Here's Added Evidence of Global Warming

[Bellowing4DaBills]

Remember, its not just about freezing your butt off for a few days in November, its about radical climate changes and their effects ...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/21/climate.species.ap/index.html

Global warming already killing species, analysis says
POSTED: 8:25 a.m. EST, November 21, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Animal and plant species have begun dying off or changing sooner than predicted because of global warming, a review of hundreds of research studies contends.

These fast-moving adaptations come as a surprise even to biologists and ecologists because they are occurring so rapidly.

At least 70 species of frogs, mostly mountain-dwellers that had nowhere to go to escape the creeping heat, have gone extinct because of climate change, the analysis says. It also reports that between 100 and 200 other cold-dependent animal species, such as penguins and polar bears are in deep trouble.

"We are finally seeing species going extinct," said University of Texas biologist Camille Parmesan, author of the study. "Now we've got the evidence. It's here. It's real. This is not just biologists' intuition. It's what's happening."

Her review of 866 scientific studies is summed up in the journal Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics.

Parmesan reports seeing trends of animal populations moving northward if they can, of species adapting slightly because of climate change, of plants blooming earlier, and of an increase in pests and parasites.

Parmesan and others have been predicting such changes for years, but even she was surprised to find evidence that it's already happening; she figured it would be another decade away.

Just five years ago biologists, though not complacent, figured the harmful biological effects of global warming were much farther down the road, said Douglas Futuyma, professor of ecology and evolution at the State University of New York in Stony Brook.

"I feel as though we are staring crisis in the face," Futuyma said. "It's not just down the road somewhere. It is just hurtling toward us. Anyone who is 10 years old right now is going to be facing a very different and frightening world by the time that they are 50 or 60."...

[anEinherjer]

:rofl:

"finally seeing species going extinct".

Come on... "We've been studying this stuff for like 3 whole semesters and FINALLY we get to see some going extinct".

I love the stupid expectation that species extinction "would be another decade away." Synchronize your watches, everyone! Extinction will commence in exactly 10 years!

"I feel as though we are staring crisis in the face,"

**** off, professor. I feel as though we are staring deja vu in the face. The endless pounding of doomsday crap has utterly desensitized me to your bullshit.

[JLB]

Stop free farting and we'll be fine.

[Bellowing4DaBills]

:rofl:

"finally seeing species going extinct".

Come on... "We've been studying this stuff for like 3 whole semesters and FINALLY we get to see some going extinct".

I love the stupid expectation that species extinction "would be another decade away." Synchronize your watches, everyone! Extinction will commence in exactly 10 years!

"I feel as though we are staring crisis in the face,"

**** off, professor. I feel as though we are staring deja vu in the face. The endless pounding of doomsday crap has utterly desensitized me to your bullshit.


So you disagree with her findings ?

Aside from the doomsday extinction predictions that you feel is over the top, do you think species are not in danger and are not rapidly changing because of the change in climate ?

[Lucidvizion]

So you disagree with her findings ?

Aside from the doomsday extinction predictions that you feel is over the top, do you think species are not in danger and are not rapidly changing because of the change in climate ?

I think her findings are probably correct and well researched.

My opinion is we have just as much power to stop climate change as we do to stop earthquakes.

[JLB]

I think her findings are probably correct and well researched.

My opinion is we have just as much power to stop climate change as we do to stop earthquakes.

That sums it up for me.

[Bellowing4DaBills]

My opinion is we have just as much power to stop climate change as we do to stop earthquakes.

You may be correct in your opinion.

I recognize thought I am utterly unqualified to even form that opinion.

What gets me though is the dismissiveness towards the physical evidence that qualified scientists are bringing regarding this topic. This dismissivessness hinders the research and will to actually see if we can actually fix the problem especially since a significant faction refuses to even recognize the problem exists.

[JLB]

You may be correct in your opinion.

I recognize thought I am utterly unqualified to even form that opinion.

What gets me though is the dismissiveness towards the physical evidence that qualified scientists are bringing regarding this topic. This dismissivessness hinders the research and will to actually see if we can actually fix the problem especially since a significant faction refuses to even recognize the problem exists.

Look to Al!!!

[dasaybz]

I bet humans are going to be extinct in the next 5 years because of global warming.

[JLB]

I bet humans are going to be extinct in the next 5 years because of global warming.

I'll take a chance how much lol.
If your right you know we both lose lol.

[35Pete]

You have to read between the lines....


"We are finally seeing species going extinct," said University of Texas biologist Camille Parmesan, author of the study. "Now we've got the evidence. It's here. It's real. This is not just biologists' intuition. It's what's happening."

Her review of 866 scientific studies is summed up in the journal Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics.

We are "finally seeing species going extinct"? WTF? They've been coming and going for millenia.

She "reviewed" 866 articles. That doesn't mean that she found evidence in 866. For research purposes do you know how long that stuff takes to read and digest?

So what if she found 60 articles supporting, 53 contradicting, and the rest not germaine to the research.

I knew of a lot of grad students that would selectively omit material that hurt their dissertation. Out of site, out of mind.

[Bellowing4DaBills]

You have to read between the lines....


"We are finally seeing species going extinct," said University of Texas biologist Camille Parmesan, author of the study. "Now we've got the evidence. It's here. It's real. This is not just biologists' intuition. It's what's happening."

Her review of 866 scientific studies is summed up in the journal Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics.

We are "finally seeing species going extinct"? WTF? They've been coming and going for millenia.

You need to read between lines better, Pete. She obviously meant that species are going extinct as a result of the climate change we are currently experiencing and not in the prehistoric ages.

If you're going to continue with your dismissiveness, at least be smarter about it.

[anEinherjer]

What gets me though is the dismissiveness towards the physical evidence that qualified scientists are bringing regarding this topic. This dismissivessness hinders the research and will to actually see if we can actually fix the problem especially since a significant faction refuses to even recognize the problem exists.

Dismissiveness by me or others will do exactly nothing to "hinder" research of any sort.

Perhaps those of us in the "whatever happens we'll deal with it then" crowd would be less likely to feel this way if any of the doomsday predictions given by the chicken littles over the past 5 decades (and beyond) had come true.

But they don't.

Species become extinct, there is no doubt about that. Climate change is bound to create havoc for some species, while opening up all kinds of new avenues for others. The only constant in Earth's climate is change. How fast species can change is still up in the air - I have seen articles recently describing incredibly quick (as in, less than a hundred generations) evolution changing the behavior and survivability of species.

To me, the chutzpah of climatologists and biologists claiming They Know that humans are wiping out life as we know it smacks all too much of the certainty that fundies feel when they tell us the world was created 6,000 years ago.

I'm also not impressed by the "reviewed 866 articles" bit. She didn't even do any of her own research, which is always a good way to "prove" something.

[Bellowing4DaBills]

Species become extinct, there is no doubt about that. Climate change is bound to create havoc for some species, while opening up all kinds of new avenues for others. The only constant in Earth's climate is change. How fast species can change is still up in the air - I have seen articles recently describing incredibly quick (as in, less than a hundred generations) evolution changing the behavior and survivability of species.

So again, aside from the doomsday prediction, you do think climate change we are experiencing is having an affect on species currently on the planet and puts some in danger of extinction.

Or do you think that the recent climate changes does not currently exists at all ?

[Bellowing4DaBills]

Regarding dismissing scientific research to global warming, here's but one example where this has hindered further research and the will to see if we can do anything to limit effects of climate change.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/

IOWA CITY, Iowa - The Bush administration is trying to stifle scientific evidence of the dangers of global warming in an effort to keep the public uninformed, a NASA scientist said Tuesday night.

“In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now,” James Hansen told a University of Iowa audience.

Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and has twice briefed a task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney on global warming. He was also one of the first government scientists tasked with briefing congressional committees on the dangers of global warming, testifying as far back as the 1980s...

[35Pete]

Jesus Bellow. Please don't insult people's intelligence around here.

Asking for impartiality from the major media regarding global warming is like asking them to do an impartial series on the 2nd amendment.

Give me Journals. Not liberal media bull shit.

I'm old enough to remember the global cooling crap. They were still babbling about that in the early 80's.

Remember this?

In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. The general public had little awareness about carbon dioxide's effects: at the time garbage, chemical disposal, smog, particulate pollution, and acid rain were the focus of public concern, although Paul R. Ehrlich mentions climate change from the greenhouse gases in 1968 [1]. Not long after the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s, the temperature trend stopped going down. Even by the early 1970s, there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's effects [2], and it was known that both natural and man-made effects caused variations in global climate.

Currently, there are some concerns about the possible cooling effects of a slowdown or shutdown of the thermohaline circulation, which might be provoked by an increase of fresh water mixing into the North Atlantic due to glacial melting. The probability of this occurring is generally considered to be low, and the UN IPCC notes, "However, even in models where the THC weakens, there is still a warming over Europe. For example, in all AOGCM integrations where the radiative forcing is increasing, the sign of the temperature change over north-west Europe is positive." [3] However, the idea intrigues the public mind and is often over-hyped; it formed the basis of the scientifically inaccurate film The Day After Tomorrow.

It is occasionally asserted that "in the 1970's, the scientific establishment believed in global cooling" [4] and therefore we should not believe in global warming now. However, the scientific literature does not support this (see below); there is limited support from the popular press [5].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Sorry. The sky is not falling.


Next scare tactic for political change please?.........

[г]

I'm installing greenhouse gas scrubbing equipment in my shorts

[Bellowing4DaBills]

Oh the irony of you failing to fully comprehend a tiny internet article in your attack of a scientist's study of scientific research.

And now I'm the one insulting people's intelligence.

Ha ha ha ha.

[35Pete]

Oh the irony of you failing to fully comprehend a tiny internet article in your attack of a scientist's study of scientific research.

And now I'm the one insulting people's intelligence.

Ha ha ha ha.

Come on Bellowing.

For real. The major media is unabashedly biased on several key issues. Gun control, global warming, gay rights, homelessness, and an few others. You know it, I know it. Don't be coy. You know it's true.

Show me some Journal articles to read. I don't want it filtered. Hell, every scientist I have met thinks his or her research is impeccable. And a few of the same I have seen shot to pieces in an objective review.

[Bellowing4DaBills]

Pete, are you thread bombing because I pointed out this incredibly dumb statement of yours ?

"We are "finally seeing species going extinct"? WTF? They've been coming and going for millenia."

[35Pete]

Pete, are you thread bombing because I pointed out this incredibly dumb statement of yours ?

"We are "finally seeing species going extinct"? WTF? They've been coming and going for millenia."

Not a thread bomb. I am challenging directly the article. A lot of hysteria is claimed in there. And it comes from a source known to woo the global warming arguement. (NBC)

It's just that global warming has some political power implications and we the sheeple aren't buying another "Chicken Little" argument. That's all.

[Bellowing4DaBills]

The "warning" is being claimed by the scientist who had her study published in a scientific journal.

The "dismissiveness" is being claimed by the NASA scientist who has first hand knowledge of the Bush Administration's actions.

The media is reporting what those scientists are publishing and saying. If you feel the media isn't accurately reporting what those scientists are publishing and saying, then you really need not concentrate on reading between the lines but read what is actually written.

[35Pete]

The "warning" is being claimed by the scientist who had her study published in a scientific journal.

The "dismissiveness" is being claimed by the NASA scientist who has first hand knowledge of the Bush Administration's actions.

The media is reporting what those scientists are publishing and saying. If you feel the media isn't accurately reporting what those scientists are publishing and saying, then you really need not concentrate on reading between the lines but read what is actually written.

No. But there is another side to this saga and you NEVER hear about it.

Isn't that interesting?

[Bellowing4DaBills]

Sure Pete. Let's hear what this unreported saga is all about. Since you're so big on scientific journals, point the links to these journals that refutes the consensus on Global Warming amongst the scientific community.

[Ralonzo]

I bet humans are going to be extinct in the next 5 years because of global warming.

I'll bet you a billion dollars you're wrong, and I'll give you 1000:1 odds.

I forget who said it, but it went something like "You could take all the time and money and manpower being spent on researching global warming and spend it on internet porn instead and in fifty years the temperature will be exactly what it would have been anyway."

[Bellowing4DaBills]

Good grief!

[anEinherjer]

So again, aside from the doomsday prediction, you do think climate change we are experiencing is having an affect on species currently on the planet and puts some in danger of extinction.

Of course.

That's the nature of nature, man.

[anEinherjer]

Regarding dismissing scientific research to global warming, here's but one example where this has hindered further research and the will to see if we can do anything to limit effects of climate change.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/

IOWA CITY, Iowa - The Bush administration is trying to stifle scientific evidence of the dangers of global warming in an effort to keep the public uninformed, a NASA scientist said Tuesday night.

“In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now,” James Hansen told a University of Iowa audience.

Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and has twice briefed a task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney on global warming. He was also one of the first government scientists tasked with briefing congressional committees on the dangers of global warming, testifying as far back as the 1980s...

Sorry man, this is absolute poppycock.

If you (The Public) doesn't know all they're telling us about the global warming impending "catastrophe", you just aren't paying attention.

[sukie]

Wasn't here report in a periodical with the word "Ecology" in the title? Of course ecology is needed to stave off this extinction otherwise there would be no article being published. Would that periodical ever publish solid evidence to the contrary?

[uppy]

I'll bet you a billion dollars you're wrong, and I'll give you 1000:1 odds.

I forget who said it, but it went something like "You could take all the time and money and manpower being spent on researching global warming and spend it on internet porn instead and in fifty years the temperature will be exactly what it would have been anyway."

He is joking my man, dasaybz does not belive the GW bull

[uppy]

Wasn't here report in a periodical with the word "Ecology" in the title? Of course ecology is needed to stave off this extinction otherwise there would be no article being published. Would that periodical ever publish solid evidence to the contrary?

Question....did Global Warming end the ice age,and if that periodical was

around durring the ice age could it have been stopped ?

[Bellowing4DaBills]

Sorry man, this is absolute poppycock.

If you (The Public) doesn't know all they're telling us about the global warming impending "catastrophe", you just aren't paying attention.

The poppycock comes from the NASA scientist.

The knowing about it is different from believing in the science that is accumulating supporting the existence of global warming.

The posters on this message board are a clear example of people knowing about it but not believing in the science that supports its existence, let alone its effects.

Clearly, the science is being dismissed and being dismissed by the most powerful and this cannot but hinder efforts to find a solution even if in the end the problem proves to be insolvable.

[Lucidvizion]

The poppycock comes from the NASA scientist.

The knowing about it is different from believing in the science that is accumulating supporting the existence of global warming.

The posters on this message board are a clear example of people knowing about it but not believing in the science that supports its existence, let alone its effects.

Clearly, the science is being dismissed and being dismissed by the most powerful and this cannot but hinder efforts to find a solution even if in the end the problem proves to be insolvable.

Most of the (rational) debate I've seen is over whether global warming that is occuring is a natural cycle, or caused by human greenhouse gas 'pollution'.

Now, if it were caused by humans, we need to curb our emissions and try to fix what we f'ed up. If it is a natural cycle, should we try to do anything or just let nature run its course?

The reason I am not overly concerned about global warming is because even if humanity is the prime contributor to it, I believe our rate of technological advancement in energy generation and efficiency will outpace whatever temporary damage we will be causing in the meantime.

[anEinherjer]

The poppycock comes from the NASA scientist.

The knowing about it is different from believing in the science that is accumulating supporting the existence of global warming.

The posters on this message board are a clear example of people knowing about it but not believing in the science that supports its existence, let alone its effects.

Clearly, the science is being dismissed and being dismissed by the most powerful and this cannot but hinder efforts to find a solution even if in the end the problem proves to be insolvable.

You are making the assumption that people haven't already considered the problems, considered the costs and benefits of proposed solution, considered that the science changes year in and year out.

You seem to be all over the doomsday climate change bandwagon, so you tell us: What's the "solution"? What are you doing about it? Let's assume catastrophic climate change is in the middle of happening - so what? What are we going to do about except pour money into studies saying "yep, still happening!"

In other words, what the hell is the point of this "article review"?

I'd be willing to bet money that I believe in the power of pure science more than any single person on this message board, but this global climate doomsday stuff has been so badly mangled by environmentalists as to be worthless to me.

[deconstruction]

I bet humans are going to be extinct in the next 5 years because of global warming.

I bet that the world will be a much shittier place to live for humans because of global warming.

[35Pete]

Sure Pete. Let's hear what this unreported saga is all about. Since you're so big on scientific journals, point the links to these journals that refutes the consensus on Global Warming amongst the scientific community.
Search global warming in this forum.

[35Pete]

You are making the assumption that people haven't already considered the problems, considered the costs and benefits of proposed solution, considered that the science changes year in and year out.

You seem to be all over the doomsday climate change bandwagon, so you tell us: What's the "solution"? What are you doing about it? Let's assume catastrophic climate change is in the middle of happening - so what? What are we going to do about except pour money into studies saying "yep, still happening!"

In other words, what the hell is the point of this "article review"?

I'd be willing to bet money that I believe in the power of pure science more than any single person on this message board, but this global climate doomsday stuff has been so badly mangled by environmentalists as to be worthless to me.

:clapper:

Chicken little political baloney.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y241/35Pete/chicken_little.jpg