[Snowstorm]

A planetary physician would look on biodiversity as a symptom, a response to change. He would recognize that what is a rare species in one state becomes a common one in another. So rich biodiversity is not necessarily something highly desirable and to be preserved at all costs. A red, flushed and sweaty skin is our physiological response to overheating, and the biodiversity of a tropical forest like Amazonia may be the Earth's response to the heat of the present interglacial. Neither of these states is worth preserving as a long-term goal, and evolution would change them into something more stable. I suspect that the capacity to become biodiverse has evolved because, in the real world of Gaia, change is always happening and is usually driven from outside by small alterations in the seating arrangements of the solar system and in the output from the sun. When there is a climate change, dormant seeds, rare plants, or seeds drifting on the wind, or on the feet of birds, have a better or worse chance to grow; if better, they flourish and compete with the native species until they become a stable part of the ecosystem. During the period of competition biodiversity is increased, but it declines again as the ecosystem adapts to the new conditions.

The problem with that theory is that climate changes affect the poles the most and the tropics the least, so while the tropics are warmer than during the ice ages it's not nearly as big a difference as the high latitudes. I would think if his theory about the high biodiversity being caused by changes, the nothern area that were covered by glaciers during the ice age would be the most biodiverse, since the change between thousands of feet of ice and a temperate climate certainly dwarfs the changes the tropics went through.

I personally would suspect a more stable climate would encourage more biodiversity, species could adapt to more specialized niches while a changing climate would encourage more generalist species because they're more adaptable. It seems according to the map the most important factors are warmth and rainfall, those don't explain everything but there's a strong correlation with more rain, more warmth = more biodivresity, mountains also making a difference because more niches are created by diverse terrain.

[smallpoxgirl]

Biodiversity Map:


Map of land suitable for Oil Palm cropping:
[web]http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/gaezmaps/oilp_hrr.gif[/web]

[Polemic]

I'll see that oil palm suitability map and raise you a world population density map.


The Pox

[dohboi]

Thanks, smallpoxgirl. That was my initial reaction to the biodiversity map--that it matches up pretty well with where people are bulldozing habitat for palmoil plantations, espcially in SE Asia. So far such biofuels have proven to be even more devastating to the living world than the fossil fuels they are supposed to displace. Is it inevitable that all these centers of world biodiversity will be wiped out in our mad scramble to find new sources of liquid fuel?

I too have read Lovelock, and while I revere his understanding of the complexities of multiple feedback loops that may already bedriving GW to new levels of unprdictability, I find other of his views less than convincing. There is no evidence that I know of that the vast amount of biodiversity in tropical forests is recent.

In general, massive extinctions have only occurred a few times in the history of life. The overwhelming direction over long stretches of time betwen these extinctions is toward greater and geater diversity. That human activity is causing the sixth (and possibly the largest) great die-off should cause us to ask profound questions --not about the utility of diversiy--but about the purpose of human life on earth.


One important shortcoming of the map is that it is only terrestrial--nothing about (rapidly falling) diversity in the oceans.

[Graeme]

From ocean to ozone: Earth's nine life-support systems

Last year, Johan Rockström, director of the Stockholm Environment Institute in Sweden, sat down with a team of 28 luminaries from environmental and earth-systems science to answer those questions. The team included Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen, NASA climate scientist James Hansen, Gaia researcher and "tipping point" specialist Tim Lenton, and the German chancellor's chief climate adviser Hans Joachim Schellnhuber.

They identified nine "planetary life-support systems" that are vital for human survival. They then quantified how far we have pushed them already, and estimated how much further we can go without threatening our own survival. Beyond certain boundaries, they warned, we risk causing "irreversible and abrupt environmental change" that could make the Earth a much less hospitable place (Ecology and Society, vol 14, p 32).

newscientist

[pablonite]

The demands of nearly 7 billion humans are stretching Earth to breaking point. We know about climate change, but what about other threats? To what extent do pollution, acidifying oceans, mass extinctions, dead zones in the sea and other environmental problems really matter? We can't keep stressing these systems indefinitely, but at what point will they bite back?...

...The boundaries, Rockström stresses, are "rough, first estimates only, surrounded by large uncertainties and knowledge gaps". They also interact with one another in complex and poorly understood ways. But he says the concept of boundaries is an advance on the usual approach taken by environmentalists, who simply aim to minimise all human impacts on the planet. Instead, he says, boundaries give us some breathing space. They define a "safe space for human development". And here they are....

Wow, you get some "tipping" point specialists and climate change zealots together and ask them to come up with 9 environmental problems and their "tipping points" besides the dreaded "climate change" for the AGW propaganda rag New Scientist and they can't even do it.

1. Acid Oceans ...casued by booga booga - cliamte change
2. Ozone depletion...OH NOES!!!, not this one again. Is Dupont about to have another patent expire?
3. Yup, we got a problem with our fresh water alright. Why don't they want to talk about the industrial pollutants in it?
4. Biodiversity. I'll agree, with our kids gloves on and playing with genetic modification of plant and animal life along with our globalization of trade introducing invasive species we are making a mess. I'm scared to even read what they wrote here but imagine it's all about controlling habitat, i.e. taking individuals property away and giving it to the fascist corporate state in the name of saving biodiversity.
5. Worried about too much Nitrogen and Phosphorus? Why? To regulate sustenance farmers and eventually eliminate them putting global food control into the hands of corporate global giants.
6. Land Use. don't even want to read this one but I'm sure in their god like opinions we are using too much land and people will have to give theirs up. Not our climate gurus though, they get more land for themselves for telling us this.
7. Well here it is...again. Booga booga, climate change.
8. Aerosol loading. Too much soot coming out of smokestacks but since this all happens in China we can safely put this way down the list at number 8 but not to be outdone by number 9...chemical pollution.

...100,000 man-made compounds, some causing health problems in our environment but don't worry too much about this one, it's at the bottom of the list. No doubt they list CO2 as a major chemical man-made compound that is threatening all life on earth? No? well, maybe that will fly with the ignorant masses in another 5 years.

This environment forum never ceases to amaze me, you can always count on the first page to display almost %100 "climate change" threads. the suction of this meme is incredible in the general population to the general detriment of real environmental problems happening right now. I suppose it's a catch-all manufactured issue, just believing in it gives people some justification to ignore everything else.

[Ludi]

4. Biodiversity. I'll agree, with our kids gloves on and playing with genetic modification of plant and animal life along with our globalization of trade introducing invasive species we are making a mess. I'm scared to even read what they wrote here but imagine it's all about controlling habitat, i.e. taking individuals property away and giving it to the fascist corporate state in the name of saving biodiversity.

Here in Texas the legislature actually came up with a way people can keep their land by fostering biodiversity. This is through the Open Space Land valuation/Wildlife Management which keeps taxes low.

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/l ... ural_land/

[mos6507]

Here in Texas the legislature actually came up with a way people can keep their land by fostering biodiversity. This is through the Open Space Land valuation/Wildlife Management which keeps taxes low.

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/l ... ural_land/

Ssshhh. You don't want to disturb Pablonite's "it's all the fault of TPTB" dogma.

[Ludi]

Ssshhh. You don't want to disturb Pablonite's "it's all the fault of TPTB" dogma.

I know! But, but....Texans realized their open spaces are important to the economic well-being of the state what with all the hunting and fishing here - plus - Texans are intensely protective of their private property rights. This legislation enables landowners of all income levels to reduce their taxes so they don't have to sell their land. The Wildlife Management even includes such "inconsequential" animals as insects and reptiles. That's right - Texans can "manage" for bugs and snakes! It's perfect!

[dohboi]

I expected GW and extinction to be beyond tipping points, but I hadn't thought about nitrogen being at that level. Perhaps we should start a thread on nitrogen issues (or is there one already?).

[brixio]

The demands of nearly 7 billion humans are stretching Earth to breaking point. We know about climate change, but what about other threats? To what extent do pollution, acidifying oceans, mass extinctions, dead zones in the sea and other environmental problems really matter? We can't keep stressing these systems indefinitely, but at what point will they bite back?...

...The boundaries, Rockström stresses, are "rough, first estimates only, surrounded by large uncertainties and knowledge gaps". They also interact with one another in complex and poorly understood ways. But he says the concept of boundaries is an advance on the usual approach taken by environmentalists, who simply aim to minimise all human impacts on the planet. Instead, he says, boundaries give us some breathing space. They define a "safe space for human development". And here they are....

Wow, you get some "tipping" point specialists and climate change zealots together and ask them to come up with 9 environmental problems and their "tipping points" besides the dreaded "climate change" for the AGW propaganda rag New Scientist and they can't even do it.

1. Acid Oceans ...casued by booga booga - cliamte change
2. Ozone depletion...OH NOES!!!, not this one again. Is Dupont about to have another patent expire?
3. Yup, we got a problem with our fresh water alright. Why don't they want to talk about the industrial pollutants in it?
4. Biodiversity. I'll agree, with our kids gloves on and playing with genetic modification of plant and animal life along with our globalization of trade introducing invasive species we are making a mess. I'm scared to even read what they wrote here but imagine it's all about controlling habitat, i.e. taking individuals property away and giving it to the fascist corporate state in the name of saving biodiversity.
5. Worried about too much Nitrogen and Phosphorus? Why? To regulate sustenance farmers and eventually eliminate them putting global food control into the hands of corporate global giants.
6. Land Use. don't even want to read this one but I'm sure in their god like opinions we are using too much land and people will have to give theirs up. Not our climate gurus though, they get more land for themselves for telling us this.
7. Well here it is...again. Booga booga, climate change.
8. Aerosol loading. Too much soot coming out of smokestacks but since this all happens in China we can safely put this way down the list at number 8 but not to be outdone by number 9...chemical pollution.

...100,000 man-made compounds, some causing health problems in our environment but don't worry too much about this one, it's at the bottom of the list. No doubt they list CO2 as a major chemical man-made compound that is threatening all life on earth? No? well, maybe that will fly with the ignorant masses in another 5 years.

This environment forum never ceases to amaze me, you can always count on the first page to display almost %100 "climate change" threads. the suction of this meme is incredible in the general population to the general detriment of real environmental problems happening right now. I suppose it's a catch-all manufactured issue, just believing in it gives people some justification to ignore everything else.

what you write demonstrates that you haven't read a single word of gaia theories. It would take a long long chat to answer to what you wrote, i suggest you to read one of James Lovelock's books.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock

[pablonite]

Ssshhh. You don't want to disturb Pablonite's "it's all the fault of TPTB" dogma.

I know! But, but....Texans realized their open spaces are important to the economic well-being of the state what with all the hunting and fishing here - plus - Texans are intensely protective of their private property rights. This legislation enables landowners of all income levels to reduce their taxes so they don't have to sell their land. The Wildlife Management even includes such "inconsequential" animals as insects and reptiles. That's right - Texans can "manage" for bugs and snakes! It's perfect!

Meh, it's just more GAG propaganda (Green Advocacy Group) material. I've had access to New Scientist for a long time and have witnessed its decline from a well rounded piece of scientific entertainment to a climate change propaganda rag.

And good for Texas, I have zero problem with empowering land owner - it sounds like one rare piece of legislation though, I just heard the Obama admin is getting ready to repossess 10 million acres from Montana to Mexico but I think that was just a headline so not sure. And yeah, when your home is being foreclosed because you were born at the wrong time and are on the bottom of a very large pyramidal shaped scam completely beyond your control, little bugs and reptiles are probably the least of your worries. Anything to reduce those taxes which make that land you own just an illusion anyway.

[dohboi]

Brixio, please note that you are trying to engage with someone who uses phrases like "booga booga" and (in all caps, no less) "OH NOES."

This guy is beyond demented. (But I do want a puff of what he's smokin'--it seems like some pretty sublimely strong sh!t!!!)

In other words, please don't feed the fracin trollsters.

[pablonite]

The demands of nearly 7 billion humans are stretching Earth to breaking point. We know about climate change, but what about other threats? To what extent do pollution, acidifying oceans, mass extinctions, dead zones in the sea and other environmental problems really matter? We can't keep stressing these systems indefinitely, but at what point will they bite back?...

...The boundaries, Rockström stresses, are "rough, first estimates only, surrounded by large uncertainties and knowledge gaps". They also interact with one another in complex and poorly understood ways. But he says the concept of boundaries is an advance on the usual approach taken by environmentalists, who simply aim to minimise all human impacts on the planet. Instead, he says, boundaries give us some breathing space. They define a "safe space for human development". And here they are....

Wow, you get some "tipping" point specialists and climate change zealots together and ask them to come up with 9 environmental problems and their "tipping points" besides the dreaded "climate change" for the AGW propaganda rag New Scientist and they can't even do it.

1. Acid Oceans ...casued by booga booga - cliamte change
2. Ozone depletion...OH NOES!!!, not this one again. Is Dupont about to have another patent expire?
3. Yup, we got a problem with our fresh water alright. Why don't they want to talk about the industrial pollutants in it?
4. Biodiversity. I'll agree, with our kids gloves on and playing with genetic modification of plant and animal life along with our globalization of trade introducing invasive species we are making a mess. I'm scared to even read what they wrote here but imagine it's all about controlling habitat, i.e. taking individuals property away and giving it to the fascist corporate state in the name of saving biodiversity.
5. Worried about too much Nitrogen and Phosphorus? Why? To regulate sustenance farmers and eventually eliminate them putting global food control into the hands of corporate global giants.
6. Land Use. don't even want to read this one but I'm sure in their god like opinions we are using too much land and people will have to give theirs up. Not our climate gurus though, they get more land for themselves for telling us this.
7. Well here it is...again. Booga booga, climate change.
8. Aerosol loading. Too much soot coming out of smokestacks but since this all happens in China we can safely put this way down the list at number 8 but not to be outdone by number 9...chemical pollution.

...100,000 man-made compounds, some causing health problems in our environment but don't worry too much about this one, it's at the bottom of the list. No doubt they list CO2 as a major chemical man-made compound that is threatening all life on earth? No? well, maybe that will fly with the ignorant masses in another 5 years.

This environment forum never ceases to amaze me, you can always count on the first page to display almost %100 "climate change" threads. the suction of this meme is incredible in the general population to the general detriment of real environmental problems happening right now. I suppose it's a catch-all manufactured issue, just believing in it gives people some justification to ignore everything else.

what you write demonstrates that you haven't read a single word of gaia theories. It would take a long long chat to answer to what you wrote, i suggest you to read one of James Lovelock's books.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock

I've read gaia theory and if you think people like James Lovelock invented the idea then you are even younger than I thought. You might want to start your research with some environmental / eugenics quotes from the manufactured philanthropists you have been programmed to worship...
http://www.newworldorderreport.com/Arti ... uotes.aspx

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
- Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

Oh, and this is the guy who built James Lovelock, if you've never heard of him then you have years of catching up to do.

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
– Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

Really, it has nothing to do with the climate. Sorry for your misunderstanding...

“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
- Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

Really? Do you really subscribe to this view? Sorry, i don't want this guy anywhere near my future thanks.

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
- Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

It really doesn't matter what you believe, so long as you believe!

„Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced – a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.“
- UN Agenda 21

Get ready to reap what you are sowing is all I can say!

I think it's great that he saved the world by discovering an ozone hole which resulted in the banning of a refrigerant worldwide. What do you know about Dupont and CFC's though?

[pablonite]

Seeing how James Lovelock is in the news again telling us how stupid we are and maybe we should suspend democracy to fight a war on climate...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... s-lovelock

But it can't happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What's the alternative to democracy? There isn't one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.

You really have to wonder about this guy, who lives in a democracy anyway?

I live in a constitutional monarchy myself and no form of government has ever stopped wars from happening, in fact it could be argued that these "democracies" he speaks of are very good at waging wars as that very large "democracy" - the constitutional republic of the United States should illustrate. Why do we need to alter the political structure in order to fight THIS war?

Well the answer should be obvious at this point. People can be tricked easily into killing each other when "democracy" or "freedom" is at stake but when asked to put a gun to your own head - a different form of government is certainly required.

Old James has no problem with this solution being on the way out. He is also obviously a member of the elite constantly pushing for a world government in everything he has done and everything he does - which by the way wasn't and isn't as much as you would think...

http://www.theydidnotanswer.com/lovelock.html

I thank you for thinking to share this article with me, as Mr. Lovelock has proved to be a most fascinating, and controversial, person. For ease of understanding, and to avoid circuitous flow and unwieldy tangents, my response to the article will be organized as follows. First, I will treat the biographical impression produced by Goodell of Lovelock, and its literary function and overall effect. Second, I will address, particularly, the notion of global warming, as presented by Lovelock and others. Third, it will be shown why Lovelock’s Gaia theory is a mystical (and plagiarized) form of V. I. Vernadsky’s experimental findings on the meta-operations of biogeochemistry. Fourth, I will argue that Lovelock, in contradistinction to Vernadsky, Pasteur, et al., has an unconcealed hatred of humanity, and yet, paradoxically, he proposes ideas which, if implemented, would serve to further human progress to a much greater degree than other disciples of environmentalism. Fifth, and last, I will briefly review Lovelock's role in the scientific community....

[mos6507]

Oh, and this is the guy who built James Lovelock, if you've never heard of him then you have years of catching up to do.

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
– Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

The truth isn't politically correct. The earth doesn't care about our moral dilemmas. Being a denier because an acceptance of the truth may come across as misanthropic or genocidal is not productive. I'm not exactly advocating we start cutting cords like monte, but we have to at least fess up to these uncomfortable truths.

[Ludi]

Meh, it's just more GAG propaganda (Green Advocacy Group) material.

Not sure why it's GAG if it helps folks keep their land.



Is anything even remotely friendly to critters GAG?

Why do you hate critters?

[Ludi]

I just heard the Obama admin is getting ready to repossess 10 million acres from Montana to Mexico

"Repossess" it from whom? The states? Or is the BLM just not renewing grazing leases or something?

[yeahbut]

“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
- Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

Really? Do you really subscribe to this view? Sorry, i don't want this guy anywhere near my future thanks.

For the last few hundreds of thousands of years, humans and our near forebears have numbered in the low millions, maybe less than ten million worldwide. Our individual use of resources was very small; just another big mammal in its ecosystem.

We are now nearing seven billion with plenty of growth left. That is an extraordinary number for a large carnivore/omnivore, never mind one that uses collosal amounts of resources compared to any other animal. Our terrible impact on the fellow inhabitants of our precious planet is undeniable, and our impact upon waterways, forests, oceans, and the atmosphere is plainly negative.

Lovelock is perfectly entitled to make this rather obvious point, that collective(modern) human behaviour is destructive and short-sighted, that for all our individual intelligence, on a macro scale we may indeed be compared to bacteria in a petri dish or the cells of a tumour. If the stating of the obvious in this way is so difficult for you, then I think we may be getting closer to an explanation for your need for 'them' to be the cause of all our problems...

[Lore]

“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
- Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

Really? Do you really subscribe to this view? Sorry, i don't want this guy anywhere near my future thanks.

For the last few hundreds of thousands of years, humans and our near forebears have numbered in the low millions, maybe less than ten million worldwide. Our individual use of resources was very small; just another big mammal in its ecosystem.

We are now nearing seven billion with plenty of growth left. That is an extraordinary number for a large carnivore/omnivore, never mind one that uses collosal amounts of resources compared to any other animal. Our terrible impact on the fellow inhabitants of our precious planet is undeniable, and our impact upon waterways, forests, oceans, and the atmosphere is plainly negative.

Lovelock is perfectly entitled to make this rather obvious point, that collective(modern) human behaviour is destructive and short-sighted, that for all our individual intelligence, on a macro scale we may indeed be compared to bacteria in a petri dish or the cells of a tumour. If the stating of the obvious in this way is so difficult for you, then I think we may be getting closer to an explanation for your need for 'them' to be the cause of all our problems...

Right on brother… right on! Way too obvious that humanity as a species in evolution is ultimately a dead end.