The Race for Survival

I loved this article! I love learning about animals, animals is one of my passions. and one day i hope to help animals in anyway possible. Because animals need all the protection and help that they can get.

Erica Asahan wrote:

Great article! I really enjoyed reading it and I have learned a lot from it, thank you!

From my own research on the subject, I discovered that not all wolves in North America were removed from the endangered list. I find it frustrating that a main stream magazine is resorting to some of the same tactics that extremist groups like PETA have. There's enough real doom and gloom in the world without magazines creating it!

Methane is a problem - with 5 atoms per molecule, it's about 20 times as potent greenhouse gas as CO2. Its starting to come out of the permafrost as the polar regions warm, and there are signs that its being released from methane hydrates under the arctic ocean as that warms. Methane does have a shorter atmospheric half life than CO2. Water is the most important greenhouse gas, but it condenses and falls out as rain, unlike CO2. More snow is falling in the interior of Antarctica, which the climate models predict. What's new about the ice breakup is the magnitude - thousands of square miles of ice shelf that have been stable for the past 5000 years or so suddenly disappearing. Endemic Tropical diseases kill more people than temperate zone epidemics, and they are already expanding their range.

Yes, we can wait (& probably will wait) until the results confirm or deny the models, and see how accurate they were, but if we don't like the results, we can't repeat the experiment, or change the outcome. Avoiding costs now will make solutions in the future more expensive, proving to be pennywise and pound foolish. I think we lack the political will to do anything else; we're not willing to make sacrifices, and will recognize tipping points only when we see them in the rear view mirror. I think the earth's population will decline by about 4 billion over the next 100 years, from famine, pestilence, war, and socioeconomic chaos resulting from the double whammy of global warming and peak oil.

Science tells us that we have until 2050 to reach levels at least 80 percent below where total emissions levels were in 1990 if we are to avert the most serious effects of global warming. Political hacks like Julie MacDonald edit the science for political spin so that nothing is done to interfere with Exxon/Mobil, Halliburton, and Blackwater profits.

Pentagon Office of Net Assessment (yes, THAT Pentagon- not noted for a high concentration of hippy liberal tree hugging environmentalists) concluded in 2003 that "Rather than decades or even centuries of gradual warming, recent evidence suggests the possibility that a more dire climate scenario may actually be unfolding."

It's already warmed so much in the arctic that enough of the once permanent ice pack melted so that wind broke most of it up last year, and its going to happen again this year, with an even larger area disappearing.

When thousands of square miles of ice that has stably weathered the ups and downs of temperature for thousands of years, growing a little in cold years, and shrinking a little in hot ones, suddenly disappears, any rational person would agree that this isn't normal. When the Larsen B ice shelf, the Wilkins ice shelf, and the Arctic sea ice cover break up; when glaciers from Kilimanjaro to the Andes to the Himalayas are increasingly retreating and disappearing; and when the Greenland Ice cap is losing 150 cubic kilometers of ice per year, and it is all happening in this decade, global warming is irrefutable.

These are massive systems, with time constants measured in decades, and it's hard to grasp what's happening based on normal human experience. If you are doing 60 miles per hour, and you apply the brakes when you are 1/2 mile from an obstruction, it's not a problem. If you are doing 28 miles per hour, and apply the brakes 1/2 mile from an obstruction, but are driving a supertanker, you have already crashed. We are driving global warming with the combustion of thousands of supertankers full of oil, and thousands of trainloads of burned coal.

It may already be to late to apply the brakes.

Meanwhile, you Republicans are continuing to delay taking any meaningful action against AGW, intentionally obstructing progress for venal partisan political reasons. You disgust me.

Are you willing to bet your grandkids lives that I'm wrong? Are you even aware that you already have taken that sucker bet?

Thankfully, I don't have any children. Do you think there are enough Blackwater mercenaries to protect Republicans when the people that do have grandkids figure out that you sold out their future to Exxon and Halliburton?

Does anyone find it disturbing how Envirnomentalists scream that the sky is falling because of a few computer models? The article just said that the polar bear population isn't declining! They can scream 'Global Warming', tell us the debate is 'over' (When has science EVER been solved by consensus? Popular opinion once said the Earth was flat. For 41 years it was the scientific consensus that Piltdown Man was our ancestor when it was later proved to be a jawbone of an orangutan man and the skull of a human.), and try to force us to comply to their aspirations of economic control till we are all blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that the sky is NOT falling. I find it funny how we cannot predict the weather beyond ten days, but we are trusting our policies and money with those who claim they can predict the *climate* many years in the future. (Wouldn't simple reasoning, in which they hold so dearly to, say that climate models are FAR more complex than the local weather models that our TV stations use? What if values in these models are tweaked to produce the 'evidence' the media so desires?) Even an educated guess is still just a guess--plain and simple. Complain about CO2 as a destructive gas as much as you want, but that doesn't change the fact that your flatulence is FAR more 'destructive' than the CO2 that was produced to cook it. The idea that we as humans can change our planet's climate is pure lunacy. Let us not be fooled by this State of Fear...

Do I deny this latest media scare of Global Warming? Yes, I do. Do I deny the Holocaust as well? No, I have been to Dachau twice. I can SEE evidence for that one! (Don't give me the glacier story--Greenland was named so for a reason.) Why is it wrong to yell 'FIRE!' in a crowded building when there is no sign of fire, but we are told that the sky is falling when there is no such proof? Yes yes--there are climate models and a wrongly portrayed hockey stick graph as well as crazy tree huggers to convince me of this, but why can't we put some of these models to the test before wasting billions that could be better used elsewhere, such as feeding starving people or natrual disaster clean up? And in the off chance that this 'science' IS right, would the world not flourish like it did in the Midevil Warming Period? Polar bears are still here... To say that WE are changing the climate, like I earlier stated, is pure lunacy.

The Politic Of Endangered Species:

Although my method of saving the endangered species may not be politically correct. Ironically, to saving those species we must destroy and the number of many other the species we currently have in abundance -- our pets. Except those who are acting, guiding the blinds, guarding, termites and police detection, herding, hunting, catching rodents or other benefitial tasks. Pets, especially dogs in excess have contributed to some of our most serious environmental problems. Todays their wastes especially feces are piling up at our landfills even if they flushed into th toilet will create extra burden for water treatment plants. Waste before being disposed of are stinking up our air and atmosphere. Some of those gaseous waste such as mathane, CO and CO2 are greenhouse gases which will create global warming and climatic changes. Pet droppings on our roads have created driving harzards and polluting our water sheds. Those droppings will also spread diseases such bird flu or other diseases. Road kills may result in Mad Cow Diseases or making street unpleasant for walking. Pets will bite men sometime resulted in rabies. Regardless of whether there are bites, attacks by dogs will create traumas which will require medical or psychological treatment especially to small children. Again, they will deterred pedestrain from travelling on the road in favor of driving which will cause pollution and consumption of gasoline. Pet hit by cars will result in collison damages requiring more resources to build or repair new cars. Harvesting from natural and domesticated food supplies to feed our pet will creat food shortage for men and wildlife. Again, pollution will be their results. Agricultural supplies for pets will resulting in clearing of wilderness for plantation land. Pet at home usually require more space and more resouces to build bigger house. Wandering cat and dogs will kill wildlife such as those mentioned in your article.

First off, i'd like to inform you that i'm nonpartisan. We are all addicted to oil. By addicted, what I mean is that we would starve without it. Nearly all the products purchased are shipped in trucks. Without oil, our stores would quickly become depleted and our dollar would be nearly worthless. Chaos would ensue with people scrambling to find food. May I remind you that the artic icecaps are melting... Hmm, I wonder what causes ice to melt, lol....

Uhh,mitch. You cannot correlate weather to a either good or bad harvest season in 2008 as it is not even the end of the growing season yet. Thus ,2007 figures are used due to the obvious fact that total bushel harvest figures are not tallied until the end of this season,usually in Sept./Oct of each year. The jury is still out on this year which will probably see greater yields anyway if for no other reason,the most massive Farm Bill in American history was just passed by Congress.

All our power requirements are for lighting, heating, transport, and energy for such things as industry on down to exercise machines.

The lighting can be zero rated by building Buxton Geothermal Power Stations (BGTGs) which use the heat of the earth at depth by drilling ten kilometre deep holes.

The heating can be near-zero rated by installing Starlite coatings, which can prevent heat leaks at 1300 degrees C from a blow torch, on the walls and ceilings of all premises.

By having electrical heating from BGTGs we cut heating emissions to zero.

Transport can be made near-zero in terms of carbon emissions by ensuring that all vehicles use BGTG electricity.

The only difficulty we have in aeroplanes and shipping. However, their carbon footprints can be at least halved by having their fuels mixed permanently with water using an ultrasonic dibber. Finally, the power needed for energy can be made entirely of BGTG electricity.

New ways of making industry work using electricity instead of the gas that they presently use will be needed, but these are not insurmountable problems given that the Governments of the world have until 2016 to achieve the target.

???The Ecologist??? magazine estimates the true cost of mental illness to the UK is £100 billion per year. When all patients suffering from mental illness are passed on to their trained local practice nurse for a thirty second cure using the Kadir-Buxton Method then we have immediate and massive savings.(The alternative of expensive drugs which, in trials, have less success than no treatment at all, should be made a thing of the past). The money saved by the UK would clean up CO2 emissions in the UK using the above plan. It is also easy to adapt it to any other country.

I'll paste it just incase that link changes by the time you see it:

Agricultural Weather Highlights ??? Thursday - June 5, 2008
C In the West, dry weather favors fieldwork in the Pacific Coast States, but chilly conditions are slowing
crop development throughout the region. Snow is falling at high elevations of the Intermountain West.
??? On the Plains, cool air is settling southward, maintaining a slow pace of crop development in many areas.
However, hot weather lingers across the southern Plains, where winter wheat harvesting continues.
Farther north, drought remains a concern in much of North Dakota, but scattered showers and
thunderstorms are maintaining damp conditions across the remainder of the northern Plains.
??? In the Corn Belt, heavy showers and locally severe thunderstorms are again delaying soybean and final
corn planting operations. However, hotter, drier conditions across the southern and eastern Corn Belt are
promoting crop emergence and development.
??? In the South, very hot, dry weather favors fieldwork. However, excessive heat???with high temperatures
expected to exceed 95 degrees F today in the southern Atlantic region???is increasing the moisture
demands of summer crops and boosting irrigation demands.

http://www.usda.gov/oce/weather/pubs/Daily/TODAYSWX.pdf

The climate sure did not help agriculture today! Where did you find an annual report?

mitch is confused. In point of fact, I [freely co-opting other,more informed sources which I have already mentioned], have adressed a solution that can be crafted without placing either environmental or economic health into further danger. Alarmists,we do not need,as they merely introduce hysterics. A colder,more analytical eye is required,which for now,appears in the ''breakthroughist''catagory. Not that of the ''wedgist''.
[Then too,The US Dept.of Agriculture,state ag departments of corn/soy growing regions of the US including Kansas,Ohio,Nebraska,and the Dakotas,observe that 2007 was one of the best harvest returns for soy and corn in years]. Why would this be? [and where does replacing arable land with solar panel fields which will require tens of millions of American acreage fit into the picture of the ''new technologies''?].

www.usda.gov

I think one of the main arguments is that the cost of NOT acting will be much greater than if we DO act. Failing crops, dwindling freshwater supplies, dependence upon unrenewable energy source, damage from increasingly severe weather events, increased hospitilizations due to heat stroke are surely not cheap. Especially failing crops... People on the media all seem to be blaming the rising cost of corn on its usage as biofuels. However, they neglect to mention that weather conditions resulted in a bad yield of crops! See? Changing environmental conditions can directly impact the economy. What do you think the cost of not acting will be?

mitch is confused. Rather,environmental advocates rely upon junk science in determining the ECONOMIC impact[caps to stress this],as opposed to the purely environmental impact of the cap and trade bill. As I observed,they wade in waters too deep for them and are out of their league,in such cases,pitting environmental advocacy groups against actual scientists and researchers who are experts in the field of global economics. This is not a matter of having cake and eating it too. The desire to reduce greenhouse gases is a valid one,yet let there be no mistake. It is erroneous and revisionist on the portion of envriros to allege that there will be little to no economic impact on this country as a result of the momentous decisions as the one now being considered in Congress Bear in mind that all polls condcued by a variety of groups including GALLUP,ROPER,RASMUSSEN and others place global warmings importance far down on the list of American priorities.[high energy prices come near the top,and ''economy''usually even beats out Iraq for the top slot]. Couple this low regard for global warming as a main worry for ordinary Americans with the continued rise of energy prices that can be traced to cap and trade,and as was observed in the Harvard report,there will be hell to pay. Any scientist worth their salt would do well to consider the two areas of solution that have been previously addressed by REASON,and SCIENCE,and craft a compromise solution that reduces the impact on bears AND people.Particularly the poor and working -class.

Look everyone, the majority of scientists in this field THINK (I say think because nearly everyone erroneously says believes) that climate change is already happenning and is going to get worse. The increase in extreme weather events this year are partially a result of it. Expect to see more because climate change is REAL and already OCCURRING. Coral reefs are dying off because evelated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations (tied to fossil fuel emissions) cause an increase in carbonic acid dissolved in the ocean. This is causing the oceans to become more acidic and is killing off coral reefs and other biota. This is just going to get worse and worse as we release more CO2 into the air. There is no debate over this, even if you don't think that the planet is warming as a result of elevated atmospheric CO2, there are other undeniable environmental consequences that will ultimately imperil outselves... Oceans will continue to acidify and fish will die off.

I am a young scientist and want to point out to you all that the IPCC reports have been peer-reviewed by more scientists (all around the world) than any other report IN HISTORY. Do not call it "junk science" if you believe in the validity of the peer review process.