Slashdot Mirror

So, in your estimation, are we going to run out of water, nutrients, "generally fertile soil" whatever that actually means in your head?

Drought is already a huge problem worldwide: 2/3 of the world potentially facing a water shortage by 2025. Did you not hear about Capetown?

See, right now we have a huge landmass across Eurasia that is meeting all those standards and has everything in excess

Citation? I'm not aware of any agricultural revolution happening in Europe or elsewhere.

On you last point, the answer is "evolutionary process". Or in the nomenclature used by most of the people alive today, "God", "Creator" and other names used for it.

You also equally appear to have bought into the primeval nature worship, as you think that "conserving what we have" is universal good, rather than clear cut evil.

You know what the "evolutionary process" does? Or "God" or whatever you believe is in charge? It occasionally kills off 90% of all life. Are you ok with that? Is that "universal good", or "clear cut evil" in your opinion?

If you really believe that everything is going to be fine, why don't you just quit your job and sit around waiting for the evolutionary process to give you a paycheck and food? I'm guessing it's because, on a practical level, you understand that if you want a specific kind of life, you need to work for it individually to make it happen. There's no universal law guaranteeing happiness or even survival, on an individual or global level. We, as a human species, DO have the power to destroy ourselves and take most life on Earth with us. I, for one, think we should work to make the future we want, rather than watching things turn to shit while we binge another show on Netflix.

Do a little research on illegal logging in the rainforest - it's a major problem, with loggers coming in, "strip mining" the most valuable (economically and ecologically) old-growth trees first, and moving on before the authorities are informed. Not to downplay the damage done by farmers and ranchers - but they're not the only villains.

"In the Amazon, around 17% of the forest has been lost in the last 50 years, mostly due to forest conversion for cattle ranching."
https://www.worldwildlife.org/...

Funny, I read that as "somewhere where the environment can't reach you," which would be a fair critique of a robot supply chain on Earth. It's probably easier for robots to setup and maintain solar panels on the moon than to setup wind and solar arrays on earth, where they have to worry about wind loads, mud, corrosion, baby deer running into them, etc. But I don't know if that counterbalances the difficulty of getting started on the moon.

I left ethics as a leading question, because I think it's actually an interesting one. We tend to worry when people start messing up places where there's life or where people might see the view. Can we ignore those concerns in the Sahara Desert? On the moon? In the asteroid belt?

I'm not sure of the providence of this citation but it looks authentic.

It's a paper from 1980 about a haulout event in 1978.

The highlighting is done by a person in the pay of the heartland institute, so it likely to be pushing a particularly unscientific agenda. But the paper exists in the scholarly literature. You can often check out the provenance of scholarly papers if you have an internet connection and access to google scholar.

Consider that this might be a normal behavior pattern amongst walruses.

From the first line of your linked paper: In October-November 1978, several thousand living walruses came ashore in at least four localities on St. Lawrence Island where they had not been present before in this century.

There's a strong implication in that that it is not normal behavior.
Note also that the Walruses themselves were not normal: Nearly all of the dead were extremely lean, having less than half as much subcutaneous fat as healthy animals examined in previous years.

I am quite humble about my understandings of their natures. You would do well to be equally humble.

Okay, The scientists at USGS have said that this is due to the retreat of the sea ice, and you humble claim that this is wrong?
I'm not sure that you're using this word "humble" correctly.

It appears for example that this walrus statement comes mostly from the WWF.

It appears to most people that it comes from the US Geological Survey. But the initial findings were by scientists working for NOAA's Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine Mammals.

That is not a scientific organization but rather an environmental activist organization.

WWF fund and perform a lot of conservation science. But it was the USGS, which is a scientific organization that published the link to climate change.

I am not saying they are wrong but they have a history of very biased analysis.

Such as?

The most extreme example I think would be the application of the Drake Equation to species extinction rates.

I must have missed that press release. Do you have a link to it?

The author of the equation itself disavows it.

I didn't know that. Where did you read that?

That is how you get numbers like "5 million species extinct this year." They're using the drake equation. No organization that uses that equation with a straight face can be taken seriously. Period.

It's not obvious how the Drake Equation, which calculates the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which radio-communication might be possible, could be made to yield "5 million species extinct this year." And that number seems about two orders of magnitude greater than the largest of estimates I've seen. The WWF speculates that we might be losing [10,000 per year](http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/), which is nearer three orders of magnitude lower than that number.

So I look forward to you pointing me to this press release that makes all their other work not to be taken seriously in your eyes.

Because I can't find it.

Here. Note that they are claiming that the WWF got $41 million in public funds for 2012. And WWF itself claims that it got $48 million in public funds in 2013.

I see that the World Wildlife Fund isn't piling climate change stories on their front page at the moment (the genre is notably absent with only one anti-oil story present) which is a big change from the last time I looked (November 14, 2013) where more than half of those stories were about climate change and/or anti-fossil fuel stuff. I guess they got word that they were overplaying climate change propaganda.

Here. Note that they are claiming that the WWF got $41 million in public funds for 2012. And WWF itself claims that it got $48 million in public funds in 2013.

I see that the World Wildlife Fund isn't piling climate change stories on their front page at the moment (the genre is notably absent with only one anti-oil story present) which is a big change from the last time I looked (November 14, 2013) where more than half of those stories were about climate change and/or anti-fossil fuel stuff. I guess they got word that they were overplaying climate change propaganda.

The vast majority of that money comes from industries with a publicly well-known, vested interest in denying global warming.

Again, show me this alleged money. I see empty assertions. But when I look at actual visible budgets, the World Wildlife Fund, a group promoting climate change theory, by itself receives more in public funds than the entire "climate deniers" cottage industry.

A comparison of the two links shows that billionaires have supposedly donated $120 million to the cause of climate denying over ten years while the WWF received $41 million in public funding just last year.

Greenpeace apparently received $2.2 billion (though not in public funding) over the same time period that billionaires were kicking out $120 million.

And from right wing think tanks with bottomless pockets that fund studies trying to disprove AGW and still are forced to conclude by the evidence they gather that it is quite likely occurring.

Didn't happen. Read up on it. Yes, there was such a study and yes, the Koch brothers were funding it. But right wing think tanks with bottomless pockets weren't involved.

T'he thing that is apparently so easy to forget is that there are far bigger corporations (though not corporations as are usually considered on Slashdot) out there than Big Oil and other fossil fuel businesses. For example, the European Union is one such with a captive market of almost 400 million people and backed by the power of a few dozen developed world countries, all themselves powerful corporations in their own right. Similarly, there's the United States which again has a captive market of roughly 340 million people.

These deep pocketed organizations which employ tens of millions of people and have budgets, which can range into the trillions of dollars, can easily outspend the entire fossil fuel industry. And my take in the climate change debate is that they have done so.

Also if they were I doubt they would be hiding it.

It's worth noting that a lot of the alleged funding isn't actually hidden. For example, everyone knows about the Koch brothers and their funding habits. And the Koch brothers are widely reviled as a result. Google does something similar and they get accolades. The incentive to be secretive just isn't there.

Er, yeah, that's because every state in the world has 20% of the world coal market - without it it would be impossible for them all to run. Not to mention Aussies rejecting raising taxes on mining companies - being the lowest in the first world. Who is calling whom stupid?

As for your climate change dig (Queenslander are we?) - if you listened at all to climate change scientist community you would know that it means more frequent extreme weather conditions (not necessarily "biggest ever"). You know, like the recent series of floods in south Spain (never happened so frequently in recoded history), more frequent cyclones etc. Perhaps your fox news channel hasn't been keeping you informed.

The answer to your problem is contained in your analysis of it. Maybe collaborative governance doesn't scale up to large nations. But... what do we need large nations for?

Gigantic nations, or even small ones, are artifacts of the before-internet days, when we organized ourselves by geography. Increasingly, we are organizing ourselves by interest, and there is decreasing need for megaliths like nation-states.

There will always be need for geography-related governance, but it would be much more sensible to take a more fractured approach to that. See for example the map of 867 terrestrial ecoregions (third page).

Actually, most sane people already suspected that the global warming scam might be a hoax, and the brighter people were sure of it. Those CLU papers just add a little bit of credibility to the suspicions.

I thought most of it was just sophomoric trash talk, but the influencing of who got published was pretty damning. OBTW did you know that if the US signs a carbon cap and trade the WWF will be holding $60 Billion in carbon credits in the amazon forests?

Although you are right that only half the money collected for tickets is used for prize money, the other half, as well as any unclaimed portions of prize money, go to support charities like Save the Children, Medicins Sans Frontieres and World Wildlife Fund.

* The Mountain Gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei) is far from the only species of gorilla - the Western Lowland Gorilla (Gorilla beringei gorilla), Eastern Lowland Gorilla (Gorilla beringei graueri) and Cross River Gorilla (Gorilla beringei dielhi) take the total gorilla population up to around 150,000 - still not great, and still needing our utmost attention, but nowhere near as endangered as you make them out to be.

* The biggest threat to the Gorilla population is not humans, it's the Ebola virus, which has decimated Western Lowland Gorilla populations and in fact continues to do so, according to most wildlife and conservation organizations.

* The population of mountain gorillas, according to the World Wildlife Fund, is actually increasing from it's dire state.

* The Mountain Gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei) is far from the only species of gorilla - the Western Lowland Gorilla (Gorilla beringei gorilla), Eastern Lowland Gorilla (Gorilla beringei graueri) and Cross River Gorilla (Gorilla beringei dielhi) take the total gorilla population up to around 150,000 - still not great, and still needing our utmost attention, but nowhere near as endangered as you make them out to be.

* The biggest threat to the Gorilla population is not humans, it's the Ebola virus, which has decimated Western Lowland Gorilla populations and in fact continues to do so, according to most wildlife and conservation organizations.

* The population of mountain gorillas, according to the World Wildlife Fund, is actually increasing from it's dire state.

In China, where big pharm isn't in control (remember, this is the land of the bear gall bladder as medicine guys) today's news is reporting that over half urban dwellers are sick ! And that the hardest hit there are middle managers, whose life expectancy is down to 58 years old for well below the national average of 72. Yet the article's stll defending "traditional chinese medicine". Bears of the world, watch out!

Sorry, but sharks are a protected species now. It was powered by ill tempered mutated sea bass with friggin' lasers on their heads.

Excuse me, but sea bass are an endangered species now.

Insensitive clod.

Most people can discriminate between a pro wrestler and a game character; the hypothetical "reasonable person" appealed to so often in court cases like this one certainly could.

You would think so, but people apparently cannot determine the difference between a buch of wrestlers and a bunch of pandas.

It's not about spying or ICBM's or anything, the key factor here is, believe it or not, agriculture. I know other patriotic Indians have problems accepting this, but India is still largely an agriculture-based economy, with the population especially concentrated in rural areas. With the exploding population creating pressure on food resources, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research actively involves itself in creating better yielding food varieties .

Students of Indian history would have heard about the green revolution that created self-sustainence in food; a crucial post-independence achievement considering food scarcity situations such as the 1943 Bengal Famine (the one on which Amartya Sen did economic research and won the 1998 Nobel Prize for Economics).

Now with satellite technology, ICAR can identify which land areas are suitable for which crops and therefore goad farmers into growing those varieties (remember that India is a sub-continent; you have all sorts of terrain, from deserts to plains to plateaus to, of course, mountains.

So accurately knowing which crop goes best where is critical information for the hungry masses (over-cliched, but it's true). Methinks that this will be the biggest use, followed closely by telecommunications and satellite television AND then by urban planning (Mumbai will have 24.7 million people by 2005).

PS:- Note that I'm not saying that satellite technology wont be used for other purposes; I definitely want India to use cutting-edge technology against a couple of motherfuckers, but talking only about that would be misleading.

While many of the above comments are interesting the query was for favorable charitable organizations.

The Sierra Club is the most effective Conservation Group politically. This is the first group I joined when W became President. Note that they will call you every month to squeeze more $$$ out of you. You can ask to be taken off their call list and still contribute annually which is what I do.

The Nature Conservancy is another particularly effective outfit whose tact is to purchase land outright ensuring that it is permanently set aside for conservation.

The World Wildlife Fund is another conservation group worthy of your time and money.

Finally for balance I support the Blue Ribbon Coalition as they keep trails open that might be closed by my other contributions.

Another poster made a great point that Green Peace's brand of violent activism is not worthy of support.

Cheers,

Bill

• Conservation International
• Defenders of Wildlife
• Earthjustice
• National Audubon Society
• National Wildlife Federation
• Natural Resources Defense Council
• The Nature Conservancy
• The Ocean Conservancy
• The Trust for Public Land
• World Resources Institute
• World Wildlife Fund

Piece of advice: when writing a topic, know what the acronym actually refers to-it was the World Wrestling Federation. Sorry, I actually watch wrestling (if you can smell what I am cooking!). Now it is the WWE(World Wrestling Entertainment). It was only a few weeks ago that the World Wildlife Fund won its case to be the exclusive owner of the acronym WWF.

The World Wildlife Fund has been around since 1961. It is The largest privately supported international conservation organization in the world and directs its conservation efforts toward three global goals: protecting endangered spaces, saving endangered species and addressing global threats.

I have been reading a lot of comments on this article that basically brush off the claims of the article as reactionary and doomsdayish-without-basis-in-fact. Also there are the typical environmentalism as liberal propaganda posts. Maybe if we all had to see species on the verge of extinction or going extinct everyday the article might hit a little closer to home. It is easy to sit in front of the monitor all day and not feel any connection to the outer world (i sure know what that is like). But hey, even if they are totally wrong, how does it hurt any of us to do the little things like consuming less, recycling, and reusing that might make a differenct. I ride my bike everywhere and I don't miss having a car at all. Why not take a precautious approach, especially when it might mean a better life for our children and grand children.

Anyway, I guess it doesn't matter. What is going to happen is going to happen.

DDT was banned not because it was not safe and effective for humans -- it was tremendously safe and effective. It was banned because it harmed birds.

What you leave out is more recent information suggesting (not yet proving, admittedly) health risks to humans. The Department of Health and Human Services has determined that DDT may reasonably be anticipated to be a human carcinogen. Its breakdown product DDE is labeled by the EPA as a probable human carcinogen. In mammals DDT is an endocrine disruptor, and has effects on the reproductive and nervous systems.

If you want more definte results before taking any action, remember that it took hundreds of years for us to understand that cigarette smoking was a cause of cancer. We're just beginning to understand the long-term ecological effects of decades of leaded gasoline use.

These chemicals have only been around for decades. When dealing with chemicals that may linger in the enviroment for many years, the only rational course is to stop putting them in the ecosystem at the first sign of trouble.

Fact: To this day, longevity continues to increase, largely because of chemicals developed to use in farming, medicine, and, believe it or not, industry in general by making manufacturing more productive.

Your apologism for industrial polluters negelects the fact that your garbageman and your plumber have more to do with increasing longevity - really, more of a reduction in youth mortality - than any chemical engineering. You also negelct to condsider that more productive manufacturing isn't a net health benefit when what's produced is useless to health, while the side effects are detrimental.

The most basic requirement for health and longevity is an environment that's not full of crap. Producing stuff that might lengthen the lives of some people (those who can afford it) while pouring crap into the ecosystem we all share (though you'll notice that the crap usually isn't dumped right next to the people who can afford the end product, but instead next to the poor) isn't just stupid, it's criminal.