisons like this are reductio ad absurdum on their face.

In the middle of the desert, a big concrete and glass terrarium. That there is a #2 and #3 is just evidence of how smart people will follow the stupidest of ideas to their ignoble conclusions.

So if we must choose biodiversity in this case, why don't the hungry people deserve to live? Surely you and I deserve to live, so why not them?


Rainforests don't have to be cut down so you can eat hamburger. Your argument, more fully fleshed out, is "surely you and I deserve to consume as much resources as we possibly can, so why not them?" Its a stupid question, and I'll tell you why. Theres no comparison between first and third world in terms of technical mastery. Second, we have a surplus of natural resources, and they don't. It would follow that their resource scarcity is a bigger problem to them than to us. Your problem is that you don't seem to see that what it means is that we should help them to retain what biodiversity they have, not allow that to be destroyed so you can have a mahogany coffee table.

Your scenario is too short-sighted, although thats an accurate picture of the modern idiot culture. Shouldn't we be thinking and planning for several generations to come? For example, the Africans exploiting their resources to depletion makes short-term sense but not long term sense. Similarly, our modern "first world" perspective is similarly short term. What is the imminent threat? We don't think ahead and our behavior shows it. Our solution is a band aid of food aid- which is not a long-term solution either. Long-term solutions exist and should be persued- -but this culture is not going to promote them because corporate profits are predicated on short-term planning.

Also, couldn't you make the argument the other way around? Wouldn't killing those hungry people be an extinction of sorts, which would disturb the fabric of life, interrupt the ecological services those people are providing, and put us all (including the animals in the reserve) at potential risk of extinction? If humans are part of nature, then why shouldn't we preserve them too, in the name of biodiversity?


Your mistaken assumption is that "they" are unlike "us" when in fact no human is substantially different from any other human in terms of genetics. More humans in the environment does not mean more diversity. If humans want to improve their chances of having a decent life, they should stop putting greenhouse gasses into the air, mercury into the water, destroying essential habitats, and limiting biodiversity. If you want to look at what life might be like when all these things are prosecuted to their inevitable end, take a look at Africa.

No one is going to make an argument for killing people, so stop baiting the discussion. If you want to talk about solutions, lets talk about solutions. Better yet, pick up a book and teach yourself something about the world you live in. There are more solutions than you think.
User avatar
BlisteredWhippet
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Unread postby holmes » Sat 05 Mar 2005, 17:04:53

Everything will be exposed in due time - when cheap energy disapears. it has allowed us to circumnavigate natural processes and breed humans that actually argue for the destruction of the processes that give us all life.
example: the destruction of the mangrove swamps along the coasts.
For now.
TALK ABOUT CANNABALISM. Keep eating those humans. Its a warm up.
holmes
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2382
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby JohnDenver » Sat 05 Mar 2005, 20:57:26

holmes wrote:so species loss is still exponential and 7 species a day go extinct (conservative estimate).


Holmes, where did this figure come from? Do you have any scientific data to support it?
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 05 Mar 2005, 21:46:34

JohnDenver wrote:
holmes wrote:so species loss is still exponential and 7 species a day go extinct (conservative estimate).


Holmes, where did this figure come from? Do you have any scientific data to support it?


Don't waste anymore time here folks. If you want data, Google "extinction rate". You will be reading for days.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Unread postby holmes » Sat 05 Mar 2005, 22:05:21

yep we have dead one here. sigh. and the funny part is Ive never googled a thing on extinction loss. Just needed some observational experience, class time, experiments, projects and many scientific papers and journals starting back in 1995. all i needed was 4 years of milit in 3rd world before that. sorry dont have the time to tutor you here.
spend my time really only monitoring global resource decline.
Oh wait The new jargon is "science indocrination" from the freakies. Yeah all that observation skews ones bias. lets all go back to the 1870's.

Why are you on a site with a bunch of us anti capitalist losers?
shouldnt you be out creating that hydrogen economy?
get to it. Booyah. :) :razz:
holmes
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2382
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby JohnDenver » Sat 05 Mar 2005, 22:14:57

MonteQuest wrote:
JohnDenver wrote:
holmes wrote:so species loss is still exponential and 7 species a day go extinct (conservative estimate).


Holmes, where did this figure come from? Do you have any scientific data to support it?


Don't waste anymore time here folks.


Yah, it's probably better if we don't look too closely at the figures considering that we have an expert on tropical forestry and extinctions on the record saying:

******************
"And what is the relationship between deforestation and species loss to begin with?" he asks. "Do we understand that? Do we know that when you deforest an acre, you lose x proportion of species, to extinction? Well, I'm afraid that nobody knows that. There is not one study that can claim to have understood the relationship between deforestation and species lost to extinction."

"And so if you're an objective scientist," he says, "you cannot put a number to the rate of species lost. But I believe we're exaggerating the numbers."
*******************

So I guess you folks putting a number on the rate of species loss are quack scientists, but, of course, we knew that already, didn't we.

And by the way, how many species went extinct when we deforested Puerto Rico? And what happened when the forest grew back? Did the extinct flora and fauna all come back from the dead?
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby JohnDenver » Sat 05 Mar 2005, 22:19:50

holmes wrote:sorry dont have the time to tutor you here.


You and Monte are a couple of quacks. I ask you to back up your numbers with scientific evidence, and you both pull the eject cord cause you ain't got no evidence that can stand up to scrutiny.
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby smallpoxgirl » Sat 05 Mar 2005, 22:54:09

JohnDenver wrote:"And what is the relationship between deforestation and species loss to begin with?" he asks. "Do we understand that? Do we know that when you deforest an acre, you lose x proportion of species, to extinction? Well, I'm afraid that nobody knows that. There is not one study that can claim to have understood the relationship between deforestation and species lost to extinction."


JD, I curious about something. Why is it that someone who hates nature as much as you, names himself after a famous naturalist singer? So much for "Sunshine on my shoulders" huh? You seem a lot more like a Ted Nugget kind of guy.

BTW, if you need help to understand the relationship between deforestation and species loss, I would invite you to take half a day and walk around a clear cut. Unless you are Helen Keller, you will find all the scientific proof you need.
User avatar
smallpoxgirl
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 05 Mar 2005, 22:57:45

JohnDenver wrote:
holmes wrote:sorry dont have the time to tutor you here.


You and Monte are a couple of quacks. I ask you to back up your numbers with scientific evidence, and you both pull the eject cord cause you ain't got no evidence that can stand up to scrutiny.


John Denver, anyone who questions whether biodiversity is important and wants evidence is blind, stupid, and full of myopic self-rationalization. You never have anything to contribute here, you muddy threads with nonsense and drizzle, and for all intents and purposes are a troll. Next thing we know, you will be spouting that the earth is flat and demanding evidence that you are wrong. 8)

I should never have fed the troll. :cry:
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Unread postby JohnDenver » Sat 05 Mar 2005, 23:16:20

MonteQuest wrote:
JohnDenver wrote:
holmes wrote:sorry dont have the time to tutor you here.


You and Monte are a couple of quacks. I ask you to back up your numbers with scientific evidence, and you both pull the eject cord cause you ain't got no evidence that can stand up to scrutiny.


John Denver, anyone who questions whether biodiversity is important and wants evidence is blind, stupid, and full of myopic self-rationalization.


No, Monte, anyone who asks you to back up your numbers with scientific evidence is a scientist. Those who feel that evidence is unnecessary are blind, stupid, and a threat to clear thinking.

Your failure once again to back up your numbers is noted.
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 05 Mar 2005, 23:32:46

JohnDenver wrote:
No, Monte, anyone who asks you to back up your numbers with scientific evidence is a scientist. Those who feel that evidence is unnecessary are blind, stupid, and a threat to clear thinking.

Your failure once again to back up your numbers is noted.


Scientist? You? LOL! Don't flatter yourself. You can note my failure to feed your troll drivel with exclamation points. You are a waste of time and a hopeless case. You consistently show your level of ignorance in every thread and post. What do I gain by backing up my numbers with empirical evidence? You won't accept it anyway. You want numbers, Google "extinction rate". The National Academy of Science will give you some startling numbers, but they only come from a body of 1200 scientists who know nothing. You find one guy who supports your take and champion it as refutable evidence that everyone else is wrong. Clear thinking is something I have yet to see you do.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Unread postby JohnDenver » Sat 05 Mar 2005, 23:34:13

smallpoxgirl wrote:BTW, if you need help to understand the relationship between deforestation and species loss, I would invite you to take half a day and walk around a clear cut. Unless you are Helen Keller, you will find all the scientific proof you need.


That doesn't prove that the plants and animals which lived there are extinct. Maybe they just moved, like in Puerto Rico, and returned when the forest grew back.

I'm just wondering where the figure "7 species per day" comes from. Can anybody tell me the names of these 7 species which are disappearing each day? Or even vaguely describe them? Or, explicitly, how you came up with the number "7"? I asked Monte, and he said I was an idiot for asking. I asked Holmes, and he told me he had special insight due to his trout fishing experience, but didn't have time to provide any more detail. You told me to go look at a clear cut. But you still haven't answered the question: "Where does the '7' come from?"
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 05 Mar 2005, 23:53:01

For those who wish to know more, this site has over 200 links to "numbers" and data on global mass extinction.


The rapid disappearance of species was ranked as one of the planet's gravest environmental worries, surpassing pollution, global warming and the thinning of the ozone layer, according to the survey of 400 scientists commissioned by New York's American Museum of Natural History. The scientists interviewed in the Louis Harris poll were members of the Washington-based American Institute of Biological Sciences, a professional society of more than 5,000 scientists.


And for John Denver,

Among non-scientists, meanwhile, the subject appears to have made relatively little impression. Sixty percent of the laymen polled professed little or no familiarity with the concept of biological diversity, and barely half ranked species loss as a "major threat."

http://www.well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Unread postby katkinkate » Sat 05 Mar 2005, 23:55:45

[quote="JohnDenver... "Where does the '7' come from?"[/quote]

Its a very conservative calculated estimate based on calculations involving the estimated number of species on the planet and the estimated rate and effects of habitat loss and degradation. It's all estimates because ecology has never been a cool money magnet like nanotechnology and there are very few studies, limited to specific areas, but they use those studies of biodiversity and habitat loss to extrapolate a global estimate.

Sorry it's not more exact but ecology ain't a priority in government spending.... anywhere. (otherwise I'd have a job doing what I studied to do instead of going back to admin work! :x )
Kind regards, Katkinkate

"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops,
but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
Masanobu Fukuoka
User avatar
katkinkate
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1276
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Unread postby JohnDenver » Sun 06 Mar 2005, 00:07:07

katkinkate wrote:
JohnDenver wrote:... "Where does the '7' come from?"


Its a very conservative calculated estimate based on calculations involving the estimated number of species on the planet and the estimated rate and effects of habitat loss and degradation. It's all estimates because ecology has never been a cool money magnet like nanotechnology and there are very few studies, limited to specific areas, but they use those studies of biodiversity and habitat loss to extrapolate a global estimate.


Thanks, katkinkate. Do you know the margin of error involved in these estimates, and how that margin of error is calculated?

Also, does anybody know, specifically, where the number '7' came from? I'd hate to think that just was some vaporware statistic which holmes improvised.
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby JohnDenver » Sun 06 Mar 2005, 00:23:29



Monte, I'm not interested in the PR campaign by the environmental movement. I could care less if Richard Leakey says species are dying at a rate of x per minute. I'm interested in the scientific field work which is his basis for making that claim. Apparently, you don't have that link, and I'm going to have to hunt myself through a ream of PR bullshit to find it.
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 59 guests