ECOLOGICAL FUTURE

My Recent Posts

Our Earth is losing more resources than can possibly be replaced. We consume far too much and it is unsustainable. Governments worldwide will do nothing about this because they are only interested in tackling economic growth, taxation and export income, to pay down equally unsustainable national debts.
 
So, it is really up to every individual person to consciously decide to reduce consumption and find alternative solutions to promote health, welfare and happiness.



Earth Resource Analysis posted by http://www.Macat.com

 

Lots of course, can be done to live sustainably

Posted by Rob Greenfield Sustainable Living

 

Rob’s website is a really good resource for growing your own food and reusing materials in creative ways.

 

http://robgreenfield.tv/sustainableliving/

 

That’s easy enough for us who are working and living in a wealthy society. 
But what about those people who live in poor communities in other parts of the world?

 

Jon Jandai’s story is inspiring

Posted by TED talks
Pun, Pun Farm, Chiang Mai, Northern Thailand. Jon Jandai: ‘Life is easy. Why do we make it so hard?’
You can find out more about volunteering at Pun Pun Farm here: 

http://punpunthailand.org/

And there are opportunities to help other sustainable world projects. Here is just one of many links

http://wwoof.net/

Organic farming and sustainability programs

But what of our individual consumption…where do we start at home and can we make a difference with our purchases? The answer to that is YES, we can make a huge difference if we know what is wasteful!

The Carbon Footprint of Consumption TED talk 2016
So buying local, unprocessed food from sustainable sources is going to make a huge difference. And so is reducing material goods that we don’t really need.
Making your own toiletries, household cleansers, and food will keep you healthy, reduce chemicals, packaging and waste and lower your carbon footprint exponentially.

These following websites offer lots of advice, ideas and help with awareness of do’s and don’ts and how to source goods sustainably.
http://www.onegreenplanet.org
http://www.naturalhealth365.com
https://www.esa.org/esa/education-and-diversity/what-does-ecology-have-to-do-with-me
https://www.treehugger.com
http://m.huffpost.com/us/news/environmental-issues
http://greenlivingideas.com

And here are some household Tips on how to improve your daily ecological living from Clare Delaney @ecoexpert1 (on Twitter)
http://www.ecofriendlylink.com/blog/

Here is one of Clare’s many examples of how you can replace household purchases with inexpensive eco friendly alternatives.

Posted by Clare Delaney

Let’s start joining the conversations, listen to the thoughts and ideas of other change-makers, and get in touch with what really makes us happy, healthy and free of pollution, waste and greed.

Posted by Anne Brown
http://www.cellonline.org

We need to start thinking about ecological futures for every country around the globe, so if you want to study ecological living for sharing with others, find out more about this promising venture and earn university credits towards your degree through informative worldwide study programs
http://www.cellonline.org
You may have exciting ideas for new ways to cut our ecological footprint.

James Greyson of the United Kingdom, has been developing a circular economy plan for many years. He can be found on TED talks and on his own website where he shares his ideas about creating new ways to leverage global change, far beyond what we all can do individually.

http://blindspot.org.uk/about

@climate_rescue (Twitter)

@blindspotting (Twitter)


James Greyson won the 2016 MIT Climate CoLab contest with this invention of a wood drying chimney to cut carbon emissions produced by wood fueled cook stoves (much of the third world still cooks and heats homes using woodstoves).

James has also begun a new  ‘Virtual Think Tank’ to tackle Climate Change and Global sustainability on Patreon, if you think you may like to take part brainstorming in this new community offering your research and ideas, you can find out more at 

https://www.patreon.com/blindspotting
 

If you are a Twitter user, try a search using ‘#EarthOptimism’ as a starting point to find out what else you can do to encourage, and engage with others in the discussion on an an ecological future!

Comments

Dino Manalis Added Oct 12, 2017 - 1:35pm
We all have to consume, both people and businesses, but we need to do it in an environmentally friendlier way!
Colettebytes Added Oct 12, 2017 - 2:20pm
Yes, we do need to start thinking very seriously about what kind of planet we want to live upon!
Saint George Added Oct 12, 2017 - 6:18pm
Our Earth is losing more resources than can possibly be replaced.
 
Bullshit. By definition, "natural resources" are infinite. They're not limited by the physical size or composition of the planet.
opher goodwin Added Oct 12, 2017 - 6:26pm
Colette - yes. There are some brilliant ecological projects being pioneered by individuals and new technological advances that will enable us to save energy and use less resources.
Individuals can make a difference but I still think that until the governments come on board we will not achieve a sustainable future.
The biggest problem of all is overpopulation. 8 billion people is probably five billion too many to live comfortably without causing a major environmental impact. At present we are destroying much of our wildlife and driving countless species to extinction. Something has to happen fast if we are to save them.
opher goodwin Added Oct 12, 2017 - 6:33pm
Saint - that doesn't make any sense to me. Natural resources are not infinite unless we can access the resources on other planets and star systems and that is a long long way off and it is unlikely we will ever get out of our own solar system given the immense distances involved.
Our planet is finite and the resources it has are finite. Many rare elements are being used up at a rapid rate. Elements such as antimony, copper and uranium are scarce and will run out even with recycling.
Saint George Added Oct 12, 2017 - 6:44pm
Natural resources are not infinite
 
Then you don't quite understand what a natural resource is.
opher goodwin Added Oct 12, 2017 - 6:53pm
Saint - I am a scientist. I know what a natural resource is. What on earth is your definition?
In this universe there are only a couple of things that are infinite. Matter isn't one of them.
John G Added Oct 12, 2017 - 7:09pm
The biggest problem of all is overpopulation. 
No. That's just one of your religious beliefs based on false cause and effect analysis.
Nothing will change your mind though, so I won't bother.
You say you're a scientist but you won't listen to any deconstruction of your political-economic 'truths'.
opher goodwin Added Oct 12, 2017 - 7:12pm
Hey John - don't bother thanks. I've travelled all over this planet and seen the devastating effects of two many people first hand - from clogged up polluted cities to stripped forests and shanty towns. I've seen the wildlife decimated and I've watched the raw sewage pumped out into the sea.
There are far too many people. We are trashing the place. It is a stupid thing to say it's a religious belief.
opher goodwin Added Oct 12, 2017 - 7:12pm
Sorry that's too.
Saint George Added Oct 12, 2017 - 7:17pm
"You must know that the world has grown old, and does not remain in its former vigour. It bears witness to its own decline. The rainfall and the sun's warmth are both diminishing; the metals are nearly exhausted; the husbandman is failing in the fields, the sailor on the seas, the soldier in the camp, honesty in the market, justice in the courts, concord in friendships, skill in the arts, discipline in morals. This is the sentence passed upon the world, that everything which has a beginning should perish, that things which have reached maturity should grow old, the strong weak, the great small, and that after weakness and shrinkage should come dissolution."
 
From "The Medieval Mind", vol. 2 of a "History of Western Philosohy" by W. T. Jones, 1969.
 
The above quote is from the third century; ages before the first lump of coal, drop of oil, ounce of aluminum, or any significant quantity of any mineral whatsoever had been taken from the earth. Yet the monk who wrote that sounds like any contemporary socialist environmentalist.
 
A "natural resource" is not a thing; it's a relation between a thing and human reason. Since there are a potentially infinite number of relations among things and the human mind, there is a potentially infinite amount of natural resources.
 
Just as the the 3rd century monk knew nothing about coal, oil, uranium, amorphous silicon, etc., in his day, so too, we know nothing about the chemical/physical relations among elements X, Y, Z, that have yet to be discovered. That material elements like X, Y, Z exist in finite quantitites is irrelevant to the fact that the ways in which they can be combined with other elements is unlimited.
 
To say, "Gott im Himmel! The earth is finite in size, therefore, we're running out of natural resources!" is as stupid as saying, "Oh my God! There are only 26 letters to the English alphabet! We might run out of new words!"
 
Duh! Wrong! Words — like "natural resources" — are combinations of letters. That there are a finite number of letters in no way means there are a finite number of words. The relation between chemical/physical elements and "natural resources" is the same as the relation between an alphabet and a lexicon. The latter is potentially infinite even though the former is finite.
 
It's very weird that leftists despair over a big ball of chemical elements like the earth, whose materials can be combined and recombined in unlimited ways, while they have no problem crooning over the possibility of something that currently really does exist in only limited quantities: teachers, desks, books, chalk, blackboards, overhead fluorescent lighting, gymnasia, libraries, auditoria, etc, believing (incorrectly) that these things can be had completely free of charge and there are no inherent costs associated with their acquisition, reproduction, and maintenance. Free books and chemistry labs for all! But shale oil, natural gas, iron, aluminum, etc., have to be strictly controlled and rationed by a wise, omniscient, benevolent government!
 
The left are just plain dumb in a very special kind of way.
Saint George Added Oct 12, 2017 - 7:18pm
I am a scientist. I know what a natural resource is.
 
Wrong. You only think you do. A "natural resource" is an economics term, not a scientific one.
John G Added Oct 12, 2017 - 7:36pm
Hey John - don't bother thanks.
Yep, there's that open minded liberal thirst for knowledge.
You're an economic illiterate and you'll never learn.
John G Added Oct 12, 2017 - 7:38pm
 It is a stupid thing to say it's a religious belief.
And there's that liberal civility and politeness you're always on about.
There's no hypocrite quite like a liberal hypocrite.
Saint George Added Oct 12, 2017 - 8:05pm
There's no hypocrite quite like a liberal hypocrite.
 
Except, of course, a socialist hypocrite.
opher goodwin Added Oct 13, 2017 - 4:30am
Saint - sorry - that does not make sense. There are many elements present in the earth's crust that are limited. If we use them up we have to find something else that can do the job. They are not infinite by any stretch of the imagination. The monk's words are humorous but really only refer to the human mindset of nostalgia - not reality. You're not seriously suggesting a third century monk has anything to say about the prevalence of copper or antimony or that any of these things are infinite. That is absurd. Things do have a habit of running out. Just ask the Irish about potatoes.
We are using up unrenewable resources. We will have to develop replacements or go without. It is not an 'economic' issue; it is a scientific fact.
Saint George Added Oct 14, 2017 - 11:15pm
There are many elements present in the earth's crust that are limited.
 
I'd say all elements in the earth's crust are limited. But "Elements" are not "natural resources". Elements we now call "oil", "natural gas", and "coal" existed as elements in the earth's crust since the earth first appeared; but they were not natural resources for people in antiquity and the Middle Ages. Why? Because they didn't know about them. Just as we don't know about all of the other elements sitting there right now that potentially have use. No one knew how to exploit the element called "sand" for millennia. Now, the silica in sand is a natural resource with many uses in electronics.
 
Conversely, just because we know that a physical material exists somewhere and that it's useful doesn't mean it constitutes a "natural resource" for us. "Iron ore on Mars" certainly exists and we already know it's useful; alas, we can't get at it (yet). So for the time being, iron ore on Mars is not a "natural resource."
 
Once more:
 
A "natural resource" is an economics term, not a physical-science one, uniting some physical material (or materials) in the earth with IDEAS. Since ideas are unlimited, so are resources.
 
Again:  
 
Since linguistic creativity is unlimited, so are WORDS, despite the fact that the number of letters in the English alphabet is strictly limited to 26. Notice that as new ideas and inventions appear, we don't feel the need of inventing new letters in the alphabet; we simply rearrange old letters and old words to create new words and/or new combinations of words. Same with natural resources.
 
Hence, "material elements" are limited; "natural resources" are not.
 
"If we use them up we have to find something else that can do the job."
 
That's true but it could never happen (and has never happened) in a society governed by markets with freely-functioning price systems that reflect the actual state of supply and demand. As a physical material us used up without easy replacement, the price goes up (I hope that makes sense). As the price goes up, it does one of three things (possibly all three, but certainly at least one): it incentivizes people to use less of the material because it's too expensive; AND/OR it incentivizes other producers of the material to bring their supply to market since they can now get a higher price for it; AND/OR it incentivizes still other producers to offer (as well as to investigate) alternatives that can substitute for the original material but which would be cheaper.
 
That's the way markets work.
 
However, if there are no markets and there is no price system — if, for example, all resources were simply confiscated and owned by government so that no prices were generated by means of different private owners buying and selling — then there's no way to signal to manufacturers or consumers that they've almost reached the end of the supply: they would simply use it up until it's completely gone with no alternatives having been offered. 
 
This not only occurs all the time under socialism, but occurs whenever and wherever there are no markets, i.e., no private property and no prices to govern production and consumption. Animal species can be hunted or fished to extinction (and have been so) precisely because there's no institutional mechanism to control either the supply side or the demand side. Government often tries to step in and intervene by means of "conservation laws" but — like all government intervention — those often creates more problems than they solve.
 
In any case, under a system of private property, markets, and prices, "running out" of some material used as a resource doesn't occur: prices go up thus lowering consumer demand; or prices go up thus beckoning other producers ("marginal" ones with higher production costs) to bring their supply to market; or prices go up thus creating strong incentives for other producers and risk-takers (i.e., entrepreneurs) to find alternatives and offer them on the market.
 
The "Oh, my God! We're almost running out of oil, gas, iron, coal, nickel, tin, aluminum, rare earth metals," etc., has been cried many times, especially in the past 60 years, and it's been a pure hoax every time.
 
Needless to say, it's mainly cried by those on the political left as an excuse for having "benevolent government" direct both the production and the consumption of some "essential" material.
Colettebytes Added Oct 15, 2017 - 7:08am
"Our Earth is losing more resources than can possibly be replaced."
 
I wrote this opening statement to create the sense of urgency for change.

I have enjoyed the comments here as it opens constructive thinking. One of the biggest problems with finding solutions to our voracious appetite for material stuff to pad out our comfort zones, is that of differing opinions on what the problem is in the first place?
 
Our environmental impact cannot be denied. We have dug great holes in the ground, poisoned fresh water courses, bulldozed plant life into oblivion and killed off most large herds and decimated wildlife at alarming rates. None of the aforementioned human activity has a benefit to any other life form on the planet.
 
I do not think this is a political problem nor is a political solution available to rectify the destruction. The reduction in our biosphere's sustainable environment is exacerbated by each and every one of us. Some (indeed most) climate scientists believe that the increase in mean global temperatures is due to our love affair with petrochemicals. It is not the resource that has the problem...it is how we use them that does not meet with a balance in normal planetary evolution.
 
It will likely be capitalistic ventures that try to bring back some sort of environmental balance (if such a thing is not too late).

The blame game is old news. We need to think about a future for future humans...to do nothing will see human extinction join that of the great herds, The Dodo, The Diplodicus, and The Ammonite. We will be just bones in the ground.
Bill H. Added Oct 15, 2017 - 6:45pm
 
CB - Welcome to WB.
As you can well see, you are able to get a look at the mindset of "who give's a shit, I live for myself and live for today" that is prevalent with "that group". These are also the same people who refuse to believe any evidence related to human-induced climate change, as it also threatens their desire to pillage and plunder all of our resources as to live the lifestyle that they are accustomed to without concern. It appears to me to be not only an attitude, but apparently a political mandate (for those who are subservient to this stuff), and a requirement to be able to declare party loyalty.
Yes, as a species we are the most destructive on Earth. One would think that with our capacity to reason, we would have figured this out by now totally. But of course there are those who stand to lose a profit and will do anything to keep us consuming everything they have to offer until it is depleted.
Even during my short term on Earth, the average population of foodstuff fish has dropped by almost 80% and a whopping 93% since 1930 according to some sources.
If we don't get with the program, we will be eliminated from the program. There is an asteroid out there with our name on it. 
Mike Haluska Added Oct 16, 2017 - 12:07pm
All of the "Imminent Doomsday Predictions" you posters made will come true, it's just that by then humans will no longer exist on Earth.  Let George Carlin explain:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDd6xCTkfas
Mike Haluska Added Oct 16, 2017 - 12:16pm
Bill H -
 
You're 100% correct!  Planetary suicide is the only appropriate fate for the human race.  You first, since you're so strongly anti-human.
Colettebytes Added Oct 16, 2017 - 2:20pm
Bill, thank you for the welcome. It was actually AutumnCote who brought my post here, and I am surprised by the volatile exchange it has created, but it at least creates questions about what we do with our environment.
 
Mike, and others, I also welcome your comments even if they present an antithesis of my own ideas.
 
I do have to say that the snide one-upmanship on the comments is also indicative of our difficulty in resolving our different approaches to how we see humanity's waste products...
Whether is it a discussion on how we see the realities of oil, coal, minerals and other mined products being replaced by more renewable type resources (solar, wind, wave, biological), or whether we just switch to cracked gas and nuclear power as a half-way measure first, they are all ideas that have only come with the benefit of hindsight and honest research into something that is cleaner and more friendly to healthy living.
 
I would like to see more people see better positives on how to go forward rather than mud sling who is 'talking rubbish.' We could all do that 'till the cows come home. Disagreement should focus on the future decisions rather than on past mistakes because we really can't change them.
 
As for me, I wonder if there are any real bright entrepreneurs or inventors able to comment on how to go forward? How do we stop wasting our clean water for dubious tasks, how do we keep our air clean, how do we improve human nutrition and stop poisoning ourselves and the rest of life that shares this planet with us? These are the comments we need. I wish I had a comment that answered my own questions!
Mike Haluska Added Oct 16, 2017 - 3:04pm
I would think that as a rational person, before you come to any conclusion about whether the worldwide population of fish, birds, lizards, whatever is increasing/decreasing you need to how to count the population.  First thing we have to grasp is that the oceans are big - VERY big - about 140 million square miles in surface area and several miles deep in many places.  The second thing we have to grasp is that we have NO WAY of directly measuring the population of fish in the ocean.  Throw in the fact they are eating each other and it's a mess.
 
Since there is no way to know the fish population directly, indirect means are the only option.  The problem is that the possible variance (margin of error) is so great that it's like the TV Weatherman saying:
 
"Tomorrow's high temperature is expected to be 85 degrees, plus or minus 170 degrees."  This means there is a 68% chance that tomorrow's high will be between <-85> degrees and 255 degrees"
 
The above is an analogy but far from an exaggeration.  Here is an article taken from an environmental magazine (NOT Fox News) that explains the methods:
 
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2012/09/27/39347/counting-fish-101/
 
The biggest obstacle to overfishing is the size of the oceans themselves.  There are technological limits to how far out and how long fishing boats can go.  Virtually nobody is harvesting fish from 90% of the Earth's oceans simply because they are so vast that it is uneconomical/unfeasible to harvest everywhere.  For example, a typical fishing boat can make sustained progress at about 20 mph, which means about 200 miles/day.  The Pacific Ocean is over 12,000 miles wide - so forget about all but the largest ships even attempting to go out a thousand miles or more! 
 
Now, I am not saying we shouldn't conserve and protect our oceanic resources.  But we also shouldn't allow people to starve because of unreliable data either. 
 
Bill H. Added Oct 16, 2017 - 3:08pm
Mike Haluska -
George Carlin, Michael Crichton, Breitbart, and Fox News do not have the answer to all of the world's problems for sure.
Colettebytes Added Oct 16, 2017 - 3:15pm
Opher Goodwin - I am inclined to agree that human population numbers is a considerable factor in our ecological footprint on earth. But again, it is a fact of life that we are stuck with the numbers we have created as it is unlikely that people will voluntarily go celibate or chemically alter the likelihood of conceiving offspring for their entire life.
 
The numbers may stabilise, but a reduction is unlikely.
 
What is clear, is that we must not continue to create so much waste that is of no use to any other life form (including us), or worse, downright kills it (us) off.
 
We have to think like mother nature herself and only produce waste from any of our various activities that has a symbiotic measure of use by some other lifeform, or at very least, produces only inert qualities that return to the same basic elemental building blocks that serve to make up the rock that we call 'Earth.'
 
Until we can learn to sustain our life form with holistic principles that serve all other life forms, we will remain a parasite which will eventually kill its host. There is no other planet to jump onto!
Bill H. Added Oct 16, 2017 - 3:43pm
FYI-
My fish stock numbers were relating to the populations of food fish affected by overfishing. This article cites a good study done some years back.
Mike - since this implicates yet another byproduct of human greed (or what you probably term as  "Liberal Progressive Whining"), I don't expect you to acknowledge or even consider that this study may be accurate. I'm sure you will find a source that indicates food fish populations are actually on the rebound worldwide.
Mike Haluska Added Oct 16, 2017 - 4:06pm
Bill H -
 
Rather than impose your beliefs of my "motives", why don't you look for a single fact I got wrong?  I didn't say the fish population was growing, shrinking or staying the same.  I did say that in any case we should practice sound conservation and environmental practices.  Mother Nature will tell us by herself well in advance of any trouble - and I applaud people like you Bill who stand at the ready to sound the alarm. 
 
What you have to recognize is that scientists and engineers look at numbers and statistics in an objective manner.  You allow your emotions to affect how you look at statistics and this biases your reasoning, which isn't always bad . . . in fact it's necessary at times.  Fishing is something that we know has a direct impact on the population of fish.  The only question is:
    "can fish make more fish faster or equal to the rate we catch them"? 
So, YES BILL H - I agree with you that we need to practice conservation regardless and monitor as best we can and try to improve our methods of monitoring.  Only when we have precise means (not guesses) should we directly intervene with nature.  When we intervene blindly, we always run into the "Law of Unintended Consequences".  Ask the Australians if bringing in harmless little rabbits (what could possibly go wrong?) was a bad idea!
 
 
Bill H. Added Oct 16, 2017 - 4:50pm
 
I applaud that you indicate that conservation of fish is required. Being an avid sportfisherman, I witnessed the demise of many species on both coasts in my short time here on the planet. I actually worked alongside a scientist that worked for Woods Hole Institution setting up a buoy system that tracked fish populations using horizontal sonar transducers at different depths, so I am a bit familiar with the methods being used. These have been in-place since the mid to late '80s, so the data has accumulated since. These buoys could also measure plankton density based on light levels measured at different depths. 
Colettebytes Added Oct 16, 2017 - 4:53pm
Oh dear, focusing on fish stocks as an indicating factor of environmental collapse is difficult. Most fishing is done within 200 miles of a coastline. Fish stock numbers are sampled and interpolated but that holds problematic data in that different species of fish hang out in different temperatures of water. The oceans are warming so species are moving. This doesn't mean they are increasing though. A collection of data from North America, does not indicate what might be going on in the tropical belt, or in the arctic, etc. Despite the lovely studies done by NOAA, and other regulatory bodies, there are weird breaks in cycles occurring. Massive seabird die offs occur when a fish stock disappears and they cannot feed their young chicks.
We need a much bigger picture than a sampling taken by a few Eastern Seaboard fisheries. Likewise a 90% reduction in large predatory fish is a guess. Asia in particular does not do studies (unless you count the whaling operations by Japan who hide their copious slaughter with a 'scientific purpose' label). Deep sea trawling is decimating all sea species in Asiatic waters.
 
I actually read (a long time ago now and cannot remember the source), an account of a sailing vessel to the Eastern coastline of North America in the early 17th century.
As the ship's crew took rowing boats to shore, they found it impossible to row through the cod fish gathered in the waters. They were so numerous that the men could simply pull them out into their boats.
 
I seem to remember a similar account of dodo's being slaughtered in their thousands for meat because there were so many.
Likewise the Buffalo on American prairie lands were almost wiped out because they were numerous and easy to kill.
 
We cannot assume that because a certain fish stock is numerous in a particular place, that it is numerous everywhere. It is the biggest mistake we make (over and over).
 
Jeff Michka Added Oct 16, 2017 - 7:27pm
opher g notes: and I've watched the raw sewage pumped out into the sea.-My wife and I are looking for ways to get Kim Il Un angry at Canada, specifically Victoria, BC.  THAT TOWN POURS MILLIONS OF Gallons of UNTREATED raw sewage into the Georgia Strait each day, AND can't even issue permits to themselves for building a treatment plant.  Maybe Kim could, "short stop" the problem and at the same time discover if his missIles can reach North America WITHOUT STARTING A WAR WITH THE US.
Mike Haluska Added Oct 17, 2017 - 11:29am
Bill H -
 
I grew up along the south shore of Lake Michigan back in the 60's.  The Lake Trout was decimated by the unintentional introduction of lamprey eels through the St Lawrence Seaway.  Coho Salmon were introduced in the late 60's and had a positive affect and were also fun to catch.
 
Lake Perch is one of my favorite fish to catch and eat, and until large scale commercial fishing was halted about 10 years ago Perch were getting smaller and scarcer. 
 
One thing I would like to make abundantly clear.  Just because I oppose lousy science doesn't mean that I endorse waste, pollution, destruction, extinction, etc.  If there really was scientifically valid evidence of "climate change disasters" that were causally linked to human generated CO2 then I would support scientifically valid and rational solutions - throwing money at 3rd world polluters is certainly not in that category!
Bill H. Added Oct 17, 2017 - 11:34am
As I have always stated, I believe it is advisable to humans to apply conservation whenever possible. This is our only planet, and I believe we are in the process of tipping the scales towards our demise.
As I stated in another article, this Princeton study may explain our differences in thought.
Mike Haluska Added Oct 17, 2017 - 2:18pm
Bill H -
 
I read the article you referenced.  It is plainly evident that the author still "doesn't get it".  Confirmation of this came with the passage:
 
"As for media content, there is no evidence that longstanding outlets have become more partisan.  Evening newscasts on the broadcast networks, long the most widely followed news source, are mostly centrist with possibly a minor tilt in the liberal direction."
 
Since this article was published in 2013, the author had no idea of the exposure of the mainstream media's bias that would become plainly observable during the 2016 Presidential Election.  At the time of publication, the following individuals of the mainstream media were tied to Obama:
 
- David Rhoades, the current president of CBS News, is the brother of Ben Rhoades, a White House national security advisor.
- Claire Shipman, a senior national correspondent at ABC News, target="_blank" rel="noopener">is married to no other than Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary.
- the president of ABC News, Ben Sherwood, is target="_blank" rel="noopener">brother to Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, target="_blank" rel="noopener">a special advisor to Barack Obama.
- Virginia Moseley is a CNN target="_blank" rel="noopener">Vice President and Washington Bureau Chief target="_blank" rel="noopener">married to Tom Nides, a target="_blank" rel="noopener">Deputy Secretary of State under Barack Obama.
Douglas Frantz went to work for the State Department, too, as assistant secretary of state for public affairs. Frantz took a couple spins through the revolving door between the media and the executive branch, the Huffington Post noted. For decades, Frantz reported for publications like The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times until 2009, when he got a job as an investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which was chaired by then-Sen. John Kerry. In May 2012, Frantz got a job as The Washington Post's national security editor.

Boston Globe online politics editor Glen Johnson went to work for Secretary of State John Kerry in January as a senior adviser.
In February 2012, Stephen Barr went to work for the Labor Department as senior managing director of the Office of Public Affairs. Barr had written the Federal Diary column for The Washington Post, which he retired from in 2008.
The Washington Post's Shailagh Murray became Vice President Joe Biden's communications director in March 2011.
Rosa Brooks, an author who was a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, was counselor to Michele Flournoy, the undersecretary of defense for policy, from April 2009 to July 2011. Brooks now writes for Foreign Policy.
In February 2010, Desson Thomson went to work as a
opher goodwin Added Oct 17, 2017 - 3:37pm
Colette - in developed countries numbers do tend to decrease. The trouble is that capitalism requires constant growth in order to make profit. They have a vested interest in keeping populations high. We have to break out of that cycle and put the environment up the list of priorities.
If standards of living improve, women are educated in the third world, contraception is provided, pensions and welfare are in place the population would go down as it is in Europe and America.
opher goodwin Added Oct 17, 2017 - 3:40pm
Mike - you show a great ignorance on how populations are calculated. The methods used by biologists are extremely accurate. Most of the world's oceans are deserts. Life is concentrated around shores, shallow water and reefs.
Populations of invertebrates and vertebrates have declined by over 50% in the last 40 years.
opher goodwin Added Oct 17, 2017 - 3:42pm
Mike - there is a clear correlation between human activity and climate change. It's there but you choose to look at fake sites that support your denial.
opher goodwin Added Oct 17, 2017 - 3:43pm
Bill H - I agree with you. Sadly we are planting the seeds of our own demise (and the demise of many hundreds of thousands of beautiful creatures).
Mike Haluska Added Oct 17, 2017 - 4:15pm
opher - your statement:
 
"Mike - there is a clear correlation between human activity and climate change."
 
indicates you are a crappy scientist and still can't grasp the fundamental difference between "correlation" and "causality".  There is also a "correlation" between methane, water vapor, volcanic activity, solar activity, nitrous oxide, etc. and "climate change". 
 
I suggest you learn the distinction between "correlation" and "causality" and stop trying to interchange the two. 
opher goodwin Added Oct 17, 2017 - 4:19pm
Mike - I am a scientist who has used correlation all my career. There is a clear correlation between CO2 levels and global warming.
Mike Haluska Added Oct 17, 2017 - 4:29pm
opher - yet another "fountain of bullshit" from you:
 
"The methods used by biologists are extremely accurate."
You wouldn't know "accurate" from "precise" and NO - population estimates have admittedly WIDE margins of error.
 
"Most of the world's oceans are deserts. Life is concentrated around shores, shallow water and reefs."
 
Ask people where in the ocean the largest number of fish are concentrated, and most imagine the vivid, bustling coral reef. But consider the locations of the major fisheries of the world, which depend on netting large quantities of fish in each tow (cooler waters). In the temperate and cold seas there tend to be relatively few species of animals, but many individuals. In tropical waters, though the variety of life is staggering, there are far fewer individuals of each species.

Populations of invertebrates and vertebrates have declined by over 50% in the last 40 years.  
 
First of all, "invertebrates and vertebrates" . . . is there another category?  And again, there is simply NO WAY to determine there was a 50% decline in the past 40 years.  EVEN IF it happened, your implication is that humans are solely responsible!  99.9% of ALL THE CREATURES that lived on Earth over the past 4.3 BILLION YEARS are EXTINCT!  Since humanoids date back only a few hundred thousand years and we have only had industrial activity for 200 years - we couldn't have possibly killed them all!!!
Mike Haluska Added Oct 17, 2017 - 4:31pm
Bill H -
 
By the way, pulling out a study done by Princeton (or any Ivy League School) to validate a position is like handing someone the Bible as "proof" there is a God.
John G Added Oct 17, 2017 - 5:55pm
The trouble is that capitalism requires constant growth in order to make profit. They have a vested interest in keeping populations high. 
No they don't. Your plan is the arch capitalists' plan.
Bill H. Added Oct 17, 2017 - 6:01pm
Well, Mike- You are certainly good at polarizing an article. Too bad you probably didn't get an ounce of valuable information from the read. It may have been an older article, but the gist of the article still holds true.
I'm totally convinced that your entire life is controlled by your political leanings. If Trump decided to get behind solar energy or ban coal altogether, I know damn well you would be supporting him 100%.
Flying Junior Added Oct 18, 2017 - 12:46am
For a list of sustainable fish catches check with the Monterey Bay Aquarium associated with the Stanford University.
 
For a fascinating personality and expert in ocean sciences, look no further than aquanaut pioneer, Sylvia Earle.  She has a podcast on UCTV as well as a Ted Talk that can be easily found.
 
Sylvia convinced me to discontinue eating Orange Roughy, known as deep sea perch.  Although it is a firm, yet tender and tasty fish, Orange Roughy is harvested by the devastating method of bottom trawling nets on the floor of the ocean in the South Pacific and the South Indian Oceans.  This devastating method of fishing removes most of the living organisms within the habitat.
opher goodwin Added Oct 18, 2017 - 3:39am
Mike - simply not true. The pelagic fish to which you refer mainly inhabit either shallow or surface water. The vast body of water is almost uninhabited. The benthic populations are trawled and again only in shallow water. The deeper you get the less you find. If you want to increase population you provide artificial reefs and structure.
Of course there is an element of errors of margin but results are still statistically sound. I have performed a number of forms of population estimation that are very accurate - capture recapture being an obvious one - but with the latest equipment scientists have become more accurate.
The decline in both vertebrate and invertebrate populations is stark.
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/vertebrate-wildlife-species-declined-half-over-last-40-years/
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0714/240714_invertebrate-numbers
The evidence is all around us.
opher goodwin Added Oct 18, 2017 - 3:41am
Bill H - it is horrendous the way the environment has been politicised. It creates irrational responses and partisan positions when everyone should be united in protecting the environment.
opher goodwin Added Oct 18, 2017 - 3:42am
Flying Junior - That method of fishing is terrible. Huge areas of sea-bed had been decimated by it. But there are other methods which are equally as bad.
Colettebytes Added Oct 18, 2017 - 6:07am
Well, since the profundity of the world's oceans seem to have become the topic of discussion here...along with political finger-pointing, I shall jump in to the 'hungry shark waters' so as to speak.

I truly despise politics. Most parties (in Parliament, Congress, or wherever) spend copious amounts of time in childish debates designed only to refute what others say. The venomous exchanges serve only to hobble the adversary and do little to actually serve any kind of moral benefit to mankind. It is a sad fact that humans would rather spend huge amounts of time arguing over 'who broke the vase,' than cleaning up the mess, reparing it, and replacing it with a more resilient piece!

Ocean studies are notoriously difficult to determine the exact causation of decline in numbers of marine creatures because there are so many factors involved. A decimation of one predatory species population can cause an explosion in another that feeds on zoo plankton and reduce food availability for a whole host of species. The knock on effects are enormous.

OG is correct. There are huge swathes of ocean desert and most deep oceans do not support the fish stocks that most of you here are talking about.

But leaving aside the deep waters, and going back to shallow waters for a moment, I have snorkelled in coral reefs occasionally (I am no expert) and I have been shocked at the die-offs that I have seen. Beautiful Brain Corals turned completely white and scavenged by an exploding population of spiny black sea urchins. The imbalances of disaster beneath the waves are already plain to see.

Mike...you mentioned that Mother Nature would tell us when things are out of balance, but you say that as though she hasn't. We are ignorant of the signals she sends and dumb when it comes to any thought as to what to do. She has been shouting at us for years!
 
https://skomerisland.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/meet-our-guillemot-researchers.html?m=1
 
Tim Birkhead has studied the seabird populations on Skomer Island for 40 years. Guillemots spend most of their lives at sea, but nest on islands like Skomer. To study them can give insights into fish populations, climatic changes and a host of other complicating variables variables like predators, inbreeding, habitat availability and so on. Tim has seen huge drops in seabird numbers and after 40 years, although he can site many causes, he cannot bring it down to just one (yet), as he states that (even after 40 tears), more thorough, controlled, studies are required. That is an incredibly expensive venture and underpins one of the main flaws with most studies...they are not funded well enough, they are not thorough and they make assumptions based on a relatively tiny collection of (often dubious) data.
 
The funding of environmental studies is seen as wasteful when a political entitity of one variety or another would rather fund the development of deadly weapons so that we can kill each other more quickly and in greater numbers. Does no-one see anything wrong with that picture????

We have all the signs in front of us that our environment is wobbling away from stability. It is us who choose to ignore them.

"When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten, and the last stream poisoned, you will realise that you cannot eat money!" Alanis Abomsawin
 
Mike Haluska Added Oct 18, 2017 - 10:37am
opher - your proclaiming something is "accurate" doesn't make it so!
 
The ONLY way to determine the ACTUAL ACCURACY (not "estimated accuracy") is to count all of the population - which is physically IMPOSSIBLE in an area the size of the Pacific Ocean! 
 
also - your statement:
 
"it is horrendous the way the environment has been politicized"
 
is self-condemning!  It is YOUR side that runs to the government and politicians for more research grants, more ships, more equipment!!! 
Mike Haluska Added Oct 18, 2017 - 10:41am
opher - I seriously doubt that your statement:
 
"The decline in both vertebrate and invertebrate populations is stark."
 
takes into account that there are over 8.7 Million species of animals on Earth!  How in the hell ANYONE could make such a generalized statement (unless they are trying to scare an uneducated public into continued funding of their "research") is beyond comprehension!!!
Mike Haluska Added Oct 18, 2017 - 10:54am
Colettebytes - regarding your statement:
 
"Tim Birkhead has studied the seabird populations on Skomer Island for 40 years."
 
Has it ever occurred to you what might happen to Mr. Birkhead's financial support if the first five years of his published findings showed no change or a small increase in population?  Do you think he would get another 150,000 British Pounds Sterling to continue Year 6 research?
 
Between you, Opher and Bill H - has it ever occurred to any of you that NOBODY in the Environmental Research area has yet to uncover ONE SPECIES that ISN'T IN SOME SORT OF DIFFICULTY CAUSED BY HUMANS?  Isn't if odd that you never see a single report that reads "the Polynesian Purple Swallowtail Bushbanger is in no danger of becoming extinct"???? 
Colettebytes Added Oct 18, 2017 - 12:26pm
Mike, such a shortsighted viewpoint is not beneficial to anything.

Tim Birkhead's funding was cut 5 years ago. He continues what he considers to be very important research through private funding and his own university. This is not unusual in a society that focuses on a very small window of 'today is more important than tomorrow,' thinking.

Your sarcastic comments that no one ever focuses any research on species that are not in danger, and that are in fact doing quite well is typical of a 'denier.' It is like saying no one focuses on researching human diseases on someone following a healthy human diet and living quite well into old age! What's your point?
 
Mike Haluska Added Oct 18, 2017 - 12:48pm
Colettebytes -
 
Your comments are quite revealing:
 
1)  How does a "researcher" know ahead of time that a particular species is in "danger"?  Especially a species that is spread all over the Earth?   
 
2)  The use of the word "DENIER" is more appropriate to religion than science.  Legitimate scientists welcome skeptics - they strengthen, not weaken our understanding.  Only pseudo-scientists who are unsure of their themselves and avoid Scientific Method like Dracula avoids a Crucifix use terms like "Denier" and issue ultimatums like "the debate is over", "the science is settled", "97% consensus agree". 
 
3)  How can you say Tim Birkhead's funding is over when he still receives funding from the university?  Is the university taxpayer supported?  You still haven't addressed the fundamental question:
"Why is there never a study that finds Species A is in no danger of becoming extinct"??? 
 
Seeing how dozens of species go extinct every year without any interference from humans, why does every study conclude that humans are to "blame" for whatever distress a species may be in? 
 
Another viewpoint on "endangered species":
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeSMPESpxdA
Mike Haluska Added Oct 18, 2017 - 1:02pm
Colettebytes - your statement:
 
"Mike, such a shortsighted viewpoint is not beneficial to anything."
 
begs the question:
 
Why is the viewpoint that the pre-determined conclusions of pseudo-scientists are legitimate IS NOT "shortsighted"???
 
It's like the people who just "KNOW" that the Earth took 4.3 billion years to form its current state and can't comprehend how others can believe the Biblical version that it took just a few hundred thousand years . . . yet they "KNOW" that the ENTIRE UNIVERSE was formed in less than a billionth of a second.  The tiny, insignificant, planet Earth would take WAY LONGER to form than a few hundred thousand years, but the WHOLE UNIVERSE took shape in a billionth of a second???  Matter travelled billions of light years across empty space in a billionth of a second - violating every known law of  physics????
Colettebytes Added Oct 18, 2017 - 1:14pm
Mike: Are you argumentative just to be perverse?
Colettebytes Added Oct 18, 2017 - 1:22pm
I've decided; you win. You can be right. I have no need to provide myself with answers to your nonsensical questions. Of course Tim Birkhead only lost the Government funding. If you have a problem with him devoting 40 years of his life to answer difficult questions that no one else will or can answer, then you do not admire the human spirit to make the world a better place. You are a person with no consideration for another's opinion. After all, that is all that is here...'opinions.' Yours, I'm afraid, I have lost interest in. You may now go and gloat at your empty victory!
opher goodwin Added Oct 18, 2017 - 1:44pm
Colette - in my lifetime I have personally witnessed the tragic decline of wildlife. In England the meadows are now devoid of butterflies, bees and other insects; they used to be alive.
Around the world I have witnessed a similar decimation. It backs up the stats.
opher goodwin Added Oct 18, 2017 - 1:46pm
Mike - that's right - it's called the Big Bang. Haven't you heard about it?
opher goodwin Added Oct 18, 2017 - 1:49pm
Mike - yes - we can't count every single animal. We have to estimate. Do you want to hide behind that?
Any sensible person looks at the data and realises that something big is going on. It is not just Gorillas, Chimps, Rhinos, Elephants and Tigers - though that is bad enough - it is all the insects and amphibian. They are being wiped out.
Why pretend it isn't happening?
Colettebytes Added Oct 18, 2017 - 2:56pm
Actually OG, some butterflies have made a bit of a comeback, as have water voles and other British Wildlife. But it has only happened because of conservationist groups who care and have put measures in place to protect their limited habitat. Hen Harriers though, are in real trouble. They are the victims in areas where grouse shooting clubs have risen exponentially. Hen Harriers are found poisoned or shot. Interestingly, it is the Grouse Shooting clubs who argue that they are preserving and managing the moors that allow for wildlife to prosper. How conceited is that?
Mike Haluska Added Oct 18, 2017 - 3:31pm
opher - your statement:
 
"Mike - yes - we can't count every single animal. We have to estimate. Do you want to hide behind that?"
 
is somewhat mysterious!  I'm not trying to hide behind the fact you can't get an accurate estimate - YOU ARE!  I'm just pointing it out!
Colettebytes Added Oct 18, 2017 - 3:45pm
Mike, I just read your profile and found that you are an Environmental Engineer.
You, of all people, are in a position to understand the environmental problems we face with regard to water resources, good management of our mining endeavours and air quality maintenance. And yet, you refute that scientists do not have any rational studies to indicate that humans are causing environmental changes that affect the lives of other animals, or life in general? I don't understand your rationale at all! You are shooting your own profession in the foot, or are you a renegade environmental engineer who thinks that we can do anything we want with impunity.
I also know from your posts that you intensely dislike pseudo scientists. Are you so convinced that no one is talking any sense because they don't have a doctorate to go with their opinion?
That is a very narrow view point. You have so much good information that you could share, and yet you take the tack of ridiculing anyone here, expecting them to produce proof on things that you know implicitly no proof is available to the lay person.
Most people educate themselves as fast as they can (hopefully for a lifetime), yet rather than post positive reinforcement and helpful information obtained from your years in the field, you prefer to denigrate, belittle and bully people, hiding behind the statement 'give me scientific proof!' You violate your own rules of engagement here. You are not respectful at all. You are an introverted bully. But hey... now I know.
Mike Haluska Added Oct 18, 2017 - 3:58pm
opher & Colettebytes:
 
I don't want to be misunderstood by either of you or anyone else about this topic.  I find it deplorable and criminal for humans to rampantly destroy living creatures - especially just for economic purposes.  Killing large African game for profit (elephants, gorillas, rhinoceros, Bengal tigers, etc.) is horrific and we should do all we can to end it.  When I was growing up one of my friends came from a "wealthy" family and they had a stuffed polar bear in the living room.  I thought it was really cool and brave to hunt polar bears - until I found out that the bear was shot from a helicopter.
 
We also have to be aware of our encroachment on the natural environment.  In India the Bengal Tiger and humans have become in closer proximity and the results have been tragic for tigers and humans.  In the Caribbean and elsewhere, beachfront development near coral reefs has been very harmful.  As an avid SCUBA diver, I want to protect the coral reefs while being able to enjoy and share it with the natural inhabitants.  Divers are more aware today than they were 20 years ago about contact with coral, and most are very careful not to disturb it. 
 
What I expect from fellow environmentally concerned citizens is rationality and scientific objectivity - which in my opinion has been thwarted in favor of politicized science in too many places.  Science should be conducted using Scientific Method - which means coming to a conclusion AFTER the proper research and testing has been completed. 
 
In the environmental arena, far too many research projects start with a pre-determined conclusion and then only search for data that supports it.  The hurricanes are a great example.  Too only see a season where there are multiple hurricanes and ignore 12 straight years of no hurricanes is NOT valid science.  Extending causality where only correlation exists is another example of abuse of science to serve an agenda. 
 
If we can find common ground in the above, then that's terrific.  If we can acknowledge that suspecting something is not the same as knowing something, then we'll get along swimmingly. 
Mike Haluska Added Oct 18, 2017 - 4:11pm
opher - your statement:
 
"Mike - that's right - it's called the Big Bang. Haven't you heard about it?"
 
is sarcastic.  My point about the age of the Earth and the creation of the universe is that they are contradictory on a ridiculously large scale!  I am not alone in this view, as the article from Scientific American illustrates:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/backlash-to-big-bang-discovery-gathers-steam/
According to accepted Relativity principles, the velocity of matter cannot exceed the speed of light (approx. 186,000 miles per second).  If this is accepted fact, how could all the matter in the universe get spread across the vastness of space in a micro-fraction of a second?  We can calculate from the red-shift of the light reaching us from other galaxies that they are travelling at sub-light velocities away from us.
 
John G Added Oct 18, 2017 - 6:52pm
Collettbytes: Mike: Are you argumentative just to be perverse?
He argues because his entire world view is an entirely authoritarian one.
His 'tribe' is right no matter what.
His 'knowledge' is filtered on the basis of who, not what or whether it is rational or empirical. Capitalism/rich people are always right by virtue of being capitalists/rich people.
 
Whilst this syndrome is more prevalent on the right of politics it is not limited to it. There are left wingers who suffer from rightwing authoritarianism too.
Google Bob Altermyer (sp:?) University of Manitoba.
Saint George Added Oct 18, 2017 - 10:41pm
I wrote this opening statement to create the sense of urgency for change.
 
In other words, you lied.
 
Got it.
Colettebytes Added Oct 19, 2017 - 6:30am
Saint George: A stretch of the truth might be a better example as I don't have statistical data. Best guess is that we have deforested the planet exponentially without putting it back. Sure, we have planted one or two monocultures of trees to put a sustainable resource there in place of a forest, but the forest, with its biodiverse and complex life forms is gone. Only nature can put back what we rip out and it takes her an awful long time.
 

Mike: I appreciate your explanation of values and your need for scientific proof (based on your expertise), so perhaps you could continue to be as polite as you have in your above explanation of your beliefs when it comes to climate change.
 
I do believe that scientists are now revisiting the big bang theory. As I understand it, they believe the theory too simplistic and indeed a bit hard to validate.
 

As far as this year's hurricanes: Yes, there is indeed a tendency by people to blame it on the man-made contribution to climate change and it is difficult to prove.
 

Not being a scientist, but trying to make sense of the year on year increase in mean global temperatures, arctic ice melt and wildly altering weather systems, is bound to make people think that something has gone wrong with our climate. Scientists have tried to explain it to us mere mortals, but even many of them don't have a clear cut vision of where it will take us, especially as they cannot explain much of the feedback loop process.
 

It is my understanding, that whatever the cause is for our present climate, it will eventually create a feedback loop that will carry it back into a cooling trend. Over millennia, this seems to be the mechanism for ice ages.
 
According to the science of solar activity (11-yr cycle), we were supposedly in a cooling trend with little sunspot activity for this past cycle which has just come to an end. Since we are now going into a sun cycle with increases sunspot activity...what can we now expect?
 
 
I think it is fair for me to write a piece on how we all do our little bit to stop senseless waste of our animals, plants, landmass, oceans and fresh water, and to live more sustainably. It just makes common sense to me, but I am not a scientist and cannot provide you a study about what loving our planet and everything in it will do? Its gotta be better than the mayhem we exert on our ecosphere right now.
 
So, am I a liar? No, I do try to follow the principles in my blog piece. I accomplish most of them and I am volunteering at the organic seed farm (Pun, Pun is mentioned in the blog) in Northern Thailand this Christmas coming. It is all that I, as a non-scientist can do!
Colettebytes Added Oct 19, 2017 - 6:56am
PS... Everyone: I cannot presently watch your YouTube links as I am on expensive and very limited mobile data at the moment. 
I live a life off grid for at least five months of the year. When I get unlimited WiFi data in November time, I can go look. Thanks!
Colettebytes Added Oct 19, 2017 - 6:59am
PPS...I also have to type all my responses on an Android phone with a rather avid propensity to predict my words badly. Please forgive typos or gobbledygook!
Mike Haluska Added Oct 19, 2017 - 10:35am
Colettebytes - thank you for your candid response:
 
"Mike: I appreciate your explanation of values and your need for scientific proof (based on your expertise), so perhaps you could continue to be as polite as you have in your above explanation of your beliefs when it comes to climate change."
 
I shall endeavor to respond in a respectful, civil manner.  This discussion on "Human Caused Climate Change" has been an ongoing topic on this website for several years.  To bring you up to speed on my position, here is a summary:
 
1)  My problem with the proponents of  "Human Caused Climate Change" is not their conclusions as much as their methodology.  These are the major flaws of the methodology:
- not based on Scientific Method but "Consensus Science"
- constantly substituting "correlation" for "causality"
- "cherry picking" and manipulating data
- starting with a pre-determined conclusion then looking only for data that supports that conclusion
- using local weather as "proof" of "Human Caused Climate Change" when it suits their purpose (e.g. recent hurricane activity) and ignoring it (ZERO hurricane activity for previous 12 years) when it doesn't suit their purpose
 
2)  The proponents of "Human Caused Climate Change" completely ignore the fact that for over 40 years we have seen one ridiculous "IMMINENT DOOMSDAY FORECAST" after another ARE NEVER CORRECT!  Legitimate science tests theory in reality - if a theory predicts that "A" will occur based on these conditions and IT DOESN'T HAPPEN THE THEORY GETS DISCARDED!  
 
3)  Legitimate scientists never make proclamations intended to silence skeptics like "the debate is over", "the science is settled", "97% of scientists agree".  This is the practice of charlatans afraid of being exposed - not legitimate scientists who welcome skeptical challenge because it strengthens science!  You can look throughout the history of science and you won't find Einstein calling skeptics of his Theory of Relativity "DENIERS"!  You won't find Neils Bohr calling Einstein a "DENIER" because he was skeptical of Quantum Theory!  Whenever you see a Writer Beat poster calling someone a "Denier", you know they lost the argument.
 
4)  Rational people - forget scientists - don't use false equivalencies as arguments.  The favorite used by "Human Caused Climate Change" proponents is "If you don't believe in Human Caused Climate Change then you want to pollute the Earth and are an employee of "Big Oil" (see Bill H).  It is not a mutually exclusive situation! 
 
If you want to understand the difference between Scientific Method and "Consensus Science" see link below:
 
https://creation.com/crichton-on-scientific-consensus
Bill H. Added Oct 19, 2017 - 11:33am
 
Mike, to counter your constant defense of human plundering and greed-
"You can remove many nuts, bolts, and rivets from an aircraft and it will still fly, but their are a few that if removed will cause the aircraft to fall from the sky and crash"
For an example, what if we were to kill off the honeybee? (which is occurring now at a rapid rate).
Mike Haluska Added Oct 19, 2017 - 12:18pm
Bill H - your question:
 
"what if we were to kill off the honeybee? (which is occurring now at a rapid rate)."
 
has the presumption that humans are "killing" honeybees.  The 7 bee species listed on the Endangered Species List are all native to Hawaii.  The common "honeybee" in the continental US was imported from Europe and is NOT on any endangered list.  In addition, there are over 20,000 species of bees, the vast majority of which do not produce honey. 
 
And please stop with the incessant accusation of me wanting to "plunder the planet for profit and greed"!  There are tens of thousands of beekeepers across the country - none of them are part of some "corporate conspiracy" to wipe out honeybees so that crops won't be cross-pollinated and we all starve to death!!! 
opher goodwin Added Oct 19, 2017 - 1:09pm
Mike - I have seen nothing contradictory about estimating the age of the planet or universe. The only people who have a problem with it are the creationists - who I regard as barmy. Their estimates of counting back through the bible is risible and their explanations of god planting fossils in rocks is also dumb. But there you go.
I'm glad you are in agreement with me that wildlife should be conserved.
Why don't we just start there and agree to find ways to preserve what we have left? There was a great proposal made by E O Wilson to have half the planet for humans and preserve half for wildlife.
opher goodwin Added Oct 19, 2017 - 1:12pm
Mike - the honey bee population in the UK has crashed. It is in dire trouble. We don't see them anymore - I combination of insecticides and the varroa mite.
Bill H. Added Oct 19, 2017 - 3:24pm
Opher - Same causes here in the US, along with excessive use of herbicides on GMO crops. Here is an article that shows population losses over the years.
Mike - Yes, humans are killing honeybees. Not intentionally, of course, but as a result of uncontrolled pesticide use.
So you disagree that there are key species which if eliminated would result in a domino effect that would result in the eventual elimination of humans?
Mike Haluska Added Oct 20, 2017 - 3:39pm
Bill H - your statement:
 
"Yes, humans are killing honeybees. Not intentionally, of course, but as a result of uncontrolled pesticide use."
 
First of all, there is no "uncontrolled pesticide use"!  Your continual resorts to hyperbole and hysteria serve no useful purpose and are easily refuted. 
 
According to the Food and Drug Administration:
 
Here are the facts about crops and bees:
Sixty percent of America’s crops can grow just fine without bees. Wheat, corn and rice are wind-pollinated. Lettuce, beans and tomatoes are self-pollinated. The 12 crops that worldwide target="_blank">furnish nearly 90 percent of the world’s food — rice, wheat, maize (corn), sorghums, millets, rye, and barley, and potatoes, sweet potatoes, cassavas or maniocs, bananas and coconuts — are wind pollinated, self-pollinated or are propagated asexually or develop without the need for fertilization (parthenocarpically).
It’s true that about 35 percent of America’s crops — about a third — rely to some extent on bees. Sometimes the bees are essential. In other cases, they’re nice to have around, but their absence does not present a crisis. A 2007 target="_blank">study in the Proceedings of the Royal Society quantified the importance of bees on a crop-to-crop basis.

We found that pollinators are essential for 13 crops, production is highly pollinator dependent for 30, moderately for 27, slightly for 21, unimportant for 7, and is of unknown significance for the remaining 9.

So crops like strawberries, sunflower and chestnuts are classified as having a “moderate” yield boost from bee pollination. That means they see a 10 to 40 percent addition to production from bees.
The only way you can say bees “are responsible” for a third of our food supply is by giving bees 100 percent credit for the value of each and every crop over which a bee might hover when, in reality, bees play a minor role in 28 crops.
 
Mike Haluska Added Oct 20, 2017 - 3:47pm
Bill H - your question:
 
"So you disagree that there are key species which if eliminated would result in a domino effect that would result in the eventual elimination of humans?"
 
Of course - from the excerpt above:
Sixty percent of America’s crops can grow just fine without bees. Wheat, corn and rice are wind-pollinated. Lettuce, beans and tomatoes are self-pollinated. The 12 crops that worldwide target="_blank">furnish nearly 90 percent of the world’s food — rice, wheat, maize (corn), sorghums, millets, rye, and barley, and potatoes, sweet potatoes, cassavas or maniocs, bananas and coconuts — are wind pollinated, self-pollinated or are propagated asexually or develop without the need for fertilization (parthenocarpically).
It’s true that about 35 percent of America’s crops — about a third — rely to some extent on bees. Sometimes the bees are essential. In other cases, they’re nice to have around, but their absence does not present a crisis.
 
 Don't you ever get tired of crying "the sky is falling" before you check things out thoroughly? 
                      "The eventual elimination of humans"???? 
                                              Really???
Colettebytes Added Oct 20, 2017 - 4:08pm
These are the major flaws of the methodology:
- not based on Scientific Method but "Consensus Science"
- constantly substituting "correlation" for "causality"
- "cherry picking" and manipulating data
- starting with a pre-determined conclusion then looking only for data that supports that conclusion
- using local weather as "proof" of "Human Caused Climate Change"
Mike H : I can appreciate your stance. Empirical evidence is a requirement for scientists in general.
 
I don't know any climate scientists who have looked for consensus rather than evidence. The few papers (there must be thousands) that I have read seem quite widely spread in terms of research and all appear to have followed basic tennents of research. They also look at arguments for and against within the research.


I haven't noticed a substitution for causality (cause) with correlation. From what I can tell, it is very difficult to pinpoint one cause for global warming, but observation has found correlations... I.e. when the temperatures are at their highest, the air quality can be very poor at the same time. Does one cause the other...? Not always....there maybe another cause, but the scientists will find a correlation if high temperature, air quality, increased radiation, and sudden forest fire activity due to prolonged drought all start following a similar pattern.
 
Cherry picking is generally not something that scientists do. Sure, one scientist may focus on one set of data (I.e. ice pack formation in the arctic), and only have data for that. One could accuse a scientist of cherry picking because of focusing on just one aspect of climate. But from what I have read, scientists have combined their data, looked for patterns, double and triple checked results. It has all come together piecemeal but has formed a rather convincing pattern (something like putting all the separate puzzle pieces together).
 
I don't know of a single climate scientist who points at local weather as evidence for a change in the overall climate. And most do not rely on any interpolated statistics either. Rather the look at records (trends, not weather), then begin to analyse ice core samples, tree rings and even earth sampling, to determine what kind of climate may have been present thousands of years prior to today. The analysis has proved that warming trends occurred before in geological history, but none were ever so fast as the one we are experiencing now. The worry is that life cannot adapt quickly enough to incorporate the change. Human evolution has taken a long time...if air quality were to become so polluted as to be measured at 800ppm (not much away from the 500ppm that we have seen in a few places recently), would we survive it? Could we live in a soup of chemicals? I don't think so.
I myself have been present in areas where the air quality was so bad (400ppm pollutants), that I couldn't get my breath. I thought I would collapse, and my chest hurt. This is not cherry picked. It is real.
 
 
 
Colettebytes Added Oct 20, 2017 - 4:26pm
As for bees.... I did a lovely article on bees.  They are fascinating, social and quite communistic in their approach to life. Everything they do is for the good of the hive. The Queen is not the leader...the workers are. They decide when a new queen will be produced (when the hive needs to spread). Commercial bee keepers will remove the grubs destined to be new Queens or will kill the old one...otherwise the hive swarms and the bees are lost.
 
The main killer of bees is not what people think. It is a combination of events. First, the use of pesticides and GM crops with pesticide characteristics, have altered the DNA of bees. It has been found that this creates a weakness in the bees that can be expressed by confused behaviour and disorientation. (A bit like bee Alzheimer's). It has also weakened bee immunity and predators like the voramite can kill them more easily. And bees, like us, need a certain temperature range to survive. Any temperature below 13.7°C is detrimental. They huddle together in the hive to prevent freezing during the winter, and workers fan hives with their wings during the summer to keep them cool. Weather patterns have changed in some places without warning...I have seen hundreds of bees fall out of the air to die on the ground when an icy cold front blasts through on a warm sunny day. All of these things are making it increasingly difficult for bees and other insects too.
Colettebytes Added Oct 20, 2017 - 4:28pm
That should read varoa mite
 
Colettebytes Added Oct 20, 2017 - 5:01pm
Varroa destructorVarroa destructorShheesh, I'll get it right eventually ....Varroa mite,
Or 'Varroa Destructor' to be precise.
Colettebytes Added Oct 20, 2017 - 5:02pm
I hate typing on my phone.