Climate, Habitat Threaten Wild Coffee Species

An anonymous reader writes "BBC reports that Dr. Aaron Davis of the Royal Botanical Gardens claims 'almost three-quarters of the world's wild coffee species are threatened, as a result of habitat loss and climate change. "Conserving the genetic diversity within this genus has implications for the sustainability of our daily cup, particularly as coffee plantations are highly susceptible to climate change.'"

Comments

Daily cup?

[mrjb]

Try hourly.

Re:Daily cup?

[MBGMorden]

Just go to bigger cups. I swear the former HR director here used to drink out of what I can only describe as a coffee BUCKET. It had to be at least 64oz.

Personally though I've got this weird handicap in that I can't seem to make good coffee if my life depended on it, so I usually save coffee drinking as an occasional treat during a trip to the local coffee-house and get my daily caffeine from Diet Mt Dew (which I drink about 6-8 of per day :)).

Re:Daily cup?

[WormholeFiend]

Sounds like you're drinking failcoffee.

Switch to freshly roasted (but not too dark) quality coffee, which is ground just before brewing.

Re:Daily cup?

[von_rick]

You don't have to compromise on quantity even if you preserve the quality. Heck, I medium roast the raw beans every weekend, and grind it before brewing - but still I drink about 2 pots/day.

Re:Daily cup?

[lobsterGun]

try this next time you make coffee.

- make sure the equipment is clean; Just rinsing it out isn't enough, everything needs to be washed.
- grind the beans yourself, or buy fresh grounds. Coffee grounds go stale in just a few days.
- use lots of coffee. 2 tablespoons per cup.
- use good tasting water. If you don't like the taste of the water before it becomes coffee, you probably won't like it post brewing.

Re:Daily cup?

[PPalmgren]

I remember watching a documentary about caffeine and its effects on the brain. At first, it provides a boost to mental alertness, but when consumed on a regular basis, this edge dissapears and caffeine is required to provide your old regular mental alertness. This symptom dissapears after 2-3 weeks of abstinence.

Do what I did, ween yourself off of it, and only consume it when you really need it. This way, caffeine actually gives you a boost rather than bringing you back up to speed. I love the practical applications of relativity.

Re:Daily cup?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bigger cups make for cold coffee. I drink mine black without further additions -- no frothy milk or vanilla syrup or latte -- no sirree. Unleaded all the way.

Re:Daily cup?

[KC7JHO]

good points, all! Also use cold water when making it, Hot water will cause the coffee to burn while it cooks and have a much more bitter flavor. The best coffee i can make is made with very good well filtered water, with out good water you will always get crap coffee.

Re:Daily cup?

[mrjb]

Sounds like you're drinking failcoffee.

Au contraire. The better the coffee, the more cups I'll have. At home, I'll either have espresso or French-press/cafetiere coffee. On the move, Starbucks espresso is a bit too dark a roast to my taste, but Italian ice cream parlors are usually a relatively safe bet for a good cup. When given the choice between instant coffee and tea, I'll have tea. Life's too short for bad coffee. And there's definitely more to coffee than just caffeine content or bucket sized cups.

Re:Daily cup?

[Red Flayer]

use lots of coffee. 2 tablespoons per cup.

Whoa there, Nelly. That's a lot of coffee, way more than most people use. If the parent to your post likes the coffee from his local coffeehouse, then likely he'll want something a little weaker than that.

My suggestion: buy a good, basic coffee maker. Buy a coffee measuring cup that is narrow and deep (to better accurately measure)... or use a kitchen scale to measure. Keep experimenting with water temperature (cold is best, I use ice water), the brew settings on the maker, and the amount of coffee. Buy bulk coffee (grind at the store), 5-6 varieties in small quantities so you can try different varieties under different roasts (I prefer a dark roast).

My preferred method: icewater, slightly more than 1 TBSP fine-ground coffee per 6 oz water, normal brew on my coffeemaker. I rotate coffee varieties every 2-3 weeks, and I never buy more than 3-4 oz coffee at a time (to keep it fresh). I store my coffee in an airtight container in the freezer.

That's a lot of specifics and personal stuff, but the key point is to keep experimenting (take notes when you brew!) to find what works best for you. To sum up the variables you should play with:

1. Coffee variety
2. Roast (light, regular, French, dark)
3. Water temperature
4. Your coffeemaker brew settings.

Assumptions: Use good water.
Use fresh coffee (you don't have to grind it yourself, but it helps)
Use a nonreactive wire mesh filter, not a paper filter (better for the environment as well as for taste)

Re:Daily cup?

[maxume]

Shipping a boutique product hundreds of miles from growers that may or may not be fairly treated and then worrying about the minuscule amount of sustainable wood fiber in the accessory is pretty inane.

Re:Daily cup?

[ColdWetDog]

use lots of coffee. 2 tablespoons per cup.

Whoa there, Nelly. That's a lot of coffee, way more than most people use.

Naw, that's about right. The spoon should slowly dissolve in the cup at that concentration, and it shouldn't trigger the radiation alarms.

Re:Daily cup?

[Red Flayer]

and then worrying about the minuscule amount of sustainable wood fiber in the accessory is pretty inane.

It's not the wood fiber that's the issue. It's the chemicals and energy used to produce it. Ever been near/inside a paper mill?

There's an issue of balancing wants with environmental concerns... and if we can easily and cheaply mitigate some of those environmental concerns, then great. Especially for coffee filters -- it's cheaper in the long run to use the wire mesh filter anyway. Yes, the impact of the change by each person is small... but in the aggregrate, huge.

Re:Daily cup?

[maxume]

I grew up less than 10 miles from a paper mill. They put out quite a lot of water vapor.

(There are dioxins in the river the mill was built on, but that is from activity that took place 40 and 50 years ago)

Re:Daily cup?

[Anonymous Coward]

or using ice water when the machine is just going to heat it up

Re:Daily cup?

[Jeremy Erwin]

I prefer small, fresh cups, to one large, and increasingly cold and stale, cup.

Re:Daily cup?

[lowrydr310]

Try the Aeropress. I have one and it makes one amazing cup of concentrated coffee that you can drink straight or dilute.

Another coffee gadget claiming to make an excellent tasting cup is the Toddy. I haven't tried this yet but it's supposedly good.

For years I drank my coffee with milk and sugar, then trying to be more health conscious I cut the sugar. Not long after that I cut out the milk and can only drink it black now.

Despite the fancy gadgets mentioned above (I also have a decent pump driven espresso machine at home) I'm not too much of a coffee snob. I still drink coffee from an old drip-brew machine; if you want it to come out good just make sure you grind whole beans and use approximately 1 tbsp grinds per 6oz cup of water.

Re:Daily cup?

[sjames]

For regular morning consumption, I just use a fairly fine grind of decent coffee in a drip coffee maker. For other occasions, I use a powder grind in an espresso machine and manually control the pressure and temperature by occasionally venting through the steam attachment. I clean it while it's still hot so the oils don't get trapped in pores in the metal.

Pre-ground coffee is old by the time you can get it home. The water is always charcoal filtered.

Re:Daily cup?

[Red Flayer]

(There are dioxins in the river the mill was built on, but that is from activity that took place 40 and 50 years ago)

Are you sure about that timeframe? Dioxins are still present in paper mill effluent in minor amounts. It was only in the early-to-mid 90s that the EPA even began regulating dioxins from paper mills.

Never mind the methanol, turpenes, and mercaptans (among other toxins).

When I did use paper filters, I used unbleached ones (it's the chlorinated organics that are the biggest toxin from paper mills). But the energy cost, etc, still makes wire mesh filters a better deal.

Full disclosure: I worked on paper mill effluent remediation in the late 90s. My father has worked in the paper industry for his entire career, in the specialty chemical field (for processing, pulp treatments, and specialty coatings).

Re:Daily cup?

[treeves]

use lots of coffee. 2 tablespoons per cup.

Whoa there, Nelly. That's a lot of coffee, way more than most people use.

When I make myself a single large cup (which is what I do pretty much every day - 16 oz. is enough for me for one day, and lately I haven't even been finishing it), I use 2 tbsp per 8oz of water or maybe a little *more*. I use a cone filter and pour the near boiling water through it right into the mug.
Yes, I like it strong.
My niece who works at teh evil Starbucks got me an awesome mug that keeps it hot for several hours.

The bestest coffee in the world, IMHO, is from Ethiopia, the birthplace of coffee.

Re:Daily cup?

[Anonymous Coward]

For him to call you out on your wiremesh-over-paper preference, i think is more inane. If there is anything, ANYTHING to be called out on, it should NEVER EVER be about anyone's coffee habits. Not in this website. Not ever.

It's like he hasn't seen ONE episode of Criminal Minds, pre-Mantegna.

Re:Daily cup?

[Jeremy Erwin]

I use 3 T. One Tablespoon per tasse. French pressed.

Re:Daily cup?

[Red Flayer]

Using cold water slows down the brewing process, since the coffee maker heats a small portion of the water at a time. This leads to stronger, slightly more bitter coffee, which I prefer.

So let me get this straight

[dkleinsc]

A risk of Pacific island nations ending up underwater? Not a serious problem. But threaten my coffee supply and I'll take to the streets!

Something might be a bit off on the priorities there.

Re:So let me get this straight

[timeOday]

"Risk" is only intolerable when it comes to terrorism. When it comes to climate change, we require certainty. (Why, I don't know).

Re:So let me get this straight

[NevarMore]

Something might be a bit off on the priorities there.

Absolutely. Those Pacific islands should be figuring out what coffee grown in their soil or crapped out by the local fauna will taste like.

Re:So let me get this straight

[Anonymous Coward]

Because terrorism has been a certainty for almost 4 decades now. There is no debate on whether or not terrorists have been killing innocent Americans and citizens of other nations around the world. There is no question as to what methods work and which ones don't in the effort to stop terrorism. Everything that was tried before 9-11 failed, leaving only one option. Kill them all. Even hostage negotiators will talk and talk and talk until someone dies, then time for talking is over. The only solution at that point is to kill the hostage takers. Sorry if that hurts your sensitive little feelings but it's how things work in the real world. Unfortunately, little pussy shits like you increase the death toll by preventing those who know what needs to be done from taking care of the problem, leaving terrorists free to continue killing.

Climate change however has been outed as the scam it is, and even before that there was no consensus as to whether or not man was causing it.

If you're going to take huge amounts of the fruits of my labor to solve a problem then you damn well better be certain of the cause of the problem. Being weak minded and letting politicians control you through the fear of the imaginary is not a good enough reason.

Re:So let me get this straight

[couchslug]

"A risk of Pacific island nations ending up underwater? Not a serious problem."

Not to be harsh, but the nations that would be underwater are small and not worth sacrifice by the large and important. I understand that there is sentiment in behalf of preserving every culture, but outside that there is no reason to do so. There are vast quantities of humans and as with other animals, some will thrive at the expense of others.

As for coastal cities, they can be replaced in a generation with improved infrastructure. That which man builds he can build again, and reconstruction is a great economic stimulus.

Re:So let me get this straight

[Anonymous Coward]

preventing those who know what needs to be done from taking care of the problem

Fuck you. (Former) President Bush stayed his course, this was his war until it became Obama's. Everything that happened until then had absolutely nothing to do with "little pussy shits" unless you're going to man up and call Bush a little pussy shit.

Re:So let me get this straight

[slim]

Climate change however has been outed as the scam it is

Where?

And if you say the CRU email leaks, you'd better have new and significant findings from in there, because I haven't seen evidence of a scam yet.

Re:So let me get this straight

[mhelander]

So you start by stating how rational you think the view on terrorism has been, and go on to lament that we don't (enough) apply the same hysteria to climate change?

With the current level of polemic, those who point out holes in your arguments are painted as akin to holocaust deniers, flat-earthers and creationists and now as apparently so cynical that they care more for a cup of coffee than for people who see their land go underwater.

It seems so hysterical at times that if someone tries to object to this coffee claim by pointing out that it seems likely that the coffee plant would be able to *adapt* to climate change, the way it and everyone else on this planet has been doing for quite a while, it would almost not surprise me to see him labeled a "creationist"...

Re:So let me get this straight

[Virak]

That's because fighting terrorism merely requires giving up your freedoms, whereas fighting climate change requires giving up your SUV and that shit is serious fucking business.

Re:So let me get this straight

[Virak]

You could've phrased it far more succinctly as "Poor people are poor, so fuck 'em!"

Re:So let me get this straight

[Prefader]

ELAINE: We've been thrown off course just a tad.
PASSENGER: What's that mean?
ELAINE: In space terms, about 70 million miles.
The Passengers appear interested and sensible, nod their heads.
ELAINE: The bumps you feel are car-sized asteroids smashing into the hull.
The hood of a car smashes through the cabin wall. The Passengers still appear interested and sensible.
ELAINE: Also, we're heading right for the sun and can't seem to change course.
The Passengers still appear interested and sensible. They all put on sunglasses.
PASSENGER: Are you telling us everything?
ELAINE: Not exactly. We're also out of coffee.
The Passengers errupt in total panic.

Re:So let me get this straight

[homer_s]

Maybe you don't, but I certainly do.

It is the same setup as the Iraq war:
- all the experts agree
- if you don't support it, you're a terrorist
- sudden alarmism because of unrelated events (9/11 for iraq, the al gore movie for this)
- exaggerated claims (mushroom clouds vs new york under water)
- scaremongering
- ignore evidence that shows that the conclusions were assumed


I don't know much about climate or the statistics behind it. And I didn't know anything about WMDs or the intelligence business. But I know something about human motivations and in both cases, I could smell the BS a mile away.

Re:So let me get this straight

[Anynomous Coward]

If you haven't seen evidence of a scam yet, you need to open your eyes, remove your hand from in front of them and start looking. Here's a start.

Re:So let me get this straight

[boombaard]

Awesome. And I bet all these claims can be made by different people with you still feeling "they" are "all" making exaggerated claims, too.

• All the experts don't agree. (Nor did they in the Iraq war. the difference there was that Cheney et al had executive power, whereas scientists don't. Scientists also have to compete in the media with hacks and politicians. See this yt video)
• Do you believe/care about everything you're being told in the media? Who cares what those partisan quacks call you.
• Al Gore != climate scientist. Al Gore is a politician/media figure making money.
• You feel it is an argument against "climate science" that every (shit) disaster movie after 2000 has been using that as a theme? Astonishing.
• As said before, the experts don't agree on everything. Also, "citizen-researchers" (blame WSJ for thinking up this imbecilic word/notion.) are being denied access to data != breakdown of the peer review process.

"I could smell the BS a mile a way" does not actually prove you're intelligent or insightful. It might just as well prove that you distrust people who tell you you're doing something that is causing something bad. Or something else entirely. But feel free to interpret the CRU "Scandal" as you like to reinforce your own opinions.. just remember it doesn't really prove anything.

Re:So let me get this straight

[mrsquid0]

If you haven't seen evidence of a scan yet, then you have been paying attention. What is interesting about he CRU e-mails is how little evidence they give for a scam. Compare them to some of the tobacco company documents to see what a real conspiracy looks like.

Re:So let me get this straight

[mrsquid0]

Sadly, a lot of the world works that way.

Re:So let me get this straight

[Red Flayer]

That which man builds he can build again, and reconstruction is a great economic stimulus.

Broken window fallacy.

Now, I'm not normally one to trot out a canard often (mis)used by the armchair Austrian economists, but it definitely applies here.

We're far better off spending cash as a "stimulus" on building new infrastructure, extending capabilities, than in replacing destroyed infrastructure. I use the term "infrastructure" broadly here -- pollution-prevention or remediation efforts should be included as infrastructure, IMO, since they are required for sustainable economic activity.

Besides which I'd just like to note that rebuilding a coastal city is probably a little more expensive, and time-consuming, than you might imagine. You have to remember that the economic activity in the city has practically stopped, and will only grow slowly, post-cataclysmic event, until the infrastructure is rebuilt. Who'll pay for the rebuilding? How much will that hamper their own economic activity?

Re:So let me get this straight

[tool462]

It's not the first time.

Ever stopped to consider the implications of speed bumps?

The prospect of running over some hapless pedestrian isn't enough to get most people to slow down.
The prospect of slowly wearing out your suspension and feeling mild discomfort for a second, however, will.

Re:So let me get this straight

[maxume]

The speed bumps I see scream of insurance premium mitigation, not pedestrian protection (I mean they are usually placed along straight stretches of private asphalt where dumb kids would go fast for fun, not where people are likely to be walking).

Re:So let me get this straight

[dkleinsc]

And if you need an idea of exactly how expensive and time-consuming rebuilding a coastal city is, I suggest you pay a visit to New Orleans.

Re:So let me get this straight

[Jorgandar]

The key difference here, (i dont know if you've noticed), but if you WAIT to see with 100% certainty whether it is a problem or not, and it turns out to be a poblem, its not fixable at that point and the world essentially ends (or gets very screwed up). Get it? If you die because of climate change, you die in real life!!

Re:So let me get this straight

[phantomfive]

But feel free to interpret the CRU "Scandal" as you like to reinforce your own opinions.. just remember it doesn't really prove anything.

It proves there is a significant agenda on the part of some of the scientists. Maybe this wasn't a surprise to you (it shouldn't have been if you've paid attention) but it does mean they will have to demonstrate their points with evidence, they can't just say they know because they are experts. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy when the authority has been shown to be biased.

Specifically for global warming, this is the evidence I want to see:

1) I want to see that CO2 causes the greenhouse effect (this is actually fairly well established by evidence).
2) I want to see that atmospheric CO2 is also increasing (also fairly well established)
3) I want to see that the global temperature is rising (some folks dispute this, but in fact the temperature record for the last few decades seems not unreasonable to me)
4) I want to see demonstrated that the rise in CO2 is having a significant effect on the global climate. This has NOT been demonstrated with any degree of certainty.

I've looked all over to find evidence of number 4, and I haven't seen a conclusive link anywhere. There is, on the other hand, evidence that other unknown processes in the environment are having a bigger effect on global temperature than CO2.

When people are saying we should divert massive percentages of the global economy without demonstrated exactly what the effect of reducing CO2 would be (this is another unknown; it might actually make very little difference), yeah, that counts as BS.

Re:So let me get this straight

[Skuld-Chan]

There's a lot of people in America who buy into the Calvinist philosophy that if you are poor then its because of something horrible you did.

Likewise if you are rich - its because you are blessed by God to be rich and are righteous in anything you do. (this works on a personal or national level - whatever we are doing as a country abroad is good for that country right?).

While there's certainly examples of people who did bad things or made poor choices who are poor because of that, there are more examples of people who are poor because they have been taken advantage of (like many Pacific Island nations) or were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time (people who live in Afghanistan or Iraq as a good recent example).

In other words - just because they are poor doesn't mean we have to forget about them.

Re:So let me get this straight

[vadim_t]

With the current level of polemic, those who point out holes in your arguments are painted as akin to holocaust deniers, flat-earthers and creationists and now as apparently so cynical that they care more for a cup of coffee than for people who see their land go underwater.

Any holes are holes in the small details. The big picture is that retaining more heat will make things get hotter. That's about as clear as that the earth is round.

The arguments about the specifics of what exactly is going to happen, but just because somebody got some of that wrong doesn't invalidate the big picture. The weather report may be wrong about that it's going to rain tomorrow, but that doesn't disprove that it rains a lot in London.

It seems so hysterical at times that if someone tries to object to this coffee claim by pointing out that it seems likely that the coffee plant would be able to *adapt* to climate change, the way it and everyone else on this planet has been doing for quite a while, it would almost not surprise me to see him labeled a "creationist"...

Do you realize that "adaption" is a potentially very nasty process?

People talk of "adaption" as if in the case of coastal cities getting flooded people would just grow gills all of a sudden and happily live underwater.

Adaption for humans will also be a messy thing. Suppose coastal cities get flooded. Well, we'll adapt, sure, through massive migrations, massive rebuilds of architecture destroyed by floods, and massive creation of new engineering projects like levees to prevent it. We'll definitely manage. However that won't happen for free, and you're going to end up paying for it, with your taxes, for instance. Some people will pay for it with their life for not getting out of the way soon enough, or will have their enconomic situation majorly screwed up.

Other life no doubt will adapt, but that doesn't mean everything will just get used to the new conditions and otherwise stay the same. It could well mean a species we like dying off and getting replaced with some weed that doesn't mind the new conditions. Over enough time things will rebalance themselves, but not necessarily in a way we will find convenient.

Re:So let me get this straight

[jo_ham]

Well, 1 and 2 have been clearly proved - it's clear that CO2 is a very effective greenhouse gas, and that ice cores show that over the past 600,000 years or so the global CO2 concentration has varied, but remained relatively low. It's only since the industrial revolution that CO2 concentration has shot up so sharply, far, far higher than it has ever been over a timescale that makes human existence look tiny.

Knowing that high CO2 concentrations do affect temperatures, even at lab scale and we're changing the concentration in the atmosphere so drastically, do you not think it might be prudent to prevent it if we can, regardless of whether we know *for certain* that it is raising the temperature of the earth?

We have the ability to cut the levels of CO2 we emit, so it seems sensible to do so. Maybe it will all be for nothing and we later find that the earth was naturally warming anyway, but we might just find that it was the right thing to do. If we do nothing, it could be far too late.

I liken this to the widespread use of the "miracle" DDT; sure, it's a great pesticide... until we learned about accumulation in higher predators and the extreme persistence of organochlorines in the environment.

Or the use of CFCs - a fabulous set of molecules, but with a rather unpleasant effect on atmospheric ozone that wasn't discovered until later.

Decent scientists on the whole don't have agendas in the same way that oil companies, coal-burning energy companies and governments do (unless they're paid specifically to have an agenda) - it's pretty easy to spot a scientist with an agenda: just look at the research. There's a reason that peer-reviewed research carries weight - reproducible results, by different people, and even dissenting opinions.

Real scientists don;t mind you checking their data, and there is a lot of it about.

There's also a very large propaganda machine that is left over from the "more doctors smoke camels" days that is very well funded, whose sole job it is to make people with no scientific qualifications question the science - often with outright lies, or by using the terminology of science as a tool. Just look at the way the term "theory" is viewed by the general public in regard to evolution; not really understanding how science defines the term.

On the evidence I have seen, I am in the belief that human industrial processes are warming the earth and that we need to do something about it quickly before the damage is very severe. We're not going to die out, and the world isn't going to kill us all like some $100 million Micheal Bay film, but there will be some significant changes that are going to affect a large proportion of the human population if we don't work on the problem. It will likely be the poorest portion of the population in the least developed nations first of course, which is another reason why I think people just want to distance themselves from it: they just don;t think it will affect their daily life, or think it is too big to fix and thus don;t want to think about it.

Re:So let me get this straight

[md65536]

That's okay, I'll drink tea.
That's okay, I'll move inland.
That's okay, I'll just eat less food.
That's okay, I'll stay indoors during the summer.
That's okay, I'll buy guns and fend them off.
That's okay, I'll live underground.
That's okay, I'll survive... just don't redistribute the wealth of America or I'll be just like the rest of the world, and then I'll have to stop saying "That's okay."

Re:So let me get this straight

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to learn more about the effects of CO2 on climate you should watch the Bjerknes Lecture from the recently concluded American Geophysical Union conference in San Fransisco. In it Richard B. Alley calls CO2 the "biggest control knob" on climate. IOW while other things have have their effects, over and over again when they examine paleoclimate it fundamentally comes back to CO2 as a primary reason for the particular climate. You can see the lecture here.

AC to preserve mods.

Re:So let me get this straight

[Nutria]

But threaten my coffee supply and I'll take to the streets!

Not my (industrially grown) coffee, but that of the effete snobs that drink stuff made from cat poo.

Re:So let me get this straight

[phantomfive]

We have the ability to cut the levels of CO2 we emit, so it seems sensible to do so. Maybe it will all be for nothing and we later find that the earth was naturally warming anyway, but we might just find that it was the right thing to do. If we do nothing, it could be far too late.

It's a tradeoff. What exactly are you proposing we do it cut levels of CO2? Stop driving? Cap and trade? Each of these have a cost associated with them. How much are you willing to cut in order change something?

On the evidence I have seen, I am in the belief that human industrial processes are warming the earth and that we need to do something about it quickly before the damage is very severe.

On the evidence I have seen, I am of the belief that California will fall into the ocean, but there is nothing we can do about it and the damage will be very severe. In fact, it is already happening. This is an effect known as continental drift (and in the case of those apartments, erosion), and it is happening faster than oceans are rising (as the IPCC report mentions, oceans are rising at around 3 mm a year).

Re:So let me get this straight

[SQL_SAM]

"That's okay, I'll drink tea."
I like tea, you have a problem with tea?

"That's okay, I'll move inland."
I'm already inland so I'll just have beach front property - sweet!

"That's okay, I'll just eat less food."
with all this extra water, sea life will flourish - I love sea food! SUSHI TIME!!

"That's okay, I'll stay indoors during the summer."
I live in the desert right now, I already live indoors during the summer - sweet no change there!!

"That's okay, I'll buy guns and fend them off."
Dude I already have guns - lots of em THIS IS JUST GETTING BETTER AND BETTER!!

"That's okay, I'll live underground."
Hell it would be cooler then it is now, especially during the summer - I'll try it out!

Re:So let me get this straight

[KeensMustard]

So you start by stating how rational you think the view on terrorism has been, and go on to lament that we don't (enough) apply the same hysteria to climate change?

You've misinterpreted what the OP was saying. I suspect deliberately.

With the current level of polemic, those who point out holes in your arguments are painted as akin to holocaust deniers, flat-earthers and creationists and now as apparently so cynical that they care more for a cup of coffee than for people who see their land go underwater.

Well firstly, the denialist movement hasn't found any holes in the theory. Which kind of makes your argument a non-sequitur, but never mind. The reason the term "denialist" is in common use is for the following reasons:

• The incorrect use of the term "sceptic" to describe the movement.
• The style of argument used i.e a continual stream of denials, without supporting evidence
• The close resemblance of the logic used to the logic used by a person in denial. Dealing with Climate Change will be hard work, and painful, and it also requires some people to adjust their worldview.

It seems so hysterical at times that if someone tries to object to this coffee claim by pointing out that it seems likely that the coffee plant would be able to *adapt* to climate change, the way it and everyone else on this planet has been doing for quite a while, it would almost not surprise me to see him labeled a "creationist"...

Your use of the highlighted phrase indicates that you either don't understand the issue or are deliberately misrepresenting the issue for the sake of burning a strawman. That is - to be explicit - nobody is claiming that the climate is not constantly undergoing change, and that species don't adapt to it. The problem is the current rate of change leaves species (including us) insufficient time to adapt. To use a car analogy - normal climate changes are like a car accelerating and decelerating for stop lights and traffic. The current climate crisis is a collision. Only a blibbering idiot (or a liar) would equate the two on the basis of (a) actual speed at a point in time or (b) the fact that the car accelerates and decelerates as part of it's normal operation.

Re:So let me get this straight

[jwhitener]

It is the same setup as the Iraq war:
- all the experts agree
- if you don't support it, you're a terrorist
- sudden alarmism because of unrelated events (9/11 for iraq, the al gore movie for this)
- exaggerated claims (mushroom clouds vs new york under water)
- scaremongering
- ignore evidence that shows that the conclusions were assumed

The "experts" who agreed on the Iraq war were politicians, who heavily filtered CIA reports, cherry picked data, strong-armed and lied to other politicians. That isn't even remotely similar to hundreds of scientists and thousands of published peer reviewed papers.

In terms of reacting strongly to people that deny AGW, it is because the vast majority of the 'deniers' argue with ideology, not science. That is because there is very little science for them to argue with. If someone kept trying to convince the world that all the "experts" who say the sky is blue are wrong, that it is actually red, would you waste your time on them?

In terms of the alarmism: that is mostly coming from...can you guess who....the politicians! Alarmism works to sell an issue and they know it. The "experts" aren't the alarmists. The vast majority of the scientists publish papers with dull sounding titles and make very little, if any, public comments on the ramifications of their findings.

Is there more research to be done? Sure.
Are the exact impacts of AGW well understood? Not really.
Is the climate warming and is man contributing? 100% certain.
Do we know exactly how much man's contribution is warming the planet? Not exactly.

But we know we are having an effect. And there are hundreds of other reasons to "go green". From national security and getting off foreign oil, to reducing pollution, creating new industries and new tech jobs, getting ahead of Europe and selling green tech to them instead of buying it, diversifying our power sources making our grid less susceptible to failure, etc, etc etc..

"Going green" can be done without destroying the economy, and it might actually be a great way to restore a lot of America's lost manufacturing base.

Any way, I got a bit off topic hehe. I just found you comparing Iraq to AGW to be way off on lots of levels.

Re:So let me get this straight

[antirelic]

I'm sorry I dont have any mod points at the moment, but if I did I would mod you up. Not that it would make much of a difference, lets face it, slashkos isnt a tag for nothin.

There are plenty of people who want nothing more than to believe that the Western way of life is "evil" simply because they do not identify with it. Not to get into a history recap about fellow travelers and the early 20th century progressive movement, the people who control the media (ironically) are the people who spread the anti-western (anti-capitalist) propaganda (class conflict). Its never more evident than watching the people at the Copenhagen climate change conference cheer on Hugo Chavez as he rails against "capitalism" and quote Karl Marx.

I dont care about the science behind "Climate Change". I know the political ends summed up with "Climate Justice" and "Redistributive Change". Climate Change is the vehicle of the Neo-Marxists. I'd rather live on the surface of Venus than live under the yolk of a Soviet style bureaucracy.

Re:So let me get this straight

[jo_ham]

So in essence "it's probably on a geologic timescale if it's happening at all so it doesn't affect me, fuck my grandkids' grandkids though".

The "what are we going to do" is everything - people said the same thing about anti-knock additives to petrol - that it would be too expensive and what about all those old cars that need 4 star?! Oh woe, the economy! But we have managed it.

Changing the way we work industrially is going on all the time - greener solvents, more efficient processes (lower temps/pressures, or higher yield reactions etc), and CO2 is only a small part of that.

Moving towards different fuels for cars, or carbon neutral systems, carbon capture on industrial scales for power generation if we are serious about cutting emissions from coal plants that aren't going away soon.

Your only solution was "stop driving" but how about just "stop driving oil fired cars"? There are several useful technologies that could make an enormous difference that are expensive but just need a little funding. The oil industry spends *insanely huge* amounts of money annually on scouting for new sources of oil and gas and on extraction on previously unprofitable fields - some of this capital channeled elsewhere would be very well spent.

Just because the problem looks difficult doesn't mean it's unsolvable or that we just shouldn't bother.

The population of the earth is increasing at a huge rate and the pressure on the ecosystem as a whole is only going to go up. At current rates it is not sustainable (in terms of energy, food, living space etc, not just climate emissions). Something is going to have to change at some point, and I believe it is much closer than many people want to think.

Re:So let me get this straight

[phantomfive]

So in essence "it's probably on a geologic timescale if it's happening at all so it doesn't affect me, fuck my grandkids' grandkids though".

No. In essence, they've got problems. And we can handle them.

Changing the way we work industrially is going on all the time - greener solvents, more efficient processes (lower temps/pressures, or higher yield reactions etc), and CO2 is only a small part of that.

I favor that.

There are several useful technologies that could make an enormous difference that are expensive but just need a little funding. The oil industry spends *insanely huge* amounts of money annually on scouting for new sources of oil and gas and on extraction on previously unprofitable fields - some of this capital channeled elsewhere would be very well spent.

They need funding and technology that doesn't exist yet and may never exist. I'm in favor of funding new technology. I'm not in favor of stifling cap and trade bills. But let's face it: there are a lot of good reasons to fund new technologies other than a global warming scare. If we're going to fund it, let's fund it for real reasons, not for something that is hypothetical.

The population of the earth is increasing at a huge rate and the pressure on the ecosystem as a whole is only going to go up. At current rates it is not sustainable (in terms of energy, food, living space etc, not just climate emissions). Something is going to have to change at some point, and I believe it is much closer than many people want to think.

That's great you believe that, but let's hear evidence, please. That's all that matters.

Re:So let me get this straight

[KeensMustard]

1) I want to see that CO2 causes the greenhouse effect (this is actually fairly well established by evidence). 2) I want to see that atmospheric CO2 is also increasing (also fairly well established) 3) I want to see that the global temperature is rising (some folks dispute this, but in fact the temperature record for the last few decades seems not unreasonable to me) 4) I want to see demonstrated that the rise in CO2 is having a significant effect on the global climate. This has NOT been demonstrated with any degree of certainty. I've looked all over to find evidence of number 4, and I haven't seen a conclusive link anywhere. There is, on the other hand, evidence that other unknown processes in the environment are having a bigger effect on global temperature than CO2.

I guess you probably don't realise how bizarre that sounds outside of your own head!

Specifically, 1,2 and 3 mean that 4 is the logical conclusion.

To accept the basis of the theory of anthropogenic climate change (that is 1-3), but then conclude that the current warming is caused by some as yet unknown phenomena is a leap of faith well beyond most of us.

Re:So let me get this straight

[Anonymous Coward]

New Orleans was a city already under water. If you're dumb enough to want to rebuild it then put your money forward, me on the other hand - I'll invest in some property above sea level DOH!

Re:So let me get this straight

[phantomfive]

To accept the basis of the theory of anthropogenic climate change (that is 1-3), but then conclude that the current warming is caused by some as yet unknown phenomena is a leap of faith well beyond most of us.

It is hard for you to believe? It shouldn't be, because it is such a complex system that we know so little about. The number of unknowns are massive. The only way you could conclude otherwise is if you have not actually studied what is going on. I suggest starting here.

You may assume that 1-3 imply 4 since you have been told that so many times it automatically makes sense to you. However, assumption is not science, evidence is science. Correlation is not causation, as I'm sure you know.

Re:So let me get this straight

[Belial6]

It is people like you that convince people like the OP that the AGW group is full of BS. You complain that he doesn't offer evidence, and then offer none of your own. You use strawman arguments in the same paragraph that you complain that he is using one. Honestly, once you start labeling people with terms like 'denialist', you lose all credibility, and do a disservice to your cause.

Re:So let me get this straight

[mpe]

and that ice cores show that over the past 600,000 years or so the global CO2 concentration has varied, but remained relatively low.

The "problem" is that these ice cores show that atmospheric CO2 concentration follows changes in temperature, rather than vice versa.

Knowing that high CO2 concentrations do affect temperatures, even at lab scale

Rather this happens at "lab scale", what happens on a much more complex planetary scale is far less clear.

We have the ability to cut the levels of CO2 we emit, so it seems sensible to do so.

It is far from clear that trying to reduce the atmospheric CO2 concentration is either possible or even a good idea. That's before you even consider that the likes of "carbon trading" appear to be more about making financial middlemen rich(er) than actually reducing emissions. Such solutions also at best ignore lots of human made pollution, even in some cases could create a lot more pollution.

Maybe it will all be for nothing and we later find that the earth was naturally warming anyway,

What would it take for the alarmists to even entertain the notion that natural processes are in any way involved?

but we might just find that it was the right thing to do.

Or we might do exactly the wrong thing in our ignorance.

If we do nothing, it could be far too late.

"Too late" for who exactly? Consider that the models used by the alarmists have been incapable of any useful long term prediction.

I liken this to the widespread use of the "miracle" DDT; sure, it's a great pesticide... until we learned about accumulatioAn in higher predators and the extreme persistence of organochlorines in the environment.

The WHO recently lifted its ban on DDT. Turns out that the environmental damage may have been overstated.
It's also quite possible for ill thought out "green" ideas to have their drawbacks. Such as "bio-fuels" competing with food crops or electric/hybrid vehicles producing far more pollution over their lifetime than internal combustion engine vehicles (even ones run exclusivly on petroleum).

Decent scientists on the whole don't have agendas in the same way that oil companies, coal-burning energy companies and governments do (unless they're paid specifically to have an agenda)

The IPCC is entirely government funded. The oil companies have also started running adverts showing how "green" they are...

Real scientists don;t mind you checking their data, and there is a lot of it about.

Which is a big strike against the CRU...

Re:So let me get this straight

[mpe]

What exactly are you proposing we do it cut levels of CO2? Stop driving? Cap and trade? Each of these have a cost associated with them.

Some of these costs may well be more damaging than the "problem" they are ment to address. Especially the "Cap and Trade".
It's also interesting that the ongoing "War on Terror" is ignored, even though it's a major contribution to man made emissions.

Re:So let me get this straight

[mpe]

The "what are we going to do" is everything - people said the same thing about anti-knock additives to petrol - that it would be too expensive and what about all those old cars that need 4 star?

Ironically the earliest cars used "unleaded". The use of Tetra Ethyl Lead was more down to politics.

Changing the way we work industrially is going on all the time - greener solvents,

Though whenever "greener"It is involved it's important to look at things comprehensivly. If you were replace toxic solvent A with slightly less toxic solvent B, but you needed to use several times more of B then A that could actually result in more pollution.

more efficient processes (lower temps/pressures, or higher yield reactions etc),

which typically has a medium to long term financial incentive.

and CO2 is only a small part of that.

Except that it isn't. In many cases it's treated like it's the only thing which matters.

Moving towards different fuels for cars.

But such fuels must be able to be mixed with existing fuels in any ratio. So that they can be used with the vehicles and fuel distribution systems we have now, to be most effective. It's also important to avoid having "bio-fuel" production compete with existing agriculture.

carbon capture on industrial scales for power generation if we are serious about cutting emissions from coal plants that aren't going away soon.

The most obvious thing to do is to pipe the exhaust from such plants into a greenhouse :) Using a waste product to do something useful is generally a good idea.

Re:So let me get this straight

[mpe]

The key difference here, (i dont know if you've noticed), but if you WAIT to see with 100% certainty whether it is a problem or not, and it turns out to be a poblem, its not fixable at that point and the world essentially ends (or gets very screwed up).

If "it" isn't a problem then we may well have created a whole host of problems in our mis-guided attempts to "fix it". Even if "it" actually is a problem it's quite possible that many proposed "solutions" either arn't or capable to creating far worst "side effects".

Re:So let me get this straight

[mpe]

In terms of reacting strongly to people that deny AGW, it is because the vast majority of the 'deniers' argue with ideology, not science.

Those who call those they disagree with "deniers" strongly implies that it is they who are motivated by ideology.
There's also quite a bit of denial from the AGW camp.

not science. That is because there is very little science for them to argue with.

There's a lot wrong with the science. Most obviously ice cores showing that atmospheric CO2 changes after temperature changes, something which just dosn't agree with the theory that atmospheric CO2 drives temperature. In addition there are upward "corrections" applied to monitoring stations in urban environments. Rather than downward corrections due to the Urban Heat Island effect.

If someone kept trying to convince the world that all the "experts" who say the sky is blue are wrong, that it is actually red, would you waste your time on them?

It's more the case that the "experts" are claiming that the reason the sky is blue is somehow different from the reason that it was blue in the past. That's if they don't claim that the sky has only been blue recently and that any historical records of a blue sky are somehow incorrect...

And there are hundreds of other reasons to "go green".

"Green" is a political ideology. As with any other political ideology it has "fashion trends" the current one being "carbon this, carbon that".

"Going green" can be done without destroying the economy, and it might actually be a great way to restore a lot of America's lost manufacturing base.

Only if that will make the likes of Al Gore as rich as the "carbon trading" thing...

Re:So let me get this straight

[jo_ham]

I never said I was a fan of carbon trading or bio-fuels - I think both are a serious mis-step, but it doesn't mean that there aren't problems to be solved.

I know that both sides are charged with politically motivated agendas, and people looking to make a buck, and people who just don't care.

"Too late" isn't an extinction term here. A lot of the problem with the acceptance of climate change seems to be that the result if it's actually happening is something from a Micheal Bay film. What's more likely is that we'll have to severely change our lifestyle in ways that we'd really rather not.

If we hadn't stopped the widescale use of CFCs, we might have completely destroyed atmospheric ozone and ended up with a planet that receives considerably higher UV from the sun that it would otherwise have done. So Mr Smith can't go outside for quite as long - it doesn't bother him, but what about the plants he relies on for food? Or other parts of the ecosystem.

The fact that the earth's climate is so large makes "proof" of concepts very hard to nail down. We can design models (real and computer based) but testing full scale is very difficult. We have computer models that have produced some very accurate results in isolation that have been measured in the real world so we're reasonably sure we have the models right, but over much longer timescales they are obviously less accurate, and even then *they are still models*.

I don;t think we're ever going to see a definitive "this is the 100% story of anthropogenic effects on the earth's climate" and given the resistance to change by the big money that wants to keep things the way they are, it's going to take either a 100% proof (not possible) or some major climate event, like the loss of Greenland's ice, and even then proving that the cause of that was human activity is not easy.

You also shouldn't be listening to "alarmists" and treat them as speaking for the scientific community as a whole, unless "alarmist" is code for "someone who believes in climate change".

The time lag on the ice core data is still a source of debate - this is one of those times where sceptics will say "see, this time lag proves that temp comes before CO2", while other scientists have said that the time difference is very small in comparison to the timescale being measured for temperature variations, especially given the way the air is trapped in the ice in the first place - the air trapped in the ice has been determined to be up to 1000 years younger than the ice it is trapped in due to the porous nature of the ice when it forms. This is within the observed differences in the core data, but again it is not conclusive one way or the other - the porosity of the ice also changes at different time periods.

Sceptics want to paint this lag as clear proof, but they ignore the other data that could explain it.

I'm not saying either side of the debate is correct, just that "the CO2 conc lags temp by 800 years" is not a fact, it is an inference, and the actual correlation of the temperature and CO2 graphs is very difficult to nail down to a precise time - ±1000-2000 years seems to be the closest window it can be correlated so far. So maybe it lags behind, maybe it correlates exactly - we are unable to say conclusively.

The earth itself obviously deals with CO2 differently to lab scale experiments - a flask of CO2 and a flask of air obviously absorb IR at different rates, but in the atmosphere those gasses don;t react alone -there are other gasses to deal with, the oceans absorb CO2 too (changing their acidity), methane is also involved, as is water vapour. It's clearly not simple.

Re:So let me get this straight

[KeensMustard]

It is hard for you to believe?

Yes - you've hit the nail on the head. It's hard to believe. My scepticism is a direct result of the irrational leap in your argument.

It shouldn't be, because it is such a complex system that we know so little about.

It's not really that complicated. In a bell jar, CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. It will do the same outside of the bell jar as well - a change in location will have no effect on the thermodynamic properties of a molecule of CO2. This is high school level thermodynamics. The complexity arise when you need to measure the size of the subsequent effect, as other things come into play - eg dissipation due to conversion into kinetic energy, the temporary effects of absorption by ice melting etc. But these are questions of scale that do not bear upon the actual reality of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and thus the fact that more CO2 in the system will cause the average temperature to rise.

The number of unknowns are massive.

You believe so, yet at the same time, there is daily criticism directed at the practice of climate science from members of your movement. If you think there is so much still to discover, why are you so against the practice of discovery?

You may assume that 1-3 imply 4 since you have been told that so many times it automatically makes sense to you.

No, I assume that 1-3 imply 4 because of the laws of thermodynamics. And I assume that the two parts of your theory - that phenomena unobserved by us are nullifying the effects of the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, whilst other, unrelated phenomena produce the exact same effect that increasing CO2 WOULD have produced - I assume you theory is bollocks. Because, put briefly, it SOUNDS like bollocks, and you have failed to produce a shred of evidence in support of it.

Re:So let me get this straight

[jwhitener]

There's a lot wrong with the science. Most obviously ice cores showing that atmospheric CO2 changes after temperature changes, something which just dosn't agree with the theory that atmospheric CO2 drives temperature. In addition there are upward "corrections" applied to monitoring stations in urban environments. Rather than downward corrections due to the Urban Heat Island effect.

This proves my point. In the past, I'd spend a couple hours googling for answers to the above concerns, listing the dozens of reputable scientists who address the above issues.

At best I'd get some links back contradicting mine, from crap science sites or skeptic sites with dubious funding. At worst, I'd get some argument about bias or even worse an argument bordering on conspiracy.

It just isn't worth the time anymore.

OK, once more.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

It explains it in simple terms, but also provides links to the actual studies that back it up. You know, real science.

Re:So let me get this straight

[phantomfive]

the fact that more CO2 in the system will cause the average temperature to rise.

It's a matter of degree. No one disputes the mechanics of the greenhouse effect, the question is how much. What IS known is that the cumulative effect of adding CO2 is smaller and smaller; thus if you double CO2, the subsequent doubling will have a much smaller effect. It is estimated that doubling CO2 alone will add around .7 degrees to the global temperature. The rest of the estimated warming will have to come from somewhere else, the subsequent effect, as you called it. There is, however, no scientific certainty as to what the subsequent effect would be. And the evidence actually suggests there are other unknown factors in the environment that are affecting the temperature more than CO2 does.

You believe so, yet at the same time, there is daily criticism directed at the practice of climate science from members of your movement. If you think there is so much still to discover, why are you so against the practice of discovery?

This is a perfect example of why your assumptions are getting you into trouble. I have no criticisms against the practice of discovery, I hope people do study the environment: it is a fascinating topic. Furthermore, if I am part of any movement, it is the movement for critical thought and rationality, not some kind of anti-AGW campaign. What I am against is the sensationalism. Strongly against it.

that phenomena unobserved by us are nullifying the effects of the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, whilst other, unrelated phenomena produce the exact same effect that increasing CO2 WOULD have produced

It isn't the exact same effect that increasing CO2 would have produced. CO2 by itself would be significantly less. There are other factors (often referred to as 'natural variation' but the variation actually is caused by real environmental factors).

Maybe I'm trolling...

[Xacid]

Watch now that people will suddenly care about climate change just as people only cared about fuel efficiency when gas prices rose!

Re:Maybe I'm trolling...

[Q-Hack!]

Eh... When the climate change happens, I will be ready with my parka and a warm fire.

Re:Maybe I'm trolling...

[HeLLFiRe1151]

The only thing about climate change that I do care about is the amount of bullshit news there is about it. Every problem in the world is somehow associated with it in a knee jerk fashion. Yet somehow, researchers are always discovering these species of animals and plants that were thought to be extinct.

Re:Maybe I'm trolling...

[ArsonSmith]

Me, I'll be headed to the Canadian beaches!!

Re:Maybe I'm trolling...

[abigor]

You mean like this one, one of my local beaches:

http://nudisttravel.blogspot.com/2007/05/wreck-beach-pictures-of-vancouvers.html

Re:Maybe I'm trolling...

[cmacb]

Well, until they figure out that the remedies have costs in terms of human comfort too:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc_afp/lifestyleclimatewarminganimalsfood

Comont, proud owner of seven cats and two dogs -- the environmental equivalent of a small fleet of cars -- says defiantly, "Our animals give us so much that I don't feel like a polluter at all.

There is very little logic that goes into either side of this "debate". It's all about finding some OTHER groups of people to demonize, those who lead lives that are not like ours, believe in things we don't, or don't believe in things we do.

After our freedoms are gone, it will be those who ushered them out the door that complain the loudest. The "struggle" to give up your freedom to others is a downhill struggle. Going back won't be so easy, or even possible.

What I wonder is: If we can finally prove that man contributes to climate change at all and thus that changes in the way we live will have an definite impact, then wouldn't it be important to be absolutely sure which long-term direction climate is taking and whether the actions that are being proposed will have the correct, that is reverse effect?

It would seem that instead we are for some reason in a hurry to do something/anything, even though we know that the problem (if it is a problem) has been creeping along for thousands of years.

The notion that we are at some sort of trigger point or point of no return seems more than just a little bit contrived to me. Especially when you realize that most of the leaders in this movement have set themselves up to gain financially by the proposed changes.

So let me get this straight

[SQL_SAM]

If we redistribute the wealth of America for the hoax of global warming (which is what Copenhagen was about) we'll save some coffee beans? That's okay I'll drink tea.....

So?

[LWATCDR]

I don't drink coffee.

Re:So?

[Hatta]

Maybe, but you'll still have to fight off the shambling hordes of caffeine addicts if anything serious happens to the supply.

Re:So?

[sznupi]

So that is how we'll get a zombie apocalypse!

Finally, after all this waiting (yes, also not drinking coffee/tea/etc.)

Re:So?

[srothroc]

I don't either, but I'm surrounded by people who do, which makes it a problem for me. I'd imagine you're in the same situation.

Re:So?

[von_rick]

But your system admin survives on that stuff. Would you want a your system admin to go nuts because he didn't get his 3 cups of coffee before lunch?

Re:So?

[elrous0]

Well, hey, I didn't spend all those years playing "Left4Dead" and not learn a little something about courage.

Re:So?

[xaxa]

I don't either, but I'm surrounded by people who do, which makes it a problem for me. I'd imagine you're in the same situation.

In England tea drinkers are also very common. I don't like either, and usually drink water at work. Sometimes I drink squash. In a coffee shop I'd order hot chocolate.

I once saw a colleague drinking Bovril (a runny paste made from cows, which can be diluted in hot water). Yuk!

Re:So?

[dunkelfalke]

They still can switch to tea. Plenty of caffeine there and because of all the tannines it acts milder and longer.

Re:So?

[LWATCDR]

No he doesn't only the support techs here do.

Re:So?

[Velodra]

all those years playing "Left4Dead"

Left 4 dead was launched 13 months ago, so either I missed the memo about redefining the length of a year or someone has invented a time machine.

Re:So?

[slim]

Could you provide a list of things you do eat, drink, use?

You know, a whitelist so we don't waste our time worrying about things that don't affect LWATCDR in future...

Re:So?

[Hatta]

Ew, no thanks. Even the British can't drink tea without loading it with milk and sugar. Plus, I'd have to drink at least twice the volume to get the same amount of caffeine. Worst case scenario, I'd switch to caffeine pills before drinking tea daily.

Re:So?

[dunkelfalke]

That is only because the British don't drink quality tea. You don't need milk or sugar for a quality tea, in fact either would kill the taste.

If you really are a caffeine addict, try a well-prepared Gyokuro. It has got more caffeine inside it than espresso coffee. I personally prefer to drink teas with lower caffeine content so I don't get neither addicted nor accustomed to caffeine. This way I can stay awake longer and with a lower dosage of caffeine in a case of emergency.

Re:So?

[Jeremy Erwin]

That is only because the British don't drink quality tea. You don't need milk or sugar for a quality tea, in fact either would kill the taste.

Provided, of course, that your definition of "quality tea" is a tea that tastes off with milk and sugar. The british, and the irish, and several other cultures enjoy a particular type of very strong, high caffeine tea. This tea can be of very high quality, or it can be utter shite. The resulting cup of milk diluted tea can be pleasant and invigorating, or it can be undrinkable.

Douglas Adams preferred Earl Grey Tea with milk, even though authorities warned against it.

Some teas are extremely expensive because they contain subtle flavors. Those flavors might well be be masked by a generous application of milk. There's a solution to that. If you enjoy milk with your tea, don't buy the $200/lb stuff.

Re:So?

[dunkelfalke]

I have yet to see someone - even British of origin - drinking a FTGFOP tea with milk.

Re:So?

[Jeremy Erwin]

Apparently, some do, and some don't

There's nothing special about ftgfop. If you use the right dealers, it's just as affordable as a good broken leaf blend. In fact, I have a good quarter pound of sftgfop-1 assam in my pantry right now. I have little doubt that some of it will be consumed with an organic, single origin, finely aged milk.

Re:So?

[dunkelfalke]

Thank you. You single-handedly destroyed my last hope in mankind.

Re:So?

[Jeremy Erwin]

Always a pleasure.

Re:So?

[md65536]

Eat drink use or otherwise care about. You can go ahead and scratch "Other people" off that list.

Do they make drinkable coffee?

[NevarMore]

Free market saves.

Specifically harvest and sell these beans with the usual "its green 25-50%" markup plus the 10-15% free trade thing. Becomes desirable to save these species for profitability, the green-tards are separated from their money before they can do something annoying with it, and everyone wins.

Re:Do they make drinkable coffee?

[Starlet Monroe]

Free market saves.

...but Gretzky scores on the rebound!

Re:Do they make drinkable coffee?

[Hurricane78]

Those “green-tards” are some day save your worthless life, that of your children, and that of everybody on this planed, douchebag!

We other people fix the shit that you fuck up, in your egocentric little world. And the only reason we save you and don’t just leave you to die, like nature chose for you, is because we’re in the boat too, and can’t get out.

But trust me: As soon as we find a way to leave you behind, we will. And then good luck with your attitude...

Re:Do they make drinkable coffee?

[Penguinisto]

and that of everybody on this planed, douchebag!

I've heard the Earth named by many things... but that one is entirely new to me.

(...and why not a shaved douchebag?)

Re:Do they make drinkable coffee?

[NevarMore]

We've reached an accord then. I'll keep my sane and sensible land management and environmental policies (such as those espoused by Ducks Unlimited, Ted Nugent, and other hunting and outdoorsman type organizations). You can keep your green label, your carbon credits, and your ever so successful climate change summits.

I deride the "green" label because it is such a useless label. It in no way represents an understanding of anything nor an effective change in lifestyle.

There is a very large, but mostly silent group that actually understands about and care about our environment. We've been out there learning to appreciate nature and doing our small part to protect it. The most we ever get out of it is dirty and occasionally a good meal. We're tired of you trendy assholes, your useless labels, and your holier than thou attitude.

You sit and crunch numbers and watch things happen on TV. We see our favorite mountains get less snow each year. We see our favorite access paths get graveled and paved over so your fat ass can drive where we used to camp. We see your tears when we drive by with a fresh deer then take your money when you want them out of your organic garden.

While we're busy staying out of each others way I will be:
  - climbing ice covered mountains
  - backpacking
  - caving - you have not met a more cautious group of environmentalists. Talk about saving the world once you've entered and left a micro-ecosystem without a trace
  - working from home (no commute)
  - walking to the shops (1/2 to 1 mile from home, no need to drive)
  - keep my 25 year old car on the road

I do none of that to be "green". I do it because its a way that I can improve my life and the world around me.

Not a new warning

[phlinn]

As found on the warmlist, this isn't the first time climate change has been accused of threatening coffee. Amazing how climate change seems to be the bane of all existence...

Re:Not a new warning

[Gadget_Guy]

Amazing how climate change seems to be the bane of all existence...

Yep. Who would have thought that global warming could actually affect different things across the globe.

Re:Not a new warning

[Abcd1234]

As found on the warmlist, this isn't the first time climate change has been accused of threatening coffee. Amazing how climate change seems to be the bane of all existence...

Well, given that every species on the planet, including ourselves, is thoroughly adapted to their current environment=, I'm a little shocked you find that surprising.

Of course, species will adapt or die off, but that's really the point: The species we rely on now are exquisitely adapted to their specific climates (coffee has a very narrow growth range, AFAIK, and is very sensitive to temperature, humidity, and so forth), so it should be no great news that their survival is threatened by climate change.

Re:Not a new warning

[ArsonSmith]

The decided that "Global Warming" changed to "Global Climate Change" you know in case it started cooling. They should just change it to "Global scary thing that affects everything you do and you need to give us money to protect you from it."

Re:Not a new warning

[Ironsides]

Well, given that every species on the planet, including ourselves, is thoroughly adapted to their current environment=, I'm a little shocked you find that surprising.

For humans, which environment would that be? The Sahara Desert, the Russian Siberia, the Amazon Rainforest, the Himalayan Mountains, the US Plains, the Pacific Islands? Humans have adapted to be able to live everywhere.

Re:Not a new warning

[Virak]

No, they changed "global warming" to "climate change" because idiots like you thought "global warming" meant that every single point on the planet would monotonically increase year-over-year, and to a lesser extent because "climate change" is more accurate anyway because the increase in carbon dioxide has other effects too, such as ocean acidification. Unfortunately, they failed to consider that idiots like you would think this is more evidence of a massive global conspiracy to steal your freedom and monies.

Re:Not a new warning

[Anonymous Coward]

Global Warming threatens (fill in favorite vice/past time/ethnic group/international cause here), women and children hit hardest.

Global Warming is now a caricature of itself.

Re:Not a new warning

[xaxa]

The whole globe will get warmer, but the whole globe isn't a uniform temperature. Prevailing winds and oceanic currents -- which move lots of heat around the world -- are likely to change, which will affect which places are warmed or cooled by them.

For instance, Norway and the British Isles are significantly warmed in summer by the currents in the Atlantic (it's currently 2C in London, and -10C in Quebec, which is further south). If those currents shift slightly, that will make these countries much colder in the winter and warmer in the summer, which would be hugely disruptive.

Re:Not a new warning

[Abcd1234]

Humans have adapted to be able to live everywhere.

Yeah, no kidding. But if the climate *changes*, then we have to actively adapt, and that means some people will die. Heat waves will kill some, cold snaps will kill others. Flooded coastal areas will displace some, while droughts and torrential rains will displace others. Meanwhile, crop and grazing land will be destroyed so that those who do adapt to the changes run the risk of starvation.

Will humans adapt? Sure! The sufficiently rich will move to more hospitable areas. Sufficient rich farmers will move to new cropland. But the subsistence farmers and the poor who lack the means to move will die.

But, eh, fuck them, right?

Re:Not a new warning

[AshtangiMan]

I wonder why it upsets some people here (of all places) to look into how the climate change is effecting different aspects of the ecosystem. Yes it has been happening for the entire life of the planet, but we're only just now (say the last 50 years) able to observe the effects in meaningful ways. I thought that geeks were supposed to be interested in that sort of thing. It's not like the article stated "SUV drivers and coal plants are threatening the survival of wild coffee". I like your reply, but think perhaps stronger language might be in order. The OP is certainly way across the idiot line, as climate change could quite realistically be called the cause of all existance.

Re:Not a new warning

[AshtangiMan]

A little bid misleading. The human adaptation is less about the organism, and more about the things we build to help us adapt. Part of that coping is to rely on other things (flora and fauna) that are much less able to follow suit, and it is those things that are threatened. Not to say that humans would not find other ways, rather that is the point, we will find other ways. But it is interesting to note that we can't really save the rest of the ecosystem, so we'd better pay attention to what is going on so we can be better prepared. Humans are exceptional in this way . . . we have the ability to change our environment to suit ourselves (that is, indoor vs. outdoor not the damn genesis project). Insects do it too.

Re:Not a new warning

[Anonymous Coward]

I tend to think it's more because coffee plant cultivation is an extremely delicate process. Anyone who's tried to grow coffee can tell you how finicky they are. If temperature is just slightly off, the plants freak out. Calling global warming on stuff is the new fun thing to do these days, so I think pepople are just looking for something new to freak out over.

Re:Not a new warning

[ArsonSmith]

He was obviously being sarcastic.

Re:Not a new warning

[Anonymous Coward]

Right!

Re:Not a new warning

[t0rkm3]

Nah... We the poor will use the same thing that we have used since the beginning of time... Our feet, or our boats to get where we need to.

Some, as seen during our last heinous drought, will take all the valuables and strap them to some sort of conveyance and go to California...

The status quo is a very small subset of Earth's normal. The real question for me is... Is it more realistic to trust a bunch of people with nearly unlimited political power and hope they don't try to screw us all? If anything should be evident from history it should be that powers granted to political creatures during a crisis have the habit of affecting things not related to the crisis and further extended the terms of the crisis.

Before you posit that the power of these people will be meager, consider that the overall cost of implementing global warming prevention strategies have been estimated in the 40 trillion dollar range... in the short term. That's a lot of financial inertia to shift around.

I will leave the list of recent examples as an exercise for the reader.

Re:Not a new warning

[Abcd1234]

Nah... We the poor will use the same thing that we have used since the beginning of time... Our feet, or our boats to get where we need to.

And go where? Do you understand how difficult it is to deal with millions of displaced, starving refugees? What, you think they just wander over into the next nation and set up shop? Seriously, how naive are you, exactly? All over the world there are examples of displaced populations (Africa is a great place to start looking) and the hardships they've endured, yet you apparently haven't learned from any of those lessons.

Re:Not a new warning

[jmyers]

I will take my chances with surviving climate change over surviving increased government. I think history has proven that oppressive government is the biggest threat to humans.

Re:Not a new warning

[phantomfive]

One thing that you rarely hear mentioned in the climate debate is that all those things are happening anyway. At best we can only slow the process down somewhat. No matter what we do, coastal areas will be flooded and fall into the sea, droughts will displace others, crop and grazing land will be destroyed. These are all processes that happen without global warming. We are going to have to adapt to them no matter what.

The unknown in the global climate system is how much CO2 is affecting things. We have estimates, but the true, hard cold fact is we don't know. There are no good peer reviewed papers that claim to know how much of the current warming is caused by CO2. Also, it is unknown what the precise effect of global warming would be. It is true that some climate models predict less rain in areas of the southwest US and other areas, but even the IPCC report asserts they are not reliable on a less than continental scale. There is some evidence that global warming could turn the Sahara green. In addition, there is strong experimental evidence that a doubling of CO2 would improve crop productivity, helping even the subsistence farmers.

Re:Not a new warning

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, we have, although the evolutionary breakthrough that allows us to live in all of those places is our overdeveloped noggin, which gives us the ability to create and use fire and airconditioning.

Other animals generally don't have that evolutionary feature, so either they're all going to have to smarten up, or we're looking at some massive population changes as some survive, some adapt, and some fail, and then those that survived or adapted then survive, adapt, or fail to an environment based upon those who failed, and so on, and so forth, until we have something as close to equilibrium as we ever get with evolution.

The major thing we should probably do now is make use of that overdeveloped evolutionary feature of ours and see if we can do something about the damage, because our economy and our eco-environment probably cannot easily deal with the massive changes that are inevitable if we don't.

Re:Not a new warning

[feepness]

But the climate change is inevtiable and has been occurring since the start of time. It is the nature of animals that they must adapt, ourselves no less.

This isn't a static sterile little spaceship we're riding on. It's been covered with ice before. It's been covered with jungle before. We need to not dig in our heels everytime the planet goes through natural changes.

Re:Not a new warning

[sorak]

The decided that "Global Warming" changed to "Global Climate Change" you know in case it started cooling. They should just change it to "Global scary thing that affects everything you do and you need to give us money to protect you from it."

Right, because it is soooo much better to form an opinion based on little knowledge and then fight to keep from changing it based on any new information.

Re:Not a new warning

[Anonymous Coward]

wrong. And statements like yours are the reason why denialists are considered stupid in general.

The point is that the warming of the Earth won't just warm up the air a degree and melt a little ice in the arctic. If that were it, who cares? The problem is that all weather systems will be affected. So yes, some areas could cool off, and other areas could warm up. But also, you could get greater temperature extremes, ie hotter summers and colder winters. Or you could get greater extremes of precipitation, ie tons of rain at the beginning of summer followed by several months of drought.

So warming isn't the only problem. It's changing weather too.

Is that really that hard to understand?

I respect people who are skeptical of science, think critically about it, and are willing to look at both sides of a debate. You sir, are one of those people that has an opinion, but doesn't know what the debate is even about.

Re:Not a new warning

[Rufty]

Unfortunately, it's not a choice. We're going to get increased government *and* climate change. (See, I get really cynical when I don't get my coffee. Oh, wait...)

Re:Not a new warning

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey genius, acidification of the oceans is not technically a change in *climate*. I see what you mean though, they were able to increase the "truthiness" factor by being more generic; which a likely future Noble-prize-winner (in a non-scientific disclipline) such as yourself can clearly appreciate.

Re:Not a new warning

[Grishnakh]

I imagine that a big problem is the melting of the ice caps, and resultant rise in sea levels. Since a huge portion of the Earth's population lives at sea level, near seashores (remember how bad the tsunami of 2004 was?), and so much human settlement is concentrated in these areas, even a small rise in sea levels will cause massive devastation, and displacement of these populations.

A 10% improvement in crop productivity or whatever isn't going to be much of a payback for a couple billion people having to pick up and move somewhere. Besides, even if the crops grow better, a warmer earth probably will mean more insects to eat those crops before the people can harvest them. As for turning the Sahara green, it would probably take millenia for the Sahara to be turned into fertile farmland, since it's currently all sandy desert. Many cycles of plants growing, dying, and decaying back into the soil would have to happen before you can grow stuff that people want to eat.

The fundamental problem with this whole "humans will have to adapt" idea is that there's simply far too many humans now. Back when there were a few hundred thousand humans total, or maybe a few million, and we were all hunter-gatherers living in caves or trees or whatever, packing up and moving when conditions changed wasn't a big deal. There were plenty of places to go, and not a lot of other humans to compete against. Now we live in permanent buildings and have huge populations that have no idea how to make their own food because we've evolved specialization of labor. Our society isn't capable of adapting quickly to massive change; instead, panic and chaos will ensue, and billions will die as society resets itself.

Re:Not a new warning

[Burnhard]

Heat waves will kill some, cold snaps will kill others. Flooded coastal areas will displace some, while droughts and torrential rains will displace others.

So what's new?

Meanwhile, crop and grazing land will be destroyed so that those who do adapt to the changes run the risk of starvation.

I don't think so, no. Actually increasing CO2 causes plants to grow more vigorously. The problem with the food supply at the moment is the turning over of huge tracts of land for growing bio-fuels. This "energy security" measure has had precisely the effects you imagine above.

But, eh, fuck them, right?

The problem here is simply that any and every weather "event" or micro-climate change is attributed to man-made CO2. It's a kind of group think insanity that completely ignores the large natural variations in the system we and our ancestors have been living with for hundreds of millions of years. After viewing the antarctic and greenland core data, showing huge variations over the last 10,000 years, including periods warmer than today, with rapid warmings and coolings, I think a policy of adaptation is probably the only rational option.

Re:Not a new warning

[Grishnakh]

We have no choice; we simply cannot adapt, because there are too many of us. The only reason we've achieved such huge population levels is because of the invention of agriculture, and that requires a stable climate. To be adaptable, we have to go back to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, which means that only a few hundred thousand humans can be allowed to survive, as that's all the planet will support that way.

There's so many of us, living in permanent settlements on seashores at sea level, that any change is going to be disastrous. Reducing (or at least stabilizing, as it's growing exponentially) our population would help a lot, but that's impossible, because most humans feel it's their god-given right to have 19 kids per couple. Consequently, the global population has nearly doubled in my own lifetime, and is rising exponentially. There's simply no way for a human population of 15 billion to cope effectively with this kind of climate change; it's going to be very ugly, with billions upon billions of deaths.

Re:Not a new warning

[phantomfive]

I imagine that a big problem is the melting of the ice caps, and resultant rise in sea levels

The ice caps melting will have little impact, because they are largely already floating on the water. As an example, look at this graph to see that the antarctic ice coverage changes as much as 15 million square kilometers every year, without particularly changing sea levels.

The IPCC predicts that sea levels will continue rising at around 3 millimeters a year, which can sound a little worrysome when you add it up, but this speed is slower than geological processes happening: ie, continental drift moves faster than that, so either way it is something we will have to worry about, as we do now.

A 10% improvement in crop productivity or whatever isn't going to be much of a payback for a couple billion people having to pick up and move somewhere. Besides, even if the crops grow better, a warmer earth probably will mean more insects to eat those crops before the people can harvest them

This is all speculation. Maybe a warmer earth will cause more rainfall in the Owens Valley, opening up millions of acres to be farmed. Also, I don't think anyone is estimating that billions of people will be displaced.

The fundamental problem with this whole "humans will have to adapt" idea is that there's simply far too many humans now.

If so, then we are in trouble because we will have to adapt regardless of what the effects of CO2 on the environment are.

Re:Not a new warning

[khallow]

So... what? Is there any evidence that global warming (or whatever it'll be called a few decades from now) will matter to us? It's a weak argument to claim that we could get all sorts of bad weather that even under normal conditions we would get anyway though perhaps not as frequently.

Re:Not a new warning

[FriendlyPrimate]

You do realize that the phrase "climate change" was invented by the Republican pollster Frank Luntz when he discovered that focus groups found the phrase "global warming" too scary, right? I just happened to stick in the scientific community since "climate change" is in fact a more-accurate description. But it wasn't the "liberals" or the "liberal media" that invented this phrase.

Re:Not a new warning

[Jeremy Erwin]

So, if temperatures remain relatively constant (within, say, 4 degrees centigrade) but widespread drought kills off a few hundred species, not to mention agriculture, it's nothing to worry about?

Re:Not a new warning

[I_Human]

"No, they changed "global warming" to "climate change" because idiots like you thought "global warming" meant that every single point on the planet would monotonically increase year-over-year, and to a lesser extent because "climate change" is more accurate anyway because the increase in carbon dioxide has other effects too, such as ocean acidification. Unfortunately, they failed to consider that idiots like you would think this is more evidence of a massive global conspiracy to steal your freedom and monies." This guy was being sarcastic? Because he is absolutely correct.

Re:Not a new warning

[I_Human]

Yes, there is plenty of evidence it will matter to us. Sea level rise will cause displacement of coastal regions. Sea life will be screwed. More of Australia will be made uninhabitable. Here is a video of what will happen to the Ocean in a 2*C warmer world: http://www.wired.com/video/latest-videos/latest/1815816633/oceans-in-a-2c-warmer-world/57194711001

Re:Not a new warning

[Jeremy Erwin]

One possible solution to climate change is to scrap outdated, racist, and downright xenophobic immigration rules. The border should be open, and voting rights extended to all residents.

Re:Not a new warning

[jo_ham]

Yes, but what about the food we eat and the air we breathe?

We may be able to use tools to survive in areas that would otherwise be outside of our survivable range, but we may end up in a situation where we just don't have enough arable land to grow food to sustain the population, or increased ocean acidity could affect the balance of O2 in the atmosphere due to sub-obtimal growth conditions for photosynthetic microorganisms, or affect the fresh water supply as rainfall patterns change drastically.

I'm not saying these things will happen, but we have proved on a couple of occasions that we can sustain some humans for some time in a hermetically sealed bubble with self sustaining water, oxygen, energy and so on, but not indefinitely. We, as a species, are *totally reliant* on the Earth's ecosystem as a whole to survive. We are adapted to live in it and right now we cannot survive as a species without it, even if we pack up a ton of biodomes and fire them off to mars (even with pauly shore excluded).

Re:Not a new warning

[I_Human]

The problem right now at least for plant and animal life is the rate of climate change is drastically more rapid than ever before. This is why we need to work on more carbon neutral solutions to produce energy.

Re:Not a new warning

[I_Human]

The only period warmer than today was the medieval warm period - which was regional to Europe only. Evidence points to the world mean temperature at that time lower than today.

Re:Not a new warning

[MaWeiTao]

Does anyone even know what kind of weather climate change is going to bring us? What if it brings a utopia for humanity? Why is warmer weather inherently bad and colder inherently good? From my personal experience I'd say the reverse is true. You don't see many people traveling north into Canada in the dead of winter.

Every single time climate change is mentioned its in the context that it is going to bring doom to us all. The change is never subtle. The change certainly is never, ever positive. It's always a cataclysmic world-shattering event. And it's always just around the corner but never actually arrives.

The big irony here is that there is archeological evidence that human thrived when the climate was notably warmer than it is now. Remains of human habitation have been found under receding glaciers in Europe. Humans thrived on the islands of Japan when the climate was warmer and it was believed the seas were several feet higher than they are today. The population declined when the climate cooled. This is a pattern that has been repeated throughout history.

And although we've read that this decade has seen cooling, somehow, just in time for Copenhagen we hear that the climate has, in fact, been warming. The report isn't even out yet, it's due next year, but some people decided to release preliminary findings in order to make an impact at Copenhagen. So we keep hearing this parroted in the news. But there has been unusually early snowfall across the US, Europe and other parts of the world and the media is dead silent about it. Early last year Thailand experienced the first snowfall on record. Beijing has had unusually early snowfalls in recent years as well, along with colder than normal temperatures. Does anyone remember when it snowed in Baghdad a couple of years ago? Of course not. Do a search and you'll uncover these stories, but they'll all be posted on foreign news sites.

It's like there's a concerted effort to push this notion of man-made global warming/climate change. All climate change is somehow inherently bad, like the climate is supposed to be static. How am I supposed to take any of this seriously when the basics defy logic. It seems like there is an effort to force us all to change our way of life. Hell, I read a freaking article this morning that suggested that having pets is contributing towards climate change!

And there's always something threatening our crops. This is how nature works. Sometimes its unfortunate for us especially now that there are so many more people dependent on humans keeping our environment stable. Unfortunately for us it's always going to change, whether we like it or not. I suppose eventually some idiots will decide we should be manipulating our climate to meet some arbitrary ideal and we'll end up causing an unbelievable amount of damage.

Re:Not a new warning

[Burnhard]

Given that both Greenland and Antarctica aren't in Europe, I think your assertion is wrong. Going from NOAA ice-core data, which you can see nicely animated and illustrated here, some eye-brows should be raised at claims of unprecedented warming.

Re:Not a new warning

[Abcd1234]

One possible solution to climate change is to scrap outdated, racist, and downright xenophobic immigration rules. The border should be open, and voting rights extended to all residents.

Yes, because the sole problem with millions of destitute refugees rushing into neighbouring regions is one of xenophobia...

Re:Not a new warning

[Abcd1234]

I will take my chances with surviving climate change over surviving increased government.

Of course *you* will. Like me, you're almost certainly a fat, happy westerner who lives in gross luxury compared to most of the world. You can *easily* adapt to any drastic changes at the hands of global warming, while comforted by your wonderful sense of ideological purity and moral superiority.

OTOH, a subsistence farmer in India might have a slightly different perspective on the topic. But, like I said before, fuck 'em, right?

Re:Not a new warning

[Jeremy Erwin]

Adapt or die.

Re:Not a new warning

[Anonymous Coward]

"The decided that "Global Warming" changed to "Global Climate Change" you know in case it started cooling."

Incorrect.
The term "climate change" was promoted by republican PR guru Frank Luntz, payed by those in power who gain from denying the problem of global warming. He admitted as much in an interview on PBS Frontline ("Hot Politics"), saying that he has since changed his mind, but that "it was great language".

Scientifically the terms "climate change" and "global warming" are not mutually exclusive: the problem with global warming is precisely that it causes the climate to change globally, it does not mean that it just gets warmer everywhere.

Re:Not a new warning

[md65536]

> "Global scary thing that affects everything you do and you need to give us money to protect you from it."

There is nothing to fear except the fear of giving money.

Re:Not a new warning

[Ironsides]

Then, the question becomes, is the planet warming actually a bad thing? To cite one thing you mention, arable land, this would actually increase in a warmer world. Russia and Canada warming up would open up a very large chunk of arable land to farming or for farming more than one crop per year. Many people tend to say climate change will be bad, but never mention any benefits or to look at the end balance of good and bad.

Re:Not a new warning

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually global warming is an accurate description if you concentrate on the global aspect. Over all the planet is retaining more energy and so is warmer on average despite some areas not warming as much as others.

Re:Not a new warning

[khallow]

Where's the evidence?

Re:Not a new warning

[ArsonSmith]

You seem to falsely imply that republicans are not liberals or part of the progressive movement.

Re:Not a new warning

[ArsonSmith]

or doctor data and form an opinion off of it that best gets you more funding. I suppose that's the way science is done these days. Remember when there was the romantic idea that science was the pursuit of knowledge and not just more government funding.

Re:Not a new warning

[ArsonSmith]

There is nothing to fear except the fear of being forced to give money.

FTFY

Re:Not a new warning

[riverat1]

Your NOAA ice core data graphs are misleading because the are for one ice core in central Greenland. I saw them first over at foresight.org There is an ice core from the Antarctic Peninsula that shows colder than normal during the same time your graphs show the MWP. Don't you think you want to use the data from more than one ice core to get a more comprehensive global picture?

Re:Not a new warning

[I_Human]

If you don't understand why destroying ecosystems in the oceans that we depend on will matter to us then I believe you are beyond my help.

Re:Not a new warning

[khallow]

If you don't understand why destroying ecosystems in the oceans that we depend on will matter to us then I believe you are beyond my help.

It's your opinion that we are "destroying ecosystems in the oceans". What's the evidence for the destruction?

Re:Not a new warning

[The_Quinn]

Actually, changing from "global warming" to "climate change" has the nice advantage that it applies no matter what:

• regardless of what aspect of the climate is changing
• whether the changed aspect is man-made or not
• whether the changed aspect is something to worry about or not
• whether the changed aspect is beneficial or not.

Just spread fear about change as such, and the scared sheep will run.

Re:Not a new warning

[The_Quinn]

Even if your weather-control dreams came true - if you could bring the state of the environment into your perfect vision of a never-changing climate utopia ...

Even then...

The "poor who lack the means" will still die. Your grandiose visions of utopian climate equilibrium will not cause the poor to ascend into carefree joy.

What the poor need is not a never-changing climate (which has never existed and never will exist) - what they need is the freedom to pursue profit, and a philosophy that teaches them how to do it.

It wasn't an unchanging climate that led to the wealth of the West, and it is not a changing climate that prevents poor countries from becoming wealthy.

And it is wealth that poor countries need to deal with all of life's issues. If you really give a damn about poor people in poor countries, you should be advocating for capitalism and its' life-giving benefits.

now it's serious

[rgravina]

OK Earth, you've threated my coffee supply. Now I'm listening!

This is an outrage!

[PakProtector]

That's it. I didn't really care about climate change before, and whether or not it was anthropogenic, but THIS MUST END NOW!

WE MUST SAVE THE COFFEE! SAVE THE COFFEE!

Finally...

[glgraca]

man will have a true incentive que stop polluting.

There's a joke in Brazil about a lion that fled the zoo and ended up in a government building. Each day he would eat a civil servant. He was doing very well, until one day he ate the lady in charge of making coffee. Then people finally noticed something bad had happened.

Re:Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad you got it. Timothy stepped out of character and softened my submitted story title of Coffee Threatened. Not sure why, really, since Davis is definitely pointing out this has implications for farmed coffee.

But yeah, humour was deliberate. I completely forgot mentioning climate change on /. is like mentioning creationism. I thought we'd have a bit more fun with this one.

Adaption

[QuoteMstr]

As Coffea arabica has shown us, in the age of man, being delicious is a very powerful adaption.

Re:Adaption

[Abcd1234]

Absolutely. It's not unlike the modern banana monoculture. As a species, the modern banana has been *very* successful, thanks to it being desirable to humans.

But monocultures are also very dangerous. By minimizing genetic variation in a population, the species becomes extremely susceptible to new types of disease, fungus, and so forth. And again, bananas teach us much, here, as there's great fear that the modern banana could end up being wiped out by disease.

Thus, protecting these heirloom species is extremely important, as it provides a pool of genetic diversity is present in the wild, providing some protection against the dangers of monoculture.

Re:Adaption

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa....hold on; are implying the modern banana has been adapted by man? What about Kirk Cameron's view that bananas are proof of an intelligent designer?

Re:Adaption

[jfengel]

Very much so. Michael Pollan's book "Botany of Desire" is about the way four plants' usefulness has been a great advantage to the plant. Not just deliciousness (apples and potatoes) but also attractiveness (tulips) and, uh... cannabis.

Very good read.

http://www.amazon.com/Botany-Desire-Plants-Eye-View-World/dp/0375501290#reader_0375501290

Re:Adaption

[Anonymous Coward]

Most bananas are actually quite small and not so sweet. and yes the 'dessert' banana is a proof of intelligent design, the designer(s) is of course some humans...

Re:Adaption

[QuoteMstr]

The banana went extinct 60 years ago.

No, really. Well, the best cultivar, the Gros Michel, anyway. It was a hugely profitable worldwide monoculture that was easy prey for the panama disease. The banana we eat today is the less tasty, more easily bruised Cavendish variety.

And now, panama disease has mutated and is threatening our Cavendish monoculture.

We never do learn our lessons, I suppose.

Re:Adaption

[Anomalyst]

As a species, the modern banana has been *very* successful

You realize that the yellow sweet fruit (technically a "berry") most people think of as the (current) modern banana are all clones? ahref=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/07/0726_wirebanana.htmlrel=url2html-18379http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/07/0726_wirebanana.html>
"all the minor varieties of cultivated banana are essentially sterile, genetically uniform clones" Without human intervention this "success" will die in a single banana generation. Not only that, this is not the first clone iteration. Your parents probably remember a better banana in the sixties, it was susceptible to a fungus and supplanted by the current, inferior, product (tried to find the citation, but no luck, perhaps someone with superior search-fu can supplement).

Re:Adaption

[maxume]

The banana monoculture is of a cultivar, there is plenty of variety left in the species.

The big banana companies have breeding plantations where they work on replacement varieties.

Re:Adaption

[khallow]

We never do learn our lessons, I suppose.

When someone wants to turn some human activity into a little morality play, they should consider why people keep doing the same thing over and over again. The most common reason is because it works and yields some desired benefit. For example, growing bananas from a single cloned plant. People want bananas, bananas are grown, and then people get bananas. Sure there are problems like excessive pesticide/fungicide use. But it's a system that works despite a number of factors which you'd think would break it. Maybe you could learn something from this. Maybe you don't understand things as well as you think you do?

Re:Adaption

[Abcd1234]

When someone wants to turn some human activity into a little morality play, they should consider why people keep doing the same thing over and over again. The most common reason is because it works and yields some desired benefit.

And humans are extremely short-sighted and don't consider the long-term consequences of their actions.

For example, as humans, we have, time and time again, resorted to burning things so that we might harness the released energy. And that works great, until millions of people start developing COPD thanks to a lack of emissions regulations.

But we keep doing it, so it *must* be good, right?

Re:Adaption

[khallow]

And that works great, until millions of people start developing COPD thanks to a lack of emissions regulations.

The developed world has since fixed that. What sort of regulations do you think will fix the fact that the most common and popular variety of banana came from a single plant?

But we keep doing it, so it *must* be good, right?

No we don't.

Re:Adaption

[Abcd1234]

The developed world has since fixed that.

Through evil government intervention, sure. But your claim was that, if humans keep doing something, it must be good. Humans keep burning fossil fuels without considering the consequences (it's not as if China couldn't learn from, say, LA's experiences, but they don't). So by your logic, it must be just fine.

What sort of regulations do you think will fix the fact that the most common and popular variety of banana came from a single plant?

Who said anything about regulations? My point was simply to refute your claim: That humans doing something over and over means it must be good.

Hell, by your definition, war must be fantastic, not to mention murder, rape, theft, etc.

Re:Adaption

[arbitraryaardvark]

another example is the potato. like bananas, potatoes are usually cloned from each other rather than grown from seed.
sometime around 1850, a potato blight hit ireland. since the potatoes were mostly clones of each other, they were all susceptible to the blight.
the result was a famine, and the result of that is that 1/2 of americans today are of irish descent.
has coffee been dna sequenced yet?

Re:Adaption

[khallow]

My point was simply to refute your claim: That humans doing something over and over means it must be good.

Huh, not a very good attempt there with "evil government intervention".

Hell, by your definition, war must be fantastic, not to mention murder, rape, theft, etc.

Much better. Though it's a bit strained to compare banana growing to that fantastic list.

Re:Adaption

[khallow]

My point was simply to refute your claim: That humans doing something over and over means it must be good.

I didn't say it had to be good. I said the "most common reason" something was done was because it worked.

Re:Adaption

[drinkypoo]

The banana went extinct 60 years ago. No, really. Well, the best cultivar, the Gros Michel, anyway.

You mean, the best-shipping tasty cultivar. Because there are zillions of kinds of bananas, many of which are tastier than what we get around the world today. The bananas we're eating were chosen for seedlessness and shipping over taste, just like practically everything else you will ever see in your grocery store.

"First they ignore you, then..."

[BobMcD]

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they hack your email servers, then you threaten their coffee supply and they FREAKING SURRENDER."

/whiteflag

Re:"First they ignore you, then..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, when you disagree with the canary in the coal mine, you simply beat the canary down until it's more agreeable to your liking... when it finally kicks the bucket you say, well it's the will of *insert deity here*.

Either your with us or against us and the canaries ain't with us! They're with the terrorists!

It must be Juan Valdez

[Anonymous Coward]

and his green house gas emitting mule, Conchita. Put a cork in it, dude!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Valdez

Watch out for the USA, Cameroon!

[fantomas]

"'almost three-quarters of the world's wild coffee species are threatened"

Finally, American politicians might take notice of climate change and seriously engage with the issue!

Oh wait, when their access to oil was threatened they just invaded an oil producing country. Err, watch out Cameroon.... ;-)

Re:Watch out for the USA, Cameroon!

[CrimsonAvenger]

Oh wait, when their access to oil was threatened they just invaded an oil producing country.

Someday, the people who say this are going to learn how stupid it is.

The USA has never imported oil from Iraq. Not now, not when Saddam was in charge, not before that.

The USA imports less than 10% of its oil from the Middle East. The largest source of imported oil in the USA is that internationally known terrorist hotspot Canada...

Re:Watch out for the USA, Cameroon!

[Red Flayer]

The USA has never imported oil from Iraq. Not now, not when Saddam was in charge, not before that.

It's not about US-consumed oil.

It's about US (and British!) companies getting the oil to enrich themselves, their boards, and associated politicos (Cheney, et al).

Re:Watch out for the USA, Cameroon!

[xaxa]

Increasing the world supply of oil decreases the global price of oil. Since the USA is a net importer, that benefits the USA.

Re:Watch out for the USA, Cameroon!

[phantomfive]

Strange you should mention that. I had a friend who, around the time we invaded Iraq, thought it made sense to invade if we got lower gas prices. Then after the invasion gas prices went up. She was really upset after that and thought the invasion was a waste.

You'll have to look a little deeper to find the true reason we invaded Iraq (hint: it wasn't exactly a secret).

Re:Watch out for the USA, Cameroon!

[Anonymous Coward]

Increasing the world supply of oil decreases the global price of oil. Since the USA is a net importer, that benefits the USA.

Yeah, except the plans expected Saddam to destroy the oilfields even more completely than he did. And Iraq was exporting millions of barrels a year already under the absurdly corrupt Oil For Food program...

Re:Watch out for the USA, Cameroon!

[JSBiff]

Wait, explain to me again how the US comes out *ahead* by spending a Billion dollars a day in Iraq, instead of just paying higher oil prices? People have been beating this horse about the war in Iraq being 'blood for oil' ever since the beginning. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the given reasons for invading Iraq were right (the link between Saddam and Al Qaeda have, afaik, never been shown to have any evidence, although he did have some link to terrorism, in general, [it has been reported that he did financially reward the families of suicide bombers in Palestine]), and as we learned after the war was over, there weren't any WMDs left in Iraq.

But, I fail to see any real evidence this war was ever about oil, except in the most tenuous sense (that, possibly, by putting in a stable, democratic government in Iraq which was 'friendly' with the West, it might help make the entire region more democratic, and as a secondary result, someday help make regional politics in the Middle East more conducive to trade on more favorable terms).

Re:Watch out for the USA, Cameroon!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you just hate it when someone says something that's almost certainly wrong, and then someone else responds with an even stupider retort?

It's even worse when the original comment may well have been an attempt at humor.

FWIW, regardless of the US's reasons for invading Iraq, the argument "One of the reasons that they invaded Iraq cannot have been because Iraq was a producer of a fungible commodity, given the US never bought any of that fungible commodity from Iraq" is clearly wrong.

And for what else it's worth, to anyone who wants a real response to the notion that the Bush administration invaded Iraq over oil: the Bush administration's reasons for invading Iraq are largely a matter of pride, political expediency, and neo-conservative modern imperalism, all of which are well documented. The evidence, which you can easily look up, for each of these are in order: Bush's comments about Saddam's attmepts to attack his father, the attempts by the Bush administration to link Iraq to 9/11, and the known and well documented views of most major Bush administration officials, as stated by PNAC and others connected to and endorsed by those self same members.

Slow Down Cowboy!

Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 1 hour, 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment

Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.
Reply to: Re:Watch out for the USA, Cameroon!

*
Re:Watch out for the USA, Cameroon! (Score:4, Informative)
by CrimsonAvenger (580665) Friend of a Friend on 2009-12-22 11:08 (#30524518)

Oh wait, when their access to oil was threatened they just invaded an oil producing country.

Someday, the people who say this are going to learn how stupid it is.

The USA has never imported oil from Iraq. Not now, not when Saddam was in charge, not before that.

The USA imports less than 10% of its oil from the Middle East. The largest source of imported oil in the USA is that internationally known terrorist hotspot Canada...

Reply to This

Health care industry stocks explode as bill progresses

The President claims Democrats "stood up to special interests," as they get very rich on "reform."

Glenn Greenwald

(updated below - Update II)

The Senate passed its health care bill "by standing up to the special interests who prevented reform for decades and who are furiously lobbying against it now" -- Barack Obama, December 21, 2009.

"'Healthcare shares rose on Monday as a bill to reform healthcare passed the first critical test in the Senate . . . Shares of Cigna rose 5.3 percent to $37.69. Shares of Aetna Inc rose 5.84 percent to $34.41. Humana Inc rose 3.79 percent to $45.17 and United Health Group Inc rose 5 percent to $33.14. Shares of Wellpoint Inc rose 3.8 percent to $60.51" -- Reuters, yesterday, with this ironic headline: "Healthcare shares rise as reform bill progresses".

"Investors are seeing the Senate's version of health care reform as a massive public subsidy for insurance companies -- and as a result, are sending the sector's stock prices shooting up, up, up. . . . Stripped of a government-run insurance plan, the bill would give tens of millions of Americans no option but to start paying hefty premiums to private companies.

The rise in stock prices has been particularly striking in the period since Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said on October 27 that he would filibuster a Senate health care reform bill if it included a public option . . . Here's a quick breakdown of major health insurance company stock performance from Oct. 27 to Friday's market close:

* Coventry Health Care, Inc. is up 31.6 percent;

* CI

Re:Watch out for the USA, Cameroon!

[xaxa]

Sorry, I should have said my reply shouldn't be taken in context.

I meant only that the oil market is global, so it doesn't matter that the USA imports from Canada.

Re:Watch out for the USA, Cameroon!

[CheshireCatCO]

Leaving aside the broader question, about which I really don't want to speculate, period, the DOE says you're wrong in your data:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
and http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

The US does, in fact (and long has) important oil from Iraq and we get well over 10% of our oil from the Gulf/Middle East at ~15%, approximately what we get from Canada. Which is, to be fair to you, the largest source of US oil.

Re:Watch out for the USA, Cameroon!

[jwhitener]

Saying "less than 10%" is a little misleading when considering the impact that the middle east can have on our oil.

40% of our oil comes from OPEC, and OPEC is largely controlled by Middle Eastern countries. Without a strong presence in the Middle East (keeping it relatively stable, keeping as many of its countries favorable with us as we can, etc..), we lose a lot of influence over OPEC.

OPEC could literally destroy our economy overnight if it wanted to.

Re:Watch out for the USA, Cameroon!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are such a wack job. Are you being serious? You site some wacked out trufer web site and then the notoriously lame Wikipedia - which if I'm not mistaken most Colleges wont even accept Wikipedia as a source to reference (at least my college teachers wont!). I gotta ask - do you light candles to on your shrine to Obama before you pleasure yourself to his image??

Re:Watch out for the USA, Cameroon!

[phantomfive]

Are you being serious?

Yes, in fact I am.

You site some wacked out trufer web site

You didn't read it. It is the website of one of the most influential think tanks of the first half of the decade. The men who worked at that think tank were directly responsible for the attack on Iraq: as the wikipedia link mentions, many of them, including Donald Rumsfeld, joined the Bush administration.

which if I'm not mistaken most Colleges wont even accept Wikipedia as a source to reference

Because they are trying to teach you how to do research. Something that, if you had learned how to do, you would have found out exactly what I am telling you.

at least my college teachers wont

I truly hope they don't accept your spelling either.

I gotta ask - do you light candles to on your shrine to Obama before you pleasure yourself to his image??

Lay off the weed, dude. It's affecting you. That is, I hope you're not naturally this annoying.

They're recruiting

[ZeroExistenZ]

Conserving the genetic diversity within this genus has implications for the sustainability of our daily cup

... geeks for the anti-global-warming ring:

Happy day, geek walking up to coffee machine to read note: "Please be informed, due to potential global warming, there is no more coffee, EVER.".

Geek falls on his knees to the floor, with his dilbert printed mug explodes in chards upon impact on the same floor, with a sharp sound as the geek releases a load screaming while shaking his fist at the heavens:
"OMG NOT MY COFFEE! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! ID ANYTHING FOR COFFEE! IF I ONLY SAW THIS ONE COMING! I was soo proud, thinking I could bend nature, the fool I have been", while he rests his face, sobbing, in his hands in the mids of his fallen empire of productivity, the once caffeinated multitasking geek, he.

That very deperate moment the globalwarming-genie pops in with a puff of black CO2-rich smoke:
"There is a way, my good brave intellectual... But it will be a challenging quest...", while the disoriented geek looks up, licking his thinkgeek caffeine soapbar, bubbling a partial disoriented yet interested:
"Wut?"

Re:They're recruiting

[zapakh]

"There is a way, my good brave intellectual... But it will be a challenging quest...", while the disoriented geek looks up, licking his thinkgeek caffeine soapbar, bubbling a partial disoriented yet interested: "Wut?"

You mean that caffeinated bar was SOAP?

ha.

[girlintraining]

Switch to tea. Sorted.

Re:ha.

[troll8901]

But it isn't the same taste or smell. (Even if it gives me the same boost in alertness.)

There's something peculiar about men ... they love their sliced bread and coffee to death, even when there's so many other alternatives.

Men are strange, aren't they?

Re:ha.

[girlintraining]

Men are strange, aren't they?

*sniffs* Yes, yes you are.

Re:ha.

[Titan1080]

I like both tea and coffee but tea is easier to make and lasts me longer. I can brew a gallon of tea and it lasts me a 2 or 3 days. Coffee has to be brewed every morning and tastes like crap if the pot is more than a few hours old.

Re:ha.

[dunkelfalke]

But it isn't the same taste or smell.

The more reason to switch. Coffee smells and tastes awful.

There's something peculiar about men ... they love their sliced bread and coffee to death, even when there's so many other alternatives.

Do not make generalisations. I hate coffee.

Re:ha.

[slim]

About all they have in common is caffeine, wetness and (different degrees of) hotness.

There are more things to enjoy about coffee than just these three things.

Re:ha.

[riverat1]

I imagine climate change will have some effect on tea growing as well. I guess no one has done the research yet.

I'm All Out of Mod Points, But...

[Anonymous Coward]

...slashdot doesn't have a -1 "Not Nearly as Funny as Poster Thinks It Is" modification anyway...

Re:I'm All Out of Mod Points, But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone didn't get his coffee this morning...

Horse shit

[fnj]

This is Chicken Little global warming horse shit. OK, if the climate warms up a few degrees, the latitudes where coffee is grown may conceivably shift north and south a bit. Big deal. You guys crack me up.

Re:Horse shit

[smooth wombat]

the latitudes where coffee is grown may conceivably shift north and south a bit. Big deal.

Except there's that little bit of not having the correct soil or location to plant the coffee trees. It's not just about the temperature, it's about the area itself.

There's a reason grapes aren't grown in the desert. For more information.

Then there's the matter of time. Even if you plant the seeds to grow new plants, it takes years for the trees to full develop and produce decent beans.

Re:Horse shit

[slim]

TOA refers to wild coffee. You think the wild coffee will magically migrate along with the climate patterns? Leaping over any unsuitable terrain?

Even for farmed coffee, I can foresee significant obstacles to moving production. Will there be enough land at the new latitude? Will whatever is currently grown there also be displaced? If not, where can the coffee go? Is the terrain suitable?

Re:Horse shit

[fnj]

Uh, yeah, I do think so. It's nature, ya know? There used to be vineyards in Greenland. There are still vineyards, just not there. A glacier used to cover all of New England and half of Kansas. These areas now have a rich variety of natural and cultivated vegetation.

Re:Horse shit

[mjwx]

This is Chicken Little global warming horse shit. OK, if the climate warms up a few degrees, the latitudes where coffee is grown may conceivably shift north and south a bit. Big deal. You guys crack me up.

Because its guaranteed to be linear progression of temperatures rather then a drastic shift of climate patterns. Anyone else notice Australia is having extreme highs whilst Europe is having extreme lows.

Scare tactics...

[vvaduva]

So they are running out of boogie men - now it's "you'll lose your daily caffeine." Coffee trees enjoy warm climates; what if "global warming" will BENEFIT coffee crops? Most of these guys don't know their asses from their coffee cups, how do they know how an entire species of trees will react to climate change?

That tree survived for millions of years on a planet that faced all kinds of cataclysmic events; I am sure it will be just fine, especially under the protection of mankind.

Re:Scare tactics...

[Tablizer]

That tree survived for millions of years on a planet that faced all kinds of cataclysmic events

But remember, mere surviving and being fruitful and lush are not the same thing. There's a lot of consumers, and sick, skinny trees are not going to supply them.
 

Re:Scare tactics...

[Abcd1234]

Coffee trees enjoy warm climates; what if "global warming" will BENEFIT coffee crops?

Nope, sorry. Coffee trees enjoy a very *specific* type of climate, which is why the growing regions are restricted to specific altitudes, latitudes, rainfall rates, and so forth. Change that environment significantly and the result would be very destructive.

That tree survived for millions of years on a planet that faced all kinds of cataclysmic events

In their current form? Doubtful. All plants either evolve or die off. More likely is that the tree evolved to fit a particular niche that wasn't filled by any other plant. But the current species is now very sensitive to it's growing conditions, as it's exquisitely well adapted to where it grows (as any coffee cultivator will tell you).

Of course, given enough time, species will typically evolve to new pressures (although they may just as often die out... when was the last time you saw a sabre toothed tiger?). Unless, of course, the rate of change is too drastic, and the species is unable to adapt before those pressures become overwhelming (poor poor tigers)...

Re:Scare tactics...

[vvaduva]

That's a good point, however the modern man has been drinking coffee en masse for what...a hundred or two hundred years? What's the worst that can happen? We stop drinking coffee, we sleep better, work less and are less strung out. That sounds all good to me :)

Re:Scare tactics...

[Tablizer]

we sleep better

At 2pm
   

Re:Scare tactics...

[oldhack]

Coffee is said to originate from Ethiopia/Eritrea hill country, but has been transplanted to SE Asia and Latin America among others and are adopted to their new homes with different characteristics.

We'll keep them going as climate changes - they hold too high an economic value for us.

Re:Scare tactics...

[Abcd1234]

We'll keep them going as climate changes - they hold too high an economic value for us.

You're absolutely right. We'll definitely protect the domesticated cultivars. But the article is warning about the loss of *wild* varieties. And humans won't bother protecting those as they offer no obvious economic benefit.

Re:Scare tactics...

[Mashiki]

Eh I'm a night owl anyway. My day doesn't start until 8pm.

Re:Scare tactics...

[oldhack]

And that makes this warning little more than another media grab exploiting climate change issue.

Let's put this into context. Species are evolving as the environment, including the climate, changes, and at any given time a large number of wild species are at the threat of extinction. Given that evolution is random, and that we already have several domesticated cultivars adopted to different locales, this story simply throws coffee and climate change together for attention grab.

Let's have a sense of proportion is what I am getting at. And no, I am not suggesting that you nor the researcher is blowing it out of proportion.

Re:Scare tactics...

[MobyDisk]

I agree that this article is alarmist, but your arguments are invalid.

what if "global warming" will BENEFIT coffee crops? Most of these guys don't know their asses from their coffee cups, how do they know how an entire species of trees will react to climate change?

I suspect that the Royal Botanical Gardens knows more than you do about the effect of global warming on coffee crops. Asking "how do they know" is not an argument that they do not know. It is an argument showing that you do not know.

That tree survived for millions of years on a planet that faced all kinds of cataclysmic events;

1) Not as far as we know. We have no evidence of the existence of the coffee tree before the 15th century. It might be a relatively new species.

2) Other tree species have died recently

3) Past performance is not indicative of future returns.

4) The human species is capable of some pretty catacylsmic events. Hopefully, we won't create any more of them.

Re:Scare tactics...

[russotto]

Nope, sorry. Coffee trees enjoy a very *specific* type of climate, which is why the growing regions are restricted to specific altitudes, latitudes, rainfall rates, and so forth. Change that environment significantly and the result would be very destructive.

Coffee grows in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Vietnam, Costa Rica, Mexico, Indonesia, Jamaica, Ghana, Ethiopia, and numerous other places around the world. It has its limitations; it's not going to grow in North Dakota. But it's not quite the hothouse flower you make it out to be.

Re:Scare tactics...

[Abcd1234]

Let's put this into context. Species are evolving as the environment, including the climate, changes, and at any given time a large number of wild species are at the threat of extinction. Given that evolution is random, and that we already have several domesticated cultivars adopted to different locales, this story simply throws coffee and climate change together for attention grab.

That's only true if you believe that those wild species aren't important, which is incredibly short-sighted given what we know of the dangers of genetic monocultures among our preferred crop and livestock species.

Re:Scare tactics...

[oldhack]

My man, if the climate changes as drastically as some believe, whole lot of things we care about will be affected and coffee isn't even that important, in the scale of things.

"Incredibly short-sighted?" Come on. Drop the hyperbole. I'm not even sure we are actually disagreeing here.

Re:Scare tactics...

[Abcd1234]

My man, if the climate changes as drastically as some believe, whole lot of things we care about will be affected and coffee isn't even that important, in the scale of things.

Funny you should say that, given how vital a cash crop it is in many developing nations. After all, if the wild varieties of coffee died out due to GW, and the domesticated cultivars were wiped out by disease, I suspect those people would care a whole lot as their livelihood went up in smoke.

That said, as far as concerns go, yeah, it's probably lower down on the list (below, say, the destruction of our modern day breadbasket regions). But it's certainly an interesting consequence of AGW, and might put into perspective for some the range of damage that AGW threatens to cause..

Re:Scare tactics...

[Anonymous Coward]

If coffee trees enjoyed warm climates, Florida would be full of coffee plantations.

Re:Scare tactics...

[VolcanoEspresso]

A HUGE contributor to climate change is farming of sheep and beef. New Zealand used to be covered almost entirely in rainforst. Now it is covered almost entirely in grassland for free range production of dairy, sheep & beef. People in cities don't notice this. People think of New Zealand as a stunning, 'clean, green' paradise. It used to be, before the 1800's, before the white man cleared the land. Now it is a massive freerange meat and dairy factory. People from cities think endless rolling hills filled with sheep & cows is beautiful, but it's not 'natural'. We cut down 2000 year old kauri trees and shipped them to California for flooring. Alot of farmers are climate change deniers, it's inconvenient for them to believe otherwise. I believe one of the best things we can do to postively affect the environment is to reduce meat and dairy consumption. It's also the most difficult as meat is so delicious...But it's not meat eating per se that is the problem, it's the removal of rainforests to grow the meat and dairy that is the issue. We can still eat wild goat, deer, possum etc that lives in the forest. You can see how hokey that would sound to some people which is why I believe it's our biggest challenge. Plant more native forests. Protect native forests. You need to see these forests to believe how absolutely stunning they are. I am a coffee roaster, thank you for reading this rant.

Re:Scare tactics...

[mjwx]

Coffee grows in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Vietnam, Costa Rica, Mexico, Indonesia, Jamaica, Ghana, Ethiopia, and numerous other places around the world. It has its limitations; it's not going to grow in North Dakota. But it's not quite the hothouse flower you make it out to be.

You didn't list 180 odd other nations in the world (actual number of nations differ depending on who you ask). Coffee production is very localised, it only grows in certain types of environments in Africa, America and Asia, for example you cant grow Coffee everywhere in Mexico or Indonesia only in certain areas. Compare this to Wheat or Corn which can grow in a variety of climates, for example I can grow corn in Ghana and North Dakota. Coffee plants are quite sensitive to their environments, much like grape vines.

Doesn't Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

I exploit cheap labour and don't drink wild coffee.

they got us by the BEANS!

[Phizzle]

Took them long enough, but finally this is the right Global Warming spin! General public doesn't give a rats ass about atolls, glaciers, or endangered species, but threaten the daily Cup Of Joe and the masses will rally!

Who gives a Civet shit ...

[tyroneking]

... because eventually Good Ol' Global Warming (GOGW) will devastate those tropical countries too stupid to take extreme advantage of their natural crop resources to subjugate the world - and eventually it will all be grown in England! Coffee, wine, bananas, Civets, all that 1st world cash-crop crap; hell, even cocaine! And then England can finally return to its rightful place as the oppressor of millions / billions through simple honest restriction of trade! And the US can go f**k itself! (totally unrelated of course, because the US will have all that soya crop and probably more cocaine).

Seriously for a minute, is it really in the western world's interest to stop GOGW if we get to grow coffee, wine and cocaine (and Civets) in our own back yards? I mean really.

(This post is sponsored by the Illuminati or the Boy Scouts of America)

Re:Who gives a Civet shit ...

[couchslug]

"because the US will have all that soya crop and probably more cocaine"

We can grow moobs due to soy-induced endocrine disruption while being as annoying as Billy Mays!

Re:Who gives a Civet shit ...

[tyroneking]

I think that a US filled with moobs will be not much different than now - ha ha!

Re:Who gives a Civet shit ...

[slim]

Nifty trolling. But the UK doesn't have enough land to grow enough produce to feed its current population. Without drastic population reduction (unachievable without significant economic strife) we need imports.

Re:Who gives a Civet shit ...

[tyroneking]

Well if you're going to bring common sense in to it all then I think we _can_ feed ourselves, if we focus on community supported agriculture, reduce the consumption of meat and reduce waste and more sustainable agriculture - I think we could even raise the amount of people supported by a hectre of crop land by maybe 1/8 th with just a change in some agro methods - and maybe replacing 50% of the land resources devoted to farm animals would also increase arable yields
of course my original point would be that we could grow cash crops (and Civets :) and that has nothing to do with feeding ourselves and lot more to do with making lots of dirty money (mainly from wine and cocaine)
not as if we don't import about 40% of our food anyway so that really was not the point

Here, have a slogan...

[TrickFred]

Go Green, Save The Bean!

Irony

[Tablizer]

So now Glenn Beck will be sleepy and mellow when he rants about "The Global Warming Hoax".

Re:Irony

[maxume]

I'm pretty sure he is high on life.

It's obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

If something is happening to the environment, you MUST invoke climate change. It's a rule.

If the local population strips the island of trees and all the soil is washed into the ocean, YOU MUST INVOKE CLIMATE CHANGE. It's not their fault, it's the fault of the rich fat cat Americans who cause climate change. If we just get all the nasty carbon dioxide pollution out of the atmosphere, all our problems will disappear. It's true, within a very few years, we won't be worrying about climate change any more*.

I think it's some kind of magic formula or something ... or maybe an arcane rite ... I have no clue why, but climate change must be invoked.

*because all the plants will be dead, followed shortly after by most of us, but that's good because we will no longer be worrying about climate change.

Next on the shortage list...

[Tablizer]

Pizza and Mt. Dew

No cause for alarm

[Shivetya]

First off this quote is key

The discoveries showed how little of the world's plant species had been documented, the researchers said.

In other words, they are extrapolating, or in layman's terms pulling numbers of out their ass while capitalizing on the global warming scare which they still believe the public to have fully bought.

Second it is about "wild" plants, meaning not what you tend to find at your supermarket or local bistro.

whats next? Threaten beer?

Re:No cause for alarm

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA:

Professor Hopper said that, around the globe, about 2,000 species were described for the first time each year, adding that it was "vital" that these areas of botanical sciences were adequately funded and supported.

Climate change, is there anything it can't do?

Re:No cause for alarm

[mhelander]

What I find really intriguing is that, when read carefully, TFA seems to subtly signal a different attitude towards climate change compared to the impression I got from most of the press before COP15 and Climategate: one towards adapting to inevitable changes rather than trying to prevent them.

The article doesn't really suggest that we try to stop climate change to save coffee plantations: It notes that coffee plantations are sensitive to climate change, and thus in the interest of being able to adapt to such change, we should be interested in keeping the natural genetic diversity in the wild coffee gene pool around. To do that, we may want to focus on good old environmental policies about not cutting down said wild coffee plants, more so than trying to save them by stopping the climate from changing. (Because if we could do that, the argument for keeping genetic diversity around as a way of dealing with that change would become invalid - preservation of genetic diversity would still have many excellent supporting arguments, but not the particular one lifted in TFA).

If we see a policy change from trying to prevent change towards trying to adapt to it, I would see that as a strong vindication for the people I have seen advocating this very position for years in different Internet forums, but who have been consistently branded as "deniers" by the more prevention oriented crowd and lumped together with the obvious madhats from their opposition.

Making good coffee

[handy_vandal]

Personally though I've got this weird handicap in that I can't seem to make good coffee if my life depended on it.

Try a different preparation method, or methods plural, until you find a method that works for you. Also, try different beans, and different degrees of grind.

For example, get an espresso maker, if you don't already have one.

Or do what I do: get a Turkish-style brass pot, and very finely milled Turkish-style coffee, which cooks up thick-as-sludge coffee delight. (I add ground cinnamon, sometimes cardamom and nutmeg, before cooking.) Yum!

No oil contracts

[rastilin]

It's not about US-consumed oil. It's about US (and British!) companies getting the oil to enrich themselves, their boards, and associated politicos (Cheney, et al).

Except no western companies got any of the oil contracts from Iraq, not even BHP.

Re:No oil contracts

[russotto]

Except no western companies got any of the oil contracts from Iraq, not even BHP.

Yeah, well, if Dick Cheney was still in charge, things would be different.

Re:No oil contracts

[maxume]

What does reality have to do with anything?

Re:No oil contracts

[Red Flayer]

Except no western companies got any of the oil contracts from Iraq, not even BHP.

What? A consortium led by BP gained the Rumaila oilfield contract in June of this year (CNPC was the other major oil company in that contract). Many of the other oilfields have not yet been offered.

Shell (Dutch) just won the largest contract so far, but American oil companies have been in the mix of bidding.

But your argument is a bit of a red herring anyway... the fact that the US has failed to win major oil money for the American oil companies does not mean that access to the Iraqi oilfields was not a major consideration in the decision to invade Iraq.

Here's some reading for you.

Re:No oil contracts

[The_Quinn]

does not mean that access to the Iraqi oilfields was not a major consideration in the decision to invade Iraq.

Since Iraq was not a major source of intellectual or financial support for Totalitarian Islam (the enemy), I can't say that I have a good argument against your theory - although it needs some rigor to really back it up.

God dammit...

[sandmaninator]

Republicans don't drink coffee!

Re:God dammit...

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans don't drink coffee!

I'm Republican and I drink coffee you insensitive clod!

Might improve coffee flavor?

[Antique Geekmeister]

I don't know if younger or less aware drinkers have noticed, but there is a lot of truly horrid southeast Asian farmed coffee that has entered the market. I've been tasting it mixed with more expensive beans to make "morning blends", or used in flavored coffee where its lack of coffee aroma and its aftertaste of lemongrass is concealed. The next time you visit one of those less successful coffee bars, try to get a good whiff of the beans before they're ground to see why they're so much less expensive and so much less successful. The distinction between the richer, more full-scented, quality beans and the weird, always half-priced, Asian sacks of mud, sticks, and a few coffee beans is quite noticeable.

Re:Might improve coffee flavor?

[tool462]

It's probably not such a big deal for all those people who get their coffee loaded with sugar/chocolate/caramel/cream/etc. Those things are just milkshakes with a caffeine booster.

I usually drink straight espresso though, and there are very few shops that have good enough coffee for that.

Truth is stranger than fiction

[patiodragon]

ELAINE
      Please, ladies and gentlemen, please calm down. Listen to me! [They calm down.]
ELAINE
      We've been thrown off course just a tad.
PASSENGER
        What's that mean?
ELAINE
      In space terms, about 70 million miles. [The Passengers appear interested and sensible, nod their heads]
ELAINE
    The bumps you feel are car-sized asteroids smashing into the hull. The hood of a car smashes through the cabin wall. [The Passengers still appear interested and sensible.]
ELAINE
      Also, we're heading right for the sun and can't seem to change course. [Passengers still appear interested and sensible. They all put on sunglasses.]
PASSENGER
      Are you telling us everything?
ELAINE
      Not exactly. We're also out of coffee. [The Passengers erupt in total panic.]

Re:Truth is stranger than fiction

[Sulphur]

Coffee ad: "If you owned all the coffee in the world, you would drink _______ _____."

If you owned all the coffee in the world, you would drink Scotch.

Already happened - the great Hops shortage 2007+

[turtleshadow]

This has already happened. Lack of growers, a major warehouse fire and generally increasing consumption caused a shortage on the spice that which gives beer its flavoring.

In the United States alone, there were an estimated 515 hop growers in 1950; 75 in 2000 and just 45 today[2008], Ward says. In 2006, about 2 million pounds of hops were destroyed in an S.S. Steiner warehouse in Yakima, equaling about 4 percent of the U.S. hop crop.
All the while, beer sales are increasing worldwide by about 1 to 2 percent annually. The craft brewing industry is growing yearly by 12 percent. That economic reality is pushing hop growers back into the fields.

Banana monoculture has failed before

[fantomas]

Until the 1950s, the majority of bananas consumed via expert markets were of the Gros Michel variety. However these were very susceptible to Panama disease. A substitute had to be found and we now mainly eat the Vietnamese Cavendish variety.

Banana monoculture is certainly capable of failing.

Who cares!

[hesaigo999ca]

I think we are all in agreement here, that as long as the regular coffee bean stays in production, we don't care about the rest of them.
So many more important things then coffee beans have gone extinct due to our hand, or because of our pollution, that we can not seriously worry about this without bursting out laughing.

Are you kidding me!!

Seed Vaults and Domestication Programs

[turtleshadow]

Isn't this why most nations have some sort of seed vault and plant domestication program?

Svalbard was the most recent. However if massive glaciation reoccurs Im not sure who can get to it.

Other countries have found out the hard way for crop failures. Ireland's potato famine (began in 1845), the USA with dutch elm disease, the chestnut blight (1904).

Plants in general have no defense against a rapid ecological or geographic change but do have the advantage over the long run.

I remember the 1980's pushes for anti-pollution. Why are we not still focused on that? Global warming is a possible effect not a proven reality. The rational thing is to name the cause and fight that. Focusing to solve a possibility like Global warming detracts from efforts to grapple with global pollution which comes from human activities and results in learned helplessness, mental and physical disease, overuse of land, poisoning of the food web with mutagenic chemicals and endocrine disruptors.

We shall fart methane but we will also use intellect and will figure something out and survive. And thats the crux of the problem. Humans are the only species hell bent on eugenics.

The Biologists say the _minimal_ replacement value for maintaining a mammal species is just over 2 offspring per couple. The West is hell bound in legislating under global warming subterfuge 1 child per couple. They don't say who will decide who gets to breed. This is the door to GATTAGA. A nice life for those deemed worthy to be useful. Hitler actually went forward with it in his Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring (1933) and the T-4 euthanasia program.

For me I want to have as many children as possible so as to ensure my seed survives without the need for a seed vault. More importantly it is that my culture - that which I give to my children will also survive over those who voluntarily castrate themselves.

I pre thank those who have already done this, for my children shall sip their coffee and watch and enjoy today's endangered species when your seed is dead from the earth.

Re:Seed Vaults and Domestication Programs

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to people like you, today's endangered species will not exist anymore - but you might see a few of the species that will be endangered by then, if any will be left.

Re:Seed Vaults and Domestication Programs

[russotto]

This is the door to GATTAGA.

That's "GATTACA". If you have a "G" instead of a "C" in that next to last position, you're subnormal and no reproduction for you.

With apologies to Joss Whedon

[reverseengineer]

Take my mug, take my hand
Withdrawal I cannot stand
I don't care for caffeine-free,
You can't take my bean from me.
Pour me out a cup of black
Tell Juan to bring another sack.
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take my bean from me.

You know

[Arancaytar]

Flooding, living on a house boat, having to wear an EVA suit... I can deal with that.

But take away my coffee and things will go rough for you. Get me to Copenhagen so I can knock some sense into those people.

omg end of software!!

[Jorgandar]

Without coffee there will be no more sufficiently awake programmers! All software development will stop!

BEER?

[Anonymous Coward]

OMGWTF!!!! Burn those motherfuckers down!!!1111 Goddamned Earthkillers!

A rebbutal

[Bragador]

Not always.

Some species were actually quite tasty but didn't produce as much fruits as others. Our modern watermelon is a good example. There are other more tasty melons out there but since the modern watermelon doesn't need as much care and produces more melon (more water inside), it is used and sold everywhere. A hundred years ago, the Montreal's melon was a great success and was being sold at crazy prices in New York. Good luck finding that melon now.

Look at our strawberries! Gigantic fruits full of water! The smaller and more tasty varieties are not used anymore because people want big strawberries even though they are less tasty.

Taste is NOT a very powerful adaptation.

New habitat being created as old destroyed?

[JSBiff]

I have a question: it seems to me that, if climate change is destroying some areas that were previously suitable habitat for different coffee varieties, wouldn't it also be converting areas which were previously un-suitable, into suitable areas?

that does it!

[Anonymous Coward]

We must fight global warming NOW! Nothing gets between me and my coffee!

The real culprit...

[Anonymous Coward]

...is Lex Luthor!

Politicians lacking coffee?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that would get COP15 in Copenhagen in a rush to save the world.

Huh?

[thomasw_lrd]

Everything is affected by climate change. What's next. Climate change will kill all the Panda bears?

THE BEST PART OF WAKING UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Is knowing the AGW Hoax has been laid bare for what it is, bulllllllllshiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttttt, Rich French Roast or Not!

Fat Folder Defense...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, an almost daily barrage on Slashdot (and other news media) about the dangers of global warming.. Its almost as if people are redoubling their efforts on the scare tactics and burying some unpleasant bit of information.

In research when we review a candidate there is the inevitable 'Fat Folder' candidate. The candidate whose folder is much larger then everyone else's.

There are the candidates with not much to show, they may be up and coming, or they may just not have much there.

There are the exceptional candidates. They don't need to show much, we already know who they are, or if we don't, just a few pointers of who they are lets their work speak for themselves. (Seriously, would you expect the CEO of GE to put his college transcript on a job application?)

Then there is the fat folder. The folder is full of information of all sorts. Transcripts, letters of recommendations, awards, publications, fellowships, letters from parents, current girlfriend, ex girlfirned... Its daunting.. But inevitably you find IT. IT is there too... the reason for all of the fluff. a 5 year absence from any work; an imprisonment, a conviction, discovery of academic dishonesty, etc.. Just hoping that its lost amongst all of the extra data. Because of this the fat folders are selected for extra care, the very act of attempting to hide the data brings on closer scrutiny.

We have a fat-folder here. The data that is trying to be buried? CRU.

But like the fat folder, every story that comes up to 'bury' it instead just calls even more attention to the situation.

Turkish Rocks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta agree. Turkish is a great way to make coffee.

If you haven't got a grinder, the only pre-ground coffee that I've found in the UK that is fine enough for Turkish is Elly. Its still a bit too course for Turkish, but with a good stir it works well.

How I make turkish...

1.Add very fine coffee grinds to mug (1-2 tsps)
2.Add boiling water (not hot)
3.Stir
4.Add sugar/milk to taste (always after the water)
5.Stir & wait ~60 secs.
6.Enjoy!

The very fine grinds sink quickly and form a "mud". The courser the grind, the slower the grinds settle. Very course coffee floats.

An Interesting if Inaccurate Article

[Ferretman]

This is basically a retread of the stuff we've seen before--we're losing too much of the rain forest and we need to stop it.

Change in climate isn't even *mentioned* as a possible contributor until very nearly the end of the article, and even then it has a "got to blame that too" kind of feel to it that one often sees in similar BBC News articles.

I'm sure it's *much* more significant that people cut down 150 acres per *minute* of rainforest. THAT is what we need to focus on, not speculative climate science.