[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Scottish Seabird Disaster Article

Subject: Re: Scottish Seabird Disaster Article
From: Walter Knapp <>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 12:47:29 -0400
From: Charles Bragg <>

> At 04:17 PM 8/1/2004 -0400, Walter Knapp wrote:
>>>>> I think it should help to change the minnds of any sceptics of global=
>>>It's a great leap from the seabird problem to that. Remember, these
>>>seabirds have got along fine through many ice ages and the following
>>>global warmings.
>         And it is also true that bird populations can recover quickly fro=
m short-term disasters. The observation that seabirds "have got along fine"=
 is a look back at multi-thousand year trends and we don't know (obviously)=
 what happened each and every year.

We do know, however, that these seabirds survived not only ice ages, but
before that. They are here after all that time, in considerable numbers.
We also know a lot about the earth's climate history. I don't think we
need to know each and every year to say that attaching global warming to
this is hardly scientific. Pure emotions, stirred up by some so called
scientists putting out sensationalism so as to continue their funding.

>         However, I agree that this one year for the seabirds proves nothi=
ng. The article mentions past overfishing as being responsible for breeding=
 failures before, but not this year. How do they know? People want quick ex=
planations, and determining whether past overfishing has led to a permanent=
 population crash, or whether there is a 30-year population cycle (eg Monte=
rey sardines), or whether it is global warming, will take time.

People want to fix blame, not find out facts. The fixing of blame tells
more about the particular bias of the person than it does the facts.

>         The problem is that there will not be proof of global warming (if=
 it exists) until it's too late. There will never be proof that global warm=
ing does not exist. And either way, there will always be doubt about how mu=
ch man is a factor. BUT - it makes no sense to pour greenhouse gases into t=
he air when we don't know their effect. That's an experiment with a 99-1 ri=
sk/reward ratio. It makes it doubly idiotic when you consider that for all =
of us not in the extractive energy industry it would be much less costly to=
 burn less fuel. People are just effing crazy.

Do not blame the energy industry. Each and every person makes choices.
Like buying a V8 in their small economy size sedan. Air conditioning and
heating their houses. Insisting on having every kind of fresh vegetable
and fruit in their stores every day of the year. To have too many kids.
Running huge amounts of energy into lights at night to where we can
hardly see the stars. Even using the so called energy saving products
uses energy, often with less efficiency than the more energy consuming
ones. What was it Pogo said - "We have met the enemy and it's US"  or
something like that.

BTW, suddenly stopping the energy consumption as has been proposed will
result in a huge population crash. Of humans, most likely by mass
starvation. And will do very little to change the oncoming ice age.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU