"...deforestation of Easter Island "
The "Similar Cases" argument used here does not hold water and "begs the question". An Island is not a far comparison . It is isolated, and poor land management was the cause in this very isolated environment.
Posts by ThiChi
-
80Is Global Warming a Myth?
by Sirona ini've been reading about global warming recently and to be honest its getting more confusing by the minute.. some say there is so much evidence that it is caused by humans (burning of fossil fuels etc) but some say that it is a natural cycle that we shouldn't worry about.. http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm.
what is the truth?
are you concerned about our planet?.
-
-
-
80
Is Global Warming a Myth?
by Sirona ini've been reading about global warming recently and to be honest its getting more confusing by the minute.. some say there is so much evidence that it is caused by humans (burning of fossil fuels etc) but some say that it is a natural cycle that we shouldn't worry about.. http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm.
what is the truth?
are you concerned about our planet?.
-
-
ThiChi
Realist:
It sounds like you need to read the book...can I loan you mine? you present no convincing evidence to disprove his claims...
""Further increasing the temp will cause most likely a further spread of the deserts.""
not true, in fact, the evidence shows the opposite is true. As stated and proved, more vegetation exists today than 100 years ago, using isolated areas do not the whole story make....The green belt has expaned and the green belt moves, who knows we may be farming Greenland agian one day...Larger quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere and warmer climates would lead to an increase in vegetation. During warm periods in history vegetation flourished, at one point allowing the Vikings to farm in now frozen Greenland.
""It evolved to life in a diverse Old Growth forest?""
It would take many more years than 20,000 to "evolve" the time frames just don?t add up. Who knows?
-
3
Sleeping Woman Prowled Streets for Sex, Yea, Right!
by ThiChi ini can't buy into this....would you if it was your wife or gf?
sleeping woman prowled streets for sex
friday, october 15, 2004
-
-
ThiChi
I can't buy into this....Would you if it was your Wife or GF?
Sleeping Woman Prowled Streets for Sex
Friday, October 15, 2004
Australians may have a new excuse for infidelity: "sleep sex."
That's the diagnosis given to an otherwise respectable Sydney-area woman who snuck out at night to have sex with random strangers while her live-in boyfriend slept at home.
"Incredulity is the first staging post for anyone involved in this," admitted Peter Buchanan, the diagnosing physician and a sleep specialist at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital ( search ). "One has to maintain a healthy degree of skepticism."
But, Buchanan told the Sydney Morning Herald, the woman wasn't covering up run-of-the-mill infidelity. She was genuinely unaware of her activities. Even her boyfriend took a while to catch on.
"He was aware of some sleepwalking and there was circumstantial evidence, including the unexplained presence of condoms around the house," Buchanan explained. "On one occasion he awoke to find her absent from the bedroom and searched until he found her ? engaged in such activity."
Although "sleep sex" isn't listed in the International Classification of Sleep Disorders ( search ), Buchanan said, the recently identified parasomnia ? a sleep disorder involving wakeful behavior, such as walking or talking ? was gaining recognition worldwide from specialists.
A Stanford University study published in 2002 related nearly a dozen cases of the disorder, some of which involved unconscious aggression or sexual violence towards regular partners.
None of those cases, however, involved active seeking out of new partners.
In the Sydney woman's case, Buchanan said tests showed she would often become active from a state of deep sleep without passing through the normal stages of gradually waking up, a common sign of parasomnia (search).
Buchanan told the newspaper the woman had been successfully treated through psychotherapy, and planned to relate the case to this weekend's annual conference of the Australasian Sleep Association ( search ).
-
80
Is Global Warming a Myth?
by Sirona ini've been reading about global warming recently and to be honest its getting more confusing by the minute.. some say there is so much evidence that it is caused by humans (burning of fossil fuels etc) but some say that it is a natural cycle that we shouldn't worry about.. http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm.
what is the truth?
are you concerned about our planet?.
-
-
ThiChi
I only asked for specifics of "species loss." You gave none. Your sweeping abet "qualified" statements cannot be addressed if you cannot give a specific.
However, you have implied some claims we can examine. Let us look at just one. Your example of the Sparrow in the UK. 5% left, no one knows why....
The fact is a study published Nature, however, blames the decline on changes in farming practices that mean there's less food for birds in winter. Wow! A far cry from your implications.
The fact is Wild Animals on the whole tend to do better in close proximity to Man....
""So Thi Chi, do you believe that man's activities have NO environmental impact? Or do you just believe global warming is a myth, but that undoubtedly there are other environmental impacts due to man's activities?""
No one has made this claim. However, nothing is that simple. I don?t buy most the hype because I have found most information is agenda driven and/or based on junk science, which, I feel I have proved with some specifics.
Regarding your "Duh" Claim, I repost this for your benefit:
"""The scientific evidence paints a much brighter picture of deforestation in the world. Looking at the NASA Landsat satellite images of the deforestation rates in the Amazon rainforest as an example, about 12.5 percent has been cleared. Of the 12.5 percent, one half to one third of that is fallow, or in the process of regeneration, meaning that at any given moment up to 94 percent of the Amazon is left to nature. Even the Environmental Defense Fund and Sting's Rainforest Foundation concede, among the fine print, that the forest is nearly 90 percent intact.
Philip Stott of the University of London and author of the new book, "Tropical Rainforests: Political and Hegemonic Myth-making," maintains that the environmental campaigns have lost perspective.
"One of the simple, but very important, facts is that the rainforests have only been around for between 12,000 and 16,000 years," he says. "That sounds like a very long time, but in terms of the history of the earth, it's hardly a pinprick. The simple point is that there are now still -- despite what humans have done -- more rainforests today than there were 12,000 years ago." ""
-
18
Which Mini-van should I buy?
by confusedjw incan those of you with mini vans help?
(3 years old, 50,000 miles).
if you have had one would you buy it again?
-
-
-
80
Is Global Warming a Myth?
by Sirona ini've been reading about global warming recently and to be honest its getting more confusing by the minute.. some say there is so much evidence that it is caused by humans (burning of fossil fuels etc) but some say that it is a natural cycle that we shouldn't worry about.. http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm.
what is the truth?
are you concerned about our planet?.
-
-
ThiChi
""
-
80
Is Global Warming a Myth?
by Sirona ini've been reading about global warming recently and to be honest its getting more confusing by the minute.. some say there is so much evidence that it is caused by humans (burning of fossil fuels etc) but some say that it is a natural cycle that we shouldn't worry about.. http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm.
what is the truth?
are you concerned about our planet?.
-
-
ThiChi
""I suppose that even the most conservative estimates of species loss (some are a bit high), much of which is due to destruction of habitat, are just another coincidence then?""
What happened to the Global question? We can now get more specific? Good for you. What specific "species loss" do you have in mind? And how does Co2 or deforestation play into the total loss?
-
80
Is Global Warming a Myth?
by Sirona ini've been reading about global warming recently and to be honest its getting more confusing by the minute.. some say there is so much evidence that it is caused by humans (burning of fossil fuels etc) but some say that it is a natural cycle that we shouldn't worry about.. http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm.
what is the truth?
are you concerned about our planet?.
-
-
ThiChi
However, we do know that vast amounts of co2 existed in the past, and you and I are living proof things worked out quite well......
At any rate, my only claim is that the earth has already experienced more amounts of CO2 than what we are doing today.
Unlike some, I refuse to speculate or fear monger the issue. I can only point to the past....
I recommend this Book:
In Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn?t Worry about Global Warming, Thomas Gale Moore, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, says no. Despite many dire predictions, global warming?should it occur?would benefit most people.
Moore looks at historical evidence and finds that the temperature of the earth has fluctuated dramatically over the past 200,000 years. And he reports that mankind has "prospered during warm periods and suffered during cold ones." For example, agriculture was made possible by warmer climates. "From its origins around 8000 b.c.," writes Moore, "agriculture spread northward, appearing in Greece about 6000 b.c., Hungary in 5000 b.c., France in 4500 b.c., and Poland in 4250 b.c. Is it chance that this northward spread followed a gradual warming of the climate that made agriculture more feasible at higher latitudes?"
Life spans also increased in periods characterized by warmer weather. Moore looks at life expectancy from 8000 b.c. to a.d. 1400 and finds that the "warmest periods, the Neolithic, Bronze Age, and the thirteenth century, enjoyed the longest life spans of the entire period."
Would mankind benefit from higher temperatures during the next several decades or centuries? That is, would history repeat itself? Moore argues that it would. He predicts that increased carbon dioxide emissions, coupled with warmer autumns and winters, would boost agricultural production, reduce heating costs, improve transportation, and cut fatalities. Moreover, many people simply prefer warmer weather.
Even if such benefits were not realized, it would still be foolish to impose regulations aimed at curbing global warming. Cutting carbon dioxide emissions by a third?as some environmentalists have advocated?would decrease world economic output and wealth much more than would the negative effects of global warming.
Moore urges policymakers to take a sensible look at global warming, one based on sound scientific and economic reasoning, not emotion and hysteria. "Except for those measures that make sense in any case, such as eliminating subsidies to energy and energy use," concludes Moore, "Congress should stand fast against any steps to limit greenhouse gas emissions."
I
-
80
Is Global Warming a Myth?
by Sirona ini've been reading about global warming recently and to be honest its getting more confusing by the minute.. some say there is so much evidence that it is caused by humans (burning of fossil fuels etc) but some say that it is a natural cycle that we shouldn't worry about.. http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm.
what is the truth?
are you concerned about our planet?.
-
-
ThiChi
""It also ignores issues such as bio-diversity, which are hugely impacted by deforestation."
Agian, you are way off the mark:
""The typical narratives on deforestation take their outset in a ??before?? situation which usually was about 30-40 years ago, (wow who does this sound like...?) or, eventually, something close to the turn of the century or time for colonisation. That is the case with West Africa (Fairhead & Leach 1995) as well as Himalaya (Guthman 1997; Thompson & Warburton 1985). In both cases, there is good evidence that major forest clearance took place two or three centuries ago. The time scale is of course of outmost importance if one is to establish the rate of a change.
The ??before?? situation has a relation to the discussions over ecological paradigms (see Leach & Mearns 1996: 10). The traditional ecological theory, the Clementsian climax paradigm tells us that succession will lead to a stable climax system which is stable and in equilibrium with the natural conditions in the location. This has led to the false induction that the forests in fact were in this climax condition in the ??before?? situation, or in other words: confusing the potential vegetation with the actual vegetation in what is perceived as the good, old days.
Human activity has had an influence on the forest succession for thousands of years. A nice, but forgotten account of fire management of west African rangelands was presented by the Mungo Park, a British doctor who travelled Gambia and its hinterlands in 1795-97 in his ??Travels in Africa??.
The ??new?? ecological theories tend to emphasise dynamics and variability of ecosystems. This has several implications: it allows for the existence of several meta-stable sub-climaxes (e.g. fire-dependent savannah woodlands), also for several ??climax?? ends of successions, and in this way it will also deny the normative aspects of succession theory which have been confusing conservation biology. This last argument relates to the discourses of bio-diversity conservation.
There are many cases where early or secondary successions have a higher bio-diversity than old, dense forests (and the rare or threatened species may occur in any end of a succession).Fairhead, James and Leach, Melissa (1995): False Forest History, Complicit Social Analysis: Rethinking Some West African Environmental Narratives. World Development, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 1023-1035"""
I remember the hype about "The spotted Owl can only exist in Old Growth Forests!" Again this begs the question, Where did the Owl live when the Forest was new?
And as I commented, clearing allows more light than dense old, forests, creating more Bio-Diversity, not less. I am too lazy today to present the Less Light Studies to support this claim....but it is out there.
-
80
Is Global Warming a Myth?
by Sirona ini've been reading about global warming recently and to be honest its getting more confusing by the minute.. some say there is so much evidence that it is caused by humans (burning of fossil fuels etc) but some say that it is a natural cycle that we shouldn't worry about.. http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm.
what is the truth?
are you concerned about our planet?.
-
-
ThiChi
A truly perplexing response. The "challenge" to me was not the effects or amount of Co2 on/in our world, but that I had to "prove" the fact that the majority of trees were cleared prior to our century. And that more trees exist today than 100 years ago. This is a fact.
""You do realize (spelling corrected), I assume, that 'Prior to 1850', includes all pre-historic deforestation""
As it should. Your "since WWII/1850" arguments are misleading and out of context, "begging the question" and leading many to "false dilemmas" PLease see my post below for more information.
However, since you morphed the Issue lets address your naive Co2 claims:
Again, you mislead us by not considering the geological/Atmospheric history of our planet. It is clear from other indicators that Carbon abundances were much higher in the past.
That's because of the Faint Sun Paradox, which is a long story for another time (very, very briefly: On Earth, the deuterium/hydrogen and 16 O/ 18 O ratios imply that warmer temperatures existed on Earth in the past. This is perplexing, especially given that ice-albedo feedback models, which predict that the Earth should be permanently locked in an ice age if it started out cold. The best explanation is that earth initially had a massive CO2 atmosphere, allowing it to stay warm).
Basically, though, the Sun was about 30% fainter long ago, but Earth's temperatures were similar to today, and the reason for the balance is the increased amount of CO2 back then. So over the very long haul, natural sources *have* had a much greater effect that what we are currently doing.
Notwithstanding:
we see that a massive increase in CO2 emissions isn't apocalyptic:
Larger quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere and warmer climates would lead to an increase in vegetation. During warm periods in history vegetation flourished, at one point allowing the Vikings to farm in now frozen Greenland.I also regret that you did not comment on the South America Rainforest information....
""""But thank you ThiChi for actually bring global data to a global discussion; you may not have meant to be misleading originally, but as you didn't highlight the partial nature of the data you presented in answer to a global question it was inevitable you would be.""""
Your disingenuous remarks and backpedaling are very telling. I proved my claim, and I had to "spell out" the powerful implications of the information presented for you, which information seemed important to others here. Does this fact indite me or you? Who knows....
