Global Warming Spreading Pests Far and Wide According To Study

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Global Warming Spreading Pests Far and Wide According To Study

Posted by samzenpus on Monday September 2, 2013 @04:54AM from the bullet-ants-over-broadway dept.

An anonymous reader writes "New research has concluded that global warming is helping pests and diseases that attack crops to spread around the world. 'Researchers from the universities of Exeter and Oxford have found crop pests are moving at an average of two miles (3km) a year. The team said they were heading towards the north and south poles, and were establishing in areas that were once too cold for them to live in. The research is published in the journal Nature Climate Change.'"

193 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:frist pist by PPH · 2013-09-02 05:01 · Score: 4, Funny

First pest?

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Generalized Hypothesis in a Generalized World by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 05:02 · Score: 1

Human population is expanding similarly. Uh, yes, you did say crop pests...maybe they count too.
1. Re:Generalized Hypothesis in a Generalized World by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Clearing forests to grow crops should be more than enough to get humans classified as a crop pest.
2. Re:Generalized Hypothesis in a Generalized World by MickLinux · 2013-09-02 05:32 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  Strange. My first thought was "Al Gore; Kyoto delegates; Chinese; French!"
  That said, I think that global warming is a valid concern. My biggest problem with the environmentalists is that they often do even more destruction with their willy-nilly unjust laws.
  And injustice does cause environmental problems. Now that I'm losing my car, for example, I won't be recycling; I don't have the means. And when people can't afford plumbing, they end up with the contamination in slums.
  
  --
  Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
3. Re:Generalized Hypothesis in a Generalized World by Genda · 2013-09-02 10:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So first thing, there are no laws created by environmentalists... those would be legislators. The stupid you're impugning lives with folks who use environmental concerns exactly the same way the folks on the other side of the legislative fence use concerns about energy. Backroom deals with monied corporate interests getting stupid laws passed in their own interest that in fact exacerbate the issues in the real world, but make someone a lot of money. Real environmentalists appreciate that human beings are a inseparable part of the environment, and that ideas that force suffering or deprivation on vast populations would undermine ecological sanity on a global scale.
  Technology is already beginning to provide huge opportunities to create environmentally sound alternatives to our current lifestyles, while at the same time giving us access to a world that is truly human compatible, even socially empowering. Agendas and dogmas are indications of people with ideologies to inflict on others, and these people seldom the source of workable solutions.
4. Re:Generalized Hypothesis in a Generalized World by MickLinux · 2013-09-03 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't just the hypocrites. It is also the ill-advised "fixes" we use. One child in china? So the families abort the girls, because they need a son to provide for their old age. What, then, is the risk of war, when all these young men can't find spouses?
  How environmentally damaging is war?
  Just one example, a la the film "mindscape".
  
  --
  Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 05:03 · Score: 1, Insightful

No their knot! La La La! I can't here you!
ClimateChangeDenialBot37
1. Re:Wrong by Mashiki · 2013-09-02 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  Reality time:
  Reduction of specific pesticides, and resistances cause pests to spread further and farther. Study does an okay job of correlation=causation. I expect next week to hear that global warming is causing malaria carrying mosquito's to show up in Florida, Louisiana, Texas and Georgia. Never minding that pesticide spraying to keep their numbers in check has decreased significantly along with the kill rates.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
2. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  Reality time: Reduction of specific pesticides, and resistances cause pests to spread further and farther. Study does an okay job of correlation=causation.
  Ahh yes. So what has kept those pests away before the invention of "specific pesticides"? Praying? Maybe you denialists can just pray away the pests to disprove AGW.
Pests by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 05:03 · Score: 2, Funny

Yep, them hippie environmentalist pests are especially bad since global warming started.
1. Re:Pests by lightknight · 2013-09-02 08:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Dr Bebber said: "The most convincing hypothesis is that global warming has caused this shift."
  *facepalms* Allow me to translate: "We really like the idea that global warming is responsible for this shift; bear in mind that this is a hypothesis, not a theory, so it has not been tested or validated in even a casual sense."
  Show me group think!
  
  --
  I am John Hurt.
2. Re:Pests by Genda · 2013-09-02 10:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That's not exactly correct, but it's really poor science to talk about an entire body of work involving thousands of separate research projects and researchers, in overly broad and general ways. Some work certainly has more rigor (and is therefore more authoritative) than others, and this news blurb talks about such a diverse population of pests (virii, viroids, bacteria, fungi, insects, nematodes... ad-infinitum) impacting everything from forest health to the growing occurrence of tropical fungal disease in humans occurring in temperate regions, that the trends spoken of here are a powerful indictment on issues of global climate change.. the average movement for pests (most thrive in warm climates) is about 3 km per years north and south (migration towards the poles.)
  So at one level you're right, this could be gremlins herding trillion of lifeforms from dozens of different classes away from the equator, however watching these creatures move in lockstep with local changes in climate (and even micro climate), and watching what amounts to tropical conditions carry these lifeforms to places they've never been before, suggests that your observation, while humorous lacks a certain intellectual vision.
3. Re:Pests by oreiasecaman · 2013-09-02 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Are you ClimateChangeDenialBot38?
  
  --
  This is a UDP joke, I don't care if you get it or not...
4. Re:Pests by abies · 2013-09-02 19:33 · Score: 1
  
  "Previously, in this place we had barren land. Global warming caused it to become more plant-friendly and we see first meadows forming, with a lot of flowers and grass. Unfortunately, if you have plants, you also have plant diseases. If not for global warming, there would be no plants here, which would also mean no diseases. Global warming spreads disease"
5. Re:Pests by Optali · 2013-09-02 20:50 · Score: 2
  
  I don't know why you are surprised that people call GW "only a hypothesis" being that many of them call evolution "only a theory".
  
  --
  -- 29A the number of the Beast
Still want it? by GameboyRMH · 2013-09-02 05:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

I wonder if the selfish and short-sighted people who want global warming to continue because they live in areas that would benefit are still so enthusiastic...but I guess pests are as at least as easy to ignore as wars, refugees and food shortages.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
1. Re:Still want it? by sosume · 2013-09-02 05:10 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Based on my location I have at least 5,000 years of pest-free life ahead. I'm also guessing that the rate in which it moves north and southward will decelerate over time, so bring it on!
  
  the selfish and short-sighted people who want global warming to continue
  
  The debate is centered around the question whether a rise in temperature is caused by men, and if the current trend is upwards. As there has been no change in temperature in the last 10 decade. But thanks for the compliment.
2. Re:Still want it? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  Those mythical people "who want global warming to continue". I guess you're also scared of commies under the bed too.
3. Re:Still want it? by roc97007 · 2013-09-02 05:23 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Personally, I'm switching careers from IT to pest control.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
4. Re:Still want it? by professionalfurryele · 2013-09-02 05:26 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Mmmmm those cherries are so good, I see why you picked them:
  http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Global temperature trends
  Care to admit why you picked 10 years and not 15 or 20?
  If you grab a sample of 2 women and 2 men you may well find the women are taller, and you wont be able to say based on that sample if men or women are taller on average. But given 20 or 30 women and 20 or 30 men the answer becomes obvious.
5. Re:Still want it? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  The debate in the media? Yes. The debate among scientists? No. Whether the trend is upwards? No.
  Sure, science is never 100% certain about something, but if the current scientific consensus does not convince you, then I guess nothing short of complete armageddon due to climate change actually will.
6. Re:Still want it? by MightyMartian · 2013-09-02 05:29 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In scientific circles, there is very little debate. This isn't a scientific debate, it's a PR debate instigated by fossil fuel companies. As to your last sentence, either you're wilfully lying, or you're an ignoramus.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
7. Re:Still want it? by MightyMartian · 2013-09-02 05:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's hard to see such people as myth when monster international corporations and uber-rich guys like the Koch Brothers are very much behind a massive campaign to discredit AGW researchers. I can't say whether they want the climate to continue to warm. They could be more mundanely evil in not giving a sweet fuck what happens 50 or 100 years from now, so long as their net worth continues up in the short and medium term.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
8. Re:Still want it? by wbr1 · 2013-09-02 05:36 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Personally, I'm switching careers from IT to pest control.
  It is an easy career change. You deal with bugs in both professions.
  
  --
  Silence is a state of mime.
9. Re:Still want it? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't that the same career path?
10. Re:Still want it? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  I am one of them ! I know grow grapes and kiwis !
  Ok I now have brown and black widows but I have to fear spiders anyway, thing is my fear is now rational :)
11. Re:Still want it? by 0111+1110 · 2013-09-02 05:45 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The majority of Americans and probably even American scientists believe in a supernatural all powerful entity for which there is no evidence at all. Just because a majority of people believe in something does not make it true.
  Evidence is what convinces me. Not opinion polls. Opinion polls are most definitely not a part of the scientific method. Once a large enough majority believes in a thing it becomes difficult for many people to disbelieve it. Just show me the raw data and I will draw my own conclusions. I don't need to be told what to think. Scientists are just as capable of being irrational as anyone else. Just because a scientist believes in a thing doesn't make it true.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
12. Re:Still want it? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  You only have satellite measurements since...the late 60s? Since you haven't measured the flux of the system for more than 50 years, and you are complaining that he picked the last ten...
  If climate science is so sound, you need to come up with a predictive model that actually, you know, predicts how the temperature will change. That hasn't happened. 10 years later, the temperature actually decreased.
13. Re:Still want it? by GameboyRMH · 2013-09-02 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  It's not a fictional bogeyman, it's a real opinion I've heard from real people including Slashdot users.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
14. Re:Still want it? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  But thanks for the compliment.
  
  In scientific circles, there is very little debate. This isn't a scientific debate, it's a PR debate instigated by fossil fuel companies. As to your last sentence, either you're wilfully lying, or you're an ignoramus.
  In English language circles, there is little debate as to what the last sentence means. Is he lying about the complement, or ignorant about compliments? Or maybe he is lying when he's thanking.
15. Re:Still want it? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 06:05 · Score: 0
  
  Some people say that they saw man crucified, and then alive again three days after his death. They wrote it down. They died professing the truth of their claims. That is evidence. Historians of antiquity record the existence of Jesus. Your claim of no evidence at all doesn't hold up to the most simple challenge.
  What you conclude about the evidence is another matter.
16. Re:Still want it? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 06:07 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The more shrill the global warming crowd gets, the less people believe them. The more "scientists" engage in gloom and doom hyperbole in front of the press, the less public support they're going to get. Technology and human development is often at odds with the environment, but the real danger to humanity is politics, and "scientists" aren't free of it. BTW, there is quite a lot of debate in scientific circles. The ones who deny that aren't scientists. They're ideologues.
17. Re:Still want it? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  Then what is your conclusion on climate change based on the raw data?
  Your specious argument aside, there are climate scientists in other countries too, and last time you took some kind of medicine, did you also draw your own conclusion whether it will actually do something for you based on evaluating the raw data? It seems that people only question the scientists that have come to a conclusion they do not like?
  I do not even know why I am feeding the trolls here, there is so much scientific evidence out there (sure, we do not always understand perfectly how all of it fits together, but the main directions are clear), you are insulting all the scientists that have dedicated themselves to actually understanding things, while all you can do from your armchair is telling everybody that they are either all deluded or have succumbed to group think.
  I thought most people on slashdot are scientifically literate, and actually respect people dedicated to science, but you are the perfect example that there are narrow-minded, self-righteous pricks on slashdot as well.
18. Re:Still want it? by MightyMartian · 2013-09-02 06:09 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  There is one single extra-Gospel source that Jesus existed, and that is Josephus. Once you strip away the 2nd and 3rd century "additions", what you get is basically "there was a Nazarene named Jesus who was a holy man and had a following, and who was put to death by the Romans."
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
19. Re:Still want it? by roc97007 · 2013-09-02 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't that the same career path?
  There is quite a bit of overlap.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
20. Re:Still want it? by MightyMartian · 2013-09-02 06:11 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Good thing satellite data isn't the only kind of temperature and climate data available. And no model is going to provide the level of accuracy you demand. Really, you don't need that level of accuracy any more than a physicist needs to count the lifespan of every single uranium atom to know uranium's halflife.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
21. Re:Still want it? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 06:11 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Well, the Koch brother have their money, not that I would imply they are opposed to making more. They are actually spending money to forward their agenda, unlike other somewhat less uber-rich guys like Al Gore who make piles of money directly hyping their agenda.
  So he're my position. There are guys on both sides of the debate who are far more knowledgeable than I, admittedly far more on one side than the other. So, I have to look at credibility. One side definitely has the numbers and the support of the scientific establishment, but the establishment has been wrong before (more than once). The establishment seems to spend a lot of energy on ad hominem attacks to discredit the opposition, which is a hit on credibility.
  Most importantly, the loudest advocates of AGW fail to propose anything that might actually work. Most of their proposals advocate massive international cooperation to institute some schemes that will be economically harmful on a large scale. When has that ever happened? Any country participating will have a huge incentive to cheat, as they will get the same benefit as everyone else without paying the price. If AGW proponents want to be taken seriously by me, they need to start loudly advocating things like nuclear power, building dams for more hydro-electric, and maybe even geo-engineering.
  Until I observe realistic solutions being advocated I have to conclude that AGW really doesn't even bother the people who believe in it, so why should it bother me?
22. Re:Still want it? by PPH · 2013-09-02 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. In IT we call them users.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
23. Re:Still want it? by MightyMartian · 2013-09-02 06:13 · Score: 2
  
  There is a lot of debate about aspects of AGW, not about AGW itself. Misrepresenting debate as some sort of lack of consensus on the general aspects of any given theory is being deceitful. That's like saying "There is a lot of debate on whether Proto-Indo-European sprang from the Kurgan culture or from Anatolia, therefore French, Hindi and Old Church Slavonic are not related languages."
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
24. Re:Still want it? by MightyMartian · 2013-09-02 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry. Could we start at credibility here? Why, if you're investigating a scientific theory, would you both considering what Al Gore or the Koch Brothers had to say?
  As to the rest of it, well, for one of the first times in history we are able to predict with at least a certain level of certainty a major ecological crisis shaping up. Our ancestors had these, and they often spelled catastrophe for civilizations. So why shouldn't one at least hope that nation states and international organizations might, for once, actually try to cut emissions to at least slow down the warming? After all, the solution to that problem also happens to solve some other problems, and will leave us with a goodly supply of long chain hydrocarbons whose uses go beyond running various kinds of combustion engines.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
25. Re:Still want it? by GameboyRMH · 2013-09-02 06:18 · Score: 0
  
  Only if you discount ocean warming and the effects of La Nina and the pacific decadal oscillation. Otherwise it's right on track.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
26. Re:Still want it? by mcgrew · 2013-09-02 06:28 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The majority of Americans and probably even American scientists believe in a supernatural all powerful entity for which there is no evidence at all.
  2.3 of the world's population and over half of all scientists.
  Evidence is what convinces me.
  There is no evidence I was in possession of marijuana -- It's gone. There is no evidence Jimmy Hoffa is dead, but I'm pretty sure he is. There is no evidence for extraterrestrial life, but I think there probably is.
  Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
27. Re:Still want it? by jovius · 2013-09-02 06:30 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Let's try this. Imagine if aliens started to pour carbon dioxide, methane and other gases to Earth's atmosphere. As you know from the elementary school Earth's greenhouse effect keeps the temps at a nice level. Greenhouse effect that has been known well over 100 years is actualized because of the called greenhouse gases, which trap heat to the lower layers of the atmosphere. So ask yourself this: what will happen when the amount of those gases is increased?
  Would you be welcoming the aliens who pour gases to the atmosphere? One effect of that would for example be that hugely larger areas of crops are threatened because of pests. Your very source of food is in danger.
  Wouldn't you be pretty sure who is responsible for the anomalously amplified greenhouse effect? I'd guess the media would be in full blast declaring a war against them. It's interesting why it isn't happening at the moment.
28. Re:Still want it? by harvey+the+nerd · 2013-09-02 06:30 · Score: 2
  
  You're right but there are a lot of Algroe fanbois and lackeys who think they know a little science because they can parrot the line.
29. Re: Still want it? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 06:34 · Score: 0
  
  "And then a zealous believer named Paul turned the story into an organized religion based on guilt."
30. Re:Still want it? by Nimey · 2013-09-02 06:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Why, if you're investigating a scientific theory, would you both considering what Al Gore or the Koch Brothers had to say?
  Because it's not about science for the denialists, it's about tribalism and primate dominance.
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
31. Re:Still want it? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 06:38 · Score: 0
  
  Even if he really did die and come back to life doesn't make him a supernatural entity. It doesn't make him a god or deity. That's pretty much the least probable explanation of the events. But the real reason unbelievers don't believe the accounts of Jesus' resurrection is just that extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence for skeptical people to believe them. When a climate scientist reports that a weather station thermometer in the tropics reads 86.2 degrees F I'm inclined to believe it because it isn't improbable. If he reports that he jumped into the sky, spread his arms and flew to Alpha Centauri and back on his lunch break I would need some very extraordinary evidence in order to believe it.
32. Re:Still want it? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  Umm...Yes, because crop pests are a direct result of....crops. If I lived in Siberia, the fact that it might be warm enough to grow more food, and the pests that eat said food would be a net positive.
  Is that really hard to figure out?
33. Re:Still want it? by cusco · 2013-09-02 06:50 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Are you suggesting that the fossil fuel companies are headed by aliens? That would explain an awful lot . . .
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
34. Re:Still want it? by GameboyRMH · 2013-09-02 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Would your local ecosystem that's been unaccustomed to the pests handle the invasion well? What if it's a built up area with no meaningful room to grow crops, but still room to host pests? What if it was an area that could host the crops but not the pests, and can now also host the pests?
  Do you think everything is so simple?
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
35. Re: Still want it? by alen · 2013-09-02 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Of course there was a Jesus. The non-Greek name is Joshua which was a common name in that part of the world for hundreds of years before him
36. Re:Still want it? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, you started with the Koch brothers, Al Gore is the logical anti-Koch.
  About the only thing that large numbers of countries have been able to cooperate on are thing that are of fairly immediate and mutual benefit. The only things that countries have been able to cooperate on that also involves significant short term sacrifice are wars, where survival is at stake. Reducing CO2 is a classic Prisoner's dilemma (I won't waste time, if you are unfamiliar look it up). So here is what will going to happen with any big scheme battling man-made CO2 emissions.
  Let's say "super-Kyoto" is passed. Some kind of massive international carbon trading/tax scheme. Note-by definition this would not be required if CO2 generating activities were not economically beneficial. Every country on earth has a huge incentive to either not join the scheme, "game" the system to avoid the scheme, or just cheat. If the rest of the world follows the scheme, and I am Argentina and don't sign, I still get the benefit of reduced CO2 emissions, but I also get the benefit of burning fossil fuel (which would probably be really cheap if nobody else was using it). Or maybe I'm China, and I sign the treaty but use my position as a big fish to negotiate huge loopholes that allow me to continue to use fossil fuels like no tomorrow. I still get 90% of the benefit. The "honest" counties will suffer economic penalties until they are no longer important actors on the world stage.
  The only way around this would be a world-wide enforcement mechanism. Some sort of global AGW cops that could FORCE countries to comply, and I don't see countries giving up sovereignty without a fight. I seriously doubt that the AGW war will be better than just living with AGW. You can HOPE everyone just comes together and holds hands and agree, but HOPE is not a course of action.
  That is why, until the AGW believers start proposing something that is realistic, I don't believe they are very worried. I'll start worrying when they start worrying.
37. Re:Still want it? by symbolset · 2013-09-02 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  What if the predators for pests moved at the same rate as the pests. If the entire ecosystem were so much more intelligent than humans that it just automatically and naturally moves to where the food is. Like it did the last eight times this happened. Wouldn't that be just amazing?
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
38. Re:Still want it? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  Idiotic, but not the worst I've seen.
  
  2.3 of the world's population and over half of all scientists.
  And none of them have any proof.
  
  Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
  No, but believing in a magical entity for no reason makes you pretty irrational. The same could be said about the flying spaghetti monster and various other magical beings, but it would be absolutely foolish to believe that any of those exist.
  There is no rational reason to believe in a god, and no, ignorance of the truth is not a rational reason.
39. Re: Still want it? by otterpop81 · 2013-09-02 07:52 · Score: 2
  
  "And then a zealous believer named Paul turned the story into an organized religion based on guilt."
  Paul taught that the Gospel brings _freedom_ from guilt. He even called himself the chief of sinners.
  Have a read of Romans chapter 8 for a better idea of what the Gospel really means.
40. Re:Still want it? by lightknight · 2013-09-02 09:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_potato_beetle
  "The beetle was discovered in 1824 by Thomas Say from specimens collected in the Rocky Mountains on buffalo-bur, Solanum rostratum. The origin of the beetle is somewhat unclear, but it seems that Colorado and Mexico are a part of its native distribution in southwestern North America.[2] In about 1840, the species adopted the cultivated potato into its host range and it rapidly became a most destructive pest of potato crops. The large scale use of insecticides in agricultural crops effectively controlled the pest until it became resistant to DDT in the 1950s. Other pesticides have since been used but the insect has, over time, developed resistance to them all.[3]"
  So, when you stop patting yourself on the back for confirming your bias, you can spare a moment, and read up on one of the pests mentioned in that article. The Colorado Potato Beetle is immune to DDT (an achievement in of itself), as well as a number of other pesticides, which were holding it at bay. In other words, this thing used to destroy potato crops, and only by blanketing crops with pesticides did we slow it down some. It evolved...our pesticides have not; what more, I imagine many of the farmers in the affected areas have decided to ride the 'organic' cash cow, and not use any pesticide on their crops...thus ensuring that this pest won't even be slightly dinged by whatever extra proteins it has to manufacture to get around the poisons we normally spread on those crops; instead, it will grow fast...much faster.
  Global Warming had jack shit to do with this pest's rise...only the laziness of mankind let it reclaim ground. And I imagine that the other pests are, perhaps, due to similar, or other, explainable reasons. But I guess a little fact checking takes too much time these days...
  
  --
  I am John Hurt.
41. Re:Still want it? by MightyMartian · 2013-09-02 09:05 · Score: 2
  
  So because international cooperation is really hard, climatologists aren't worried? That's just about the most tortured logic I've ever seen.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
42. Re:Still want it? by Richy_T · 2013-09-02 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe volcanoes are aliens?
43. Re:Still want it? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 09:31 · Score: 0
  
  Didn't you just assume?
44. Re:Still want it? by Aonghus142000 · 2013-09-02 10:01 · Score: 2
  
  My smell-o-meter detected a rat very early on in the AGW debate. For me (and those of my generation,) my youth was filled with horror stories of the coming ice age and how pollution was bringing it about. The proposals to counter this effect were exactly the same as the ones now being pushed to counter global warming; i.e. don't burn fossil fuels, reduce energy consumption, increase our dependence on renewables, etc.
  Then, sometime in to 90's talk of global warming began, always with the effects 30-50 years out, but unstoppable unless we did something Right Now!. Well, we're 20 years into this, and the only major weather effect I have observed is last winter, which had a level of snowfall I hadn't seen since 1972 (Right when the "Coming Ice Age!" scare began.)
  I think I'll hold onto my skepticism for now.
45. Re:Still want it? by Genda · 2013-09-02 10:52 · Score: 2
  
  The shrill, is the sound of people noticing you're on fire... and too smug to look down, drop and roll... that doesn't make the one's shout ignorant. If you had the faintest clue about biology, thermodynamics, biochemistry or ecology, you might be just a wee bit more concerned, there are some pretty dark futures that are absolutely within the realm of possibility if you follow climate change to it's conclusion. These futures don't include homo sapiens, in fact many don't even include vertebrates.
  The debate among scientific circles is virtually nonexistent. Hundreds of thousands of scientists from many dozens of diverse scientific fields have created a consistent picture of our world from which it is nearly impossible to escape global climate change and environmental disruption. This is especially important in the face of human population pressures. The only debate is limited to special points interest, and scientists on the payroll of fossil fuel producers or members of ideological groups who refuse to believe their own eyes. In this case, I tend to go with the VAST majority, and throw out the ideologues at both ends.
46. Re:Still want it? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 11:12 · Score: 0
  
  As long as they are not aliens that want to throw us in volcanoes and blow us up H-bombs. I hate when that happens.
47. Re:Still want it? by riverat1 · 2013-09-02 11:15 · Score: 2
  
  About the only thing that large numbers of countries have been able to cooperate on are thing that are of fairly immediate and mutual benefit.
  We did manage to do something about the ozone layer eating chlorofluorocarbons.
48. Re:Still want it? by Flere+Imsaho · 2013-09-02 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, I'm switching careers from IT to pest control.
  It is an easy career change. You deal with bugs in both professions.
  I'm thinking of switching from IT to being a proctologist - years of dealing with assholes should give me ample cross-credits.
  
  --
  It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
49. Re:Still want it? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 11:46 · Score: 0
  
  I have to assume you are being intentionally obtuse. International cooperation in this context is not really hard, it is simply unrealistic. Tooth fairy unrealistic. A also assume climatologists and AGW evangelists are smart enough to know this. If they are not smart enough to know this then I have serious doubts about any of their opinions.
  Because AGW evangelists continue to promote control schemes that I assume they are smart enough to know will not work, I also assume they are not actually worried. They might as well be promoting the use of magic fairy dust to fix AGW, since that is just as likely to work. So, until they stop advocating magic fairy dust and start advocating something that might actually work, I will assume that they are not actually as worried as they say they are.
  When the AGW crowd start counter-protesting environmentalists who want to shut down nuclear reactors and hydro-electric plants, I might start paying attention.
50. Re:Still want it? by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · 2013-09-02 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  Being in IT really is already a lot like being a proctologist, except without the high pay and the prestige of being a medical professional.
  
  --
  Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
51. Re:Still want it? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 12:21 · Score: 0
  
  Absence of proof is however proof one need not be concerned with hypothetical what-ifs.
  Everything real leaves evidence, what some may call proof, of its existence. You are real, marijuana is real, whether you had some is irrelevant, Hoffa was real, whether he's dead or not is irrelevant.
  There is no evidence for extraterrestrial life, speculating on the possibility is futile and irrelevant as it can not be proven. Same goes for god, heaven, hell, santa, the easter bunny, and honest salesmen.
52. Re:Still want it? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 12:59 · Score: 0
  
  At least Al Gore has taken the time to read and understand the science and then presented it an easy to understand way. Unlike harvey the nerd who would rather resort to name calling. You might try learning a little science. If you try hard you might get up to AL Gore's informed level
53. Re:Still want it? by dryeo · 2013-09-02 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  About the only thing that large numbers of countries have been able to cooperate on are thing that are of fairly immediate and mutual benefit.
  We did manage to do something about the ozone layer eating chlorofluorocarbons.
  Mostly due to the patents on chlorofluorocarbons running out so industry was motivated to switch to a new patented refrigerant which had the side affect of not eating ozone.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
54. Re:Still want it? by dryeo · 2013-09-02 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  Like the mountain pine beetle as well as many other pests that are controlled by freezing?
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
55. Re:Still want it? by dryeo · 2013-09-02 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  What is the point you are trying to make? That mono-culture encourages some pests? That indiscriminate use of insecticides encourage pests to evolve tolerance? That we need to use deadlier pesticides that wipe out many beneficial insects such as bees as well as negatively affecting people?
  Or perhaps that the Colorado potato beetle is a good example where organic methods are the best controls. Things like crop rotations, encouraging ground beetles that eat potato beetles but are perhaps more sensitive to insecticides or how using fungus is preferred to control the potato beetle and as a bonus is much more organic?
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
56. Re:Still want it? by riverat1 · 2013-09-02 13:41 · Score: 2
  
  That's a popular meme but it doesn't hold much water. Most of the CFC refrigerants were patented in the 1930's so the patents ran out in the 1950's. There was a DuPont patent on a manufacturing process for Freon that ran out in 1979 but the patent for the current refrigerant of choice, R-410 is held by Honeywell (Allied Signal got the patent in 1991) so it doesn't help DuPont.
57. Re:Still want it? by lightknight · 2013-09-02 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to have missed entirely what was written about this beetle: it's essentially a locust. Before DDT, also known as the nuclear weaponry mankind used to tell certain orders of the insect civilizations to stop being dicks, these little pests destroyed, like locusts, potato crops. These pests (notice that they are called the Colorado potato beetle...not the Irish potato beetle) are indigenous lifeforms, that eat the wild *organic* stuff as well as the mono-culture stuff (they didn't eat the mono-culture stuff for a while...they had to adapt). This thing can't be held back by crop rotations or 'encouraging natural fungicides to grow near them' because those never worked in the first place; the thing is a prolific breeder, it evolves, and now that the more powerful nuclear weapons have failed us, it's just going to get bigger, and nastier, until growing potatoes in those states will be a waste of time and money.
  Yes, yes, I know you're sold on the organic / heirloom spiel; you obviously do not understand what a rampaging insect population can do to farmland, if left unchecked. They're worse than sheep...they will eat and eat, then fuck and die. Do you need to see a cloud of locusts on the horizon, devastating a local crop, before you understand? These aren't dragonflies, or butterflies, or even regular ants (red / black) who, while occasionally finding themselves in the wrong places, are livable. These things mean business...and between some of the insane farming methods currently used ("What's irrigation?"), and so on...and the apparent forgetfulness of everyone of these things...we're going to starve man. Somebody bad a serious bad decision, and it's almost like we're in a slave ant colony, because the people whose heads should be rolling, are not the ones dead.
  
  --
  I am John Hurt.
58. Re:Still want it? by bane2571 · 2013-09-02 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  On the flip side the bigger deceit is ignoring the debate by misrepresenting the consensus. The consensus appears to be "humans have an effect on the environment" but the anti AGW lobbying seems to take that to mean "Humans are causing end of the world levels of climate change"
  
  The debate really is important because humanity are limiting a lot of good power generation options to avoid a catastrophe that might not actually even be catastrophic.
59. Re:Still want it? by dryeo · 2013-09-02 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  All I know about the Colorado Potato Beetle I got from the wiki link that you posted. I have been certified for pesticide application though in forestry, not farming and have applied quite a few pesticides, mostly herbicides but occasionally insecticides and fungicides so I do know something about pesticides which seems to be more then you do. The wiki article itself says,
  
  High fecundity usually allows Colorado potato beetle populations to withstand natural enemy pressure. Still, in the absence of insecticides natural enemies can sometimes reach densities capable of reducing Colorado potato beetle numbers below economically damaging levels. A ground beetle, Lebia grandis is a predator of the eggs and larvae and its larvae are parasitoids of the Colorado beetle's pupae. Beauveria bassiana (Hyphomycetes) is a pathogenic fungus that infects a wide range of insect species, including the Colorado potato beetle. It is probably the most widely used natural enemy of the Colorado potato beetle, with readily available commercial formulations that can be applied using a regular pesticide sprayer.
  Which sounds like they are controllable through spraying fungus on them as well as encouraging their natural predators to flourish. As you say, they are native, which means there are native predators unlike foreign pests which usually flourish due to no natural predators. The trick is to help the natural predators especially as they seem to evolve insecticide tolerance quickly.
  I still don't understand what the bad decision was. DDT is fairly useless over time as resistance develops, the stronger organochlorides are like nuclear weapons in the sense of unintended consequences such as killing everything including people and having a long half-life. The organophosphates have similar problems when dealing with the stronger ones and still have to be changed regularly and are also broad-spectrum. Sometimes there isn't much that can be done except changing crops.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
60. Re:Still want it? by jmhobrien · 2013-09-02 17:39 · Score: 1
  
  If you grab a sample of 2 women and 2 men you may well find the women are taller, and you wont be able to say based on that sample if men or women are taller on average. But given 20 or 30 women and 20 or 30 men the answer becomes obvious.
  Only if the sample is highly controlled. There are numerous other natural factors that contribute to a persons height. eg. race, diet, lifestyle, etc. Same goes for climate change. In order to make any sense of climate change data, we need to account for all of the variables involved.
  
  --
  Where is moderation: -1 False?
61. Re:Still want it? by professionalfurryele · 2013-09-02 19:23 · Score: 1
  
  No you don't. You do need a properly randomised sample though. Asian people are generally shorter than Caucasian, and people from North Korea even more so, so a sample which was not properly random (say taking 30 men from North Korea and 30 women from rural Germany) would be misleading. But a sample of 30 random people across the entire planet would not, even if we didn't control for height. Weighting for regional height differences would give us a better understanding, and increase our statistical power, but you do not need to control for all variables, and in fact in most research controlling for all variables is impossible. Even in something like basic physics what you are suggesting is impossible. All g-2 measurements for the electron for instance have been conducted on Earth. We have no way of knowing if that works outside of a stars gravity field or in a black hole. It is still reasonable to assume it is.
  The sample in climate research is adequately controlled, sufficiently random and the noise is well enough understood that it is likely most of the conclusions of the research are useful and predictive.
62. Re:Still want it? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 20:00 · Score: 0
  
  They do this as a test. If people don't think there is global warming and everything is ok, then they are no problem. There is no need to waste time and resources eliminating them.
63. Re:Still want it? by dave420 · 2013-09-02 22:16 · Score: 1
  
  How about learning about science from the scientific literature and not news media? It seems rather ridiculous to expect to be scientifically informed if you just follow the news.
  Climate change has been talked about for closer to a century, first in generalisations, then with each successive discovery, its accuracy has improved. Now we (as a species) know which gasses would be responsible should climate change happen, and thanks to our (as a species) other scientific abilities, we can accurately measure the changes in climate as they happen, and look back over previous changes using varied-yet-corresponding sources. At this point this is what we know:
  1. Carbon dioxide is very capable of changing the climate
  2. The climate has been changing
  3. The climate is currently changing
  4. Human industry is outputting enough CO2 to affect the amount in the atmosphere
  5. Our life on the Earth will go through unpleasant changes should CO2 continue to increase, such as food sources changing (either certain sources dwindling or relocating), wildlife being negatively affected (which has the real possibility of harming the parts of the global ecosystem which humanity relies on for vital sustenance), unpredictable weather patterns, and so on and so forth.
  If you refuse to learn simply because you chose to listen to nonsense, you are lost. You should check out Potholer54's videos on YouTube to learn a bit about the science, the conclusions drawn from the science, and the evidence for the conclusions. Science doesn't use "smell-o-meters" for good reason.
64. Re:Still want it? by WGFCrafty · 2013-09-02 22:32 · Score: 1
  
  Are you suggesting that the fossil fuel companies are headed by aliens? That would explain an awful lot . . .
  That's silly, they're headed by human looking reptilians.
65. Re:Still want it? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-03 00:49 · Score: 0
  
  Actually most of those "fanbois and lackeys" know more science than someone who rails against them. I'm surprised you didn't some parrot lines from Singer, Ball, Avery and the ever popular Wegman and his plagiarized, factless report given under oath to Congress.
66. Re:Still want it? by Aonghus142000 · 2013-09-03 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Soo... Instead of addressing my concerns, you have decided to launch into an Ad hominem attack accusing me of scientific ignorance? That is usually the sign of a poorly reasoned argument. (For the record, my degree is in Chemistry rather than Climatology, so while I have not studied the systems described, I do believe I have some knowledge of the scientific method.)
  The only points in your manifesto I will stipulate to are 2 and 3, with a minor agreement on 1 with the addendum that we do not know exactly how much CO2 can create a change in climate.
  It is exactly because of your points 2 and 3 that my suspicion is raised. In recorded history, it has been both much warmer and much cooler. Leif Ericson found grapes growing in the area we now know as Nova Scotia ~1000 AD (Hence the name “Vinland”) and those same Norse raised dairy cattle in Greenland. Conversely, we know in the 18th Century, the canals of Amsterdam were frozen solid enough to support regular skating on them and in North America several large rivers were frozen solid enough to transport cannon across the ice.
  That’s even without going into the “Hockey Stick” graph, and the fierce defense of it before it was proven to be false, and predictions based on a computer model that showed rising temperatures no matter what data was plugged in. Add to that the constantly changing explanations as to what this all means, re. Climate Change replacing global warming, the counter-intuitive argument that Greenhouse gas warming is responsible for observed cooling, it very much looks like a non-falsifiable hypothesis.
67. Re:Still want it? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 02:40 · Score: 0
  
  When the AGW crowd start counter-protesting environmentalists who want to shut down nuclear reactors and hydro-electric plants, I might start paying attention.
  Too bad that many nuclear reactors have to shut down in summer because it's too hot to operate them. Maybe you should have listened earlier.
Why not, if other things can flourish also? by SuperKendall · 2013-09-02 05:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

This theory (that pests are moving farther north because it's no longer as cold) ALSO supports the idea that other things, like plants and animals can also be raised farther north because it is warmer.
If you think that's offset by some parts becoming too warm to support some crops and animals, then you must ALSO weigh that with the aspect that some pests will find it too warm and so there is some benefit. But since jungles grow everything in abundance it's pretty hard to argue that warming is not a net gain overall in terms of food production.
Basically, the fact that habitable zones increasing in size brings an expansion of everything that lives in those zones should not really be news to anyone, and you shouldn't be foolish enough to play up a very tiny negative aspect of it in a desperate grab to make other people fear the way you want them to.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by pixelpusher220 · 2013-09-02 05:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You're assuming the warming stops at 'habitable'...
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
2. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  Warming isn't even what worries me. Looking at data from ice cores, it is clear that human civilization came about during a unusually stable time for the Earth's climate. If we've pushed the system out of that stable point, it's going to be a lot harder to predict the next growing season. Sure some new areas will support new crops, but will you know in advance? If it supports a new crop 5 years out of 10, what do you do in the other 5, move all the farmers to another region?
  
  you shouldn't be foolish enough to play up a very tiny negative aspect of it in a desperate grab to make other people fear the way you want them to.
  You shouldn't assume those people even exist. All I see is a desperate grab to gain web viewers. You're the one spooked by fake fear mongers.
3. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by MightyMartian · 2013-09-02 05:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The problem here is that it seems rather likely that the habitable zones won't grow in size. Rather they will shift in latitude. There will be very real geopolitical ramifications to the North American and Eurasian growth zones jumping northward. Imagine the North American Grain Belt heading a few degrees north. All of a sudden, large areas currently under cultivation in the United States cease to arable, or at least cheaply arable. At the same time, Canada gains large amounts of arable land much farther north. In a few generations, you could see US food security compromised, with large amounts of the grain it needs suddenly in another sovereign country. The US will almost certainly be able to come to some accord with Canada, but other parts of the world may not be so lucky. A brief survey of historic and prehistoric migrations heavily suggests that people don't just sit on their asses and quietly die out when they can no longer get enough food and water.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
4. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by symbolset · 2013-09-02 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Never the mod points when I need them.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
5. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by innocent_white_lamb · 2013-09-02 06:20 · Score: 2
  
  large areas currently under cultivation in the United States cease to arable, or at least cheaply arable. At the same time, Canada gains large amounts of arable land much farther north.
  
  There are factors other than mere temperature that go into whether land can be used for growing crops. Much of the soil north of where Canadian farmers currently grow their crops is either very poor or next-to-nonexistent. The Canadian Shield consists largely of volcanic rock. You can't grow a crop in that even if the temperature appears to allow it.
  
  --
  If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
6. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by Arker · 2013-09-02 06:25 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You're assuming the warming stops at 'habitable'...
  Hot-house earth isnt completely uninhabitable. The violent storms and extreme heat in the tropical zones would make them indoors-only and dangerous to travel in, but the polar regions and for instance high mountain areas further south would be quite habitable.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
7. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by Burz · 2013-09-02 06:49 · Score: 2
  
  Its a worse problem than that. The soil in poleward locations may not be suitable, tending to turn into desert instead (at least in the geologic near term). Land area is also less abundant near the poles, especially when you consider that Antarctica will remain ice-covered deep into the arable land crisis. Most plants and animals that help keep a temperate zone healthy probably won't be able to migrate quickly enough to the unprecedented rate of warming we have unleashead.
  Then there is the tiny little question of how human bodies themselves can cope, being only adapted to live in interglacial and glacial periods--We've never adapted to the global hothouse type of climate. We couldn't even manage to do agriculture for 150,000 years in the past because the global climate made frequent 1C shifts. Our brains are especially susceptable to frequent heat extremes, curbing their energy use (and thinking ability) when heat-stressed... or otherwise causing us to croak. Our immune systems are not adapted to warm environments (however pleasant) that are steeped in dampness during 6-month long periods of darkness.
  This is not the temperate zones moving poleward. Its the temperate zones disappearing and a part of the arctic likely turning into something different that hasn't existed for over 40 million years.
8. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by pixelpusher220 · 2013-09-02 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Take a look where most of the land is. It's in temperate to tropical zones. And how exactly to you move a few billion people to these new 'polar' paradises?
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
9. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by 32771 · 2013-09-02 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Well fortunately we live on a cylindrical planet where the area higher up is equal to the area towards the middle ...
  No, that was wrong let me have another positive look at this, we applied a step function to the input of a non-linear system with feed-backs and all. If we get
  lucky the temperatures move up so fast the Equatorians won't be able to catch up.
  There is one excited Ph. D. student who is talking about the prospect that it is getting warm in Canada:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw1GEp8UBj4
  and staying that way throughout the next ice age, which wouldn't have to be called that way anymore. He also mentions that the equator may only get +3 degrees temperature improvement.
  
  --
  Je me souviens.
10. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by cusco · 2013-09-02 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  jungles grow everything in abundance
  
  Corollary: deserts grow nothing in abundance.
  
  Actually your statement is quite incorrect anyway. Of all the major food sources used by humans only yucca/cassava grows well under jungle-type conditions, and to a lesser extent rice. Corn, wheat, rye, barley, potatoes, and sweet potatoes all do very poorly if they grow at all, and only a few varieties of yams do well.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
11. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  i think this is a big misrepresentation of the known facts.
  one the one hand we have awg, but on the other we have new hybrids that can be grown
  it shorter growing seasons and therefore can be planted further north. now which is
  more likely, that this pest migration is caused by awg or the spread of the crops themselves?
12. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by Arker · 2013-09-02 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Didnt say it would be easy. Said it would not be 'uninhabitable.'
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
13. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by rts008 · 2013-09-02 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Cylindrical planet?
  I was always taught it was spherical, and all of NASA
  has pics to back this up.
  Cylindrical planet? Is it a pipe, or a column? Inquiring minds want to know.
  
  --
  Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
14. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by MightyMartian · 2013-09-02 09:01 · Score: 2
  
  The Canadian Shield is an extension of the Appalachians. The region I'm talking about is the north of the prairie provinces and the Northwest Territories, which are an extension of the Great Plains. There's a helluva lot of territory between the Rockies and the Canadian shield.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
15. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by Richy_T · 2013-09-02 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  It's OK. It's all owned by Monsanto anyway.
16. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by Richy_T · 2013-09-02 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  Now I'm conflicted whether to go with a "series of tubes" or a "Whoosh" reply.
17. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by RespekMyAthorati · 2013-09-02 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Northern Canada and Siberia are pretty big, and would hold a lot of people.
18. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry if thawed to the north, it is marshy, little but more blackflies will grow there.
19. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by MightyMartian · 2013-09-02 09:49 · Score: 2
  
  And what if Canada and Russia don't want a bunch of foreigners living on their territory?
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
20. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by oreiasecaman · 2013-09-02 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  Some people wouldn't understand irony even if it was hammered in their faces, HARD
  
  --
  This is a UDP joke, I don't care if you get it or not...
21. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by riverat1 · 2013-09-02 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  That's true but the soil in the Canadian prairie provinces still usually isn't as good as that found in the US Midwest. It was scraped pretty thin during the last glaciation while the Midwest continued to build up soil since it wasn't covered by ice all that time.
22. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by rts008 · 2013-09-02 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  I still don't see anything stuck to my magnet.
  
  --
  Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
23. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 18:15 · Score: 0
  
  "Most plants and animals that help keep a temperate zone healthy probably won't be able to migrate quickly enough to the unprecedented rate of warming we have unleashead."
  If your use of "precedent" ignores the Dryas events at the end of the last glacial period, or numerous other warming/cooling events that have happened since we entered the current ice age.
  the rest of your drivel about humans being unable to survive in warm climates is so laughably divorced from reality I can't think of any changes to the assumptions that would make it even mildly coherent.
24. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by delt0r · 2013-09-02 23:21 · Score: 1
  
  No no no. You got it all wrong. AGW is all bad. There is no good. A warming climate is bad. If you had nice land to grow crops, its going to turn into a dessert. If you have a dessert, you going to drown in floods, or its going to be a worse dessert. Well something will happen to make it worse that it is now. Then there will be a war with your neighbours so they can have some of your nice dessert, or flood lands, or whatever it is you have that is already your own doom... because well having someone else's doom is better than your own doom. Or something.. The Medieval Warm Period was only good, because well, errr because its wasn't AGW! The Little ice age was bad see, so climate change is bad. What more heat means more clouds that could reflect more sunlight? Nonsense I tell you. There are only positive feedback loops, the clouds will only form at night and trap more heat! We are going to be like Venus we are the curse of all life... To argue with me means your a denier... DENIER...
  
  On a more serious note. The 2 worst things that have happened and continue to happen are over fishing and habitat removal. If we didn't/stop do/doing that, ecosystems tend to be more plastic.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
25. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-03 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  So Canada should start working on it's fence now eh?
26. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by Trogre · 2013-09-04 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not really sure, but I suspect they won't be given a choice.
  Greenland, Alaska and the Antarctic are looking pretty ripe for the taking too.
  
  --
  "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
27. Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also? by 32771 · 2013-09-06 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  I sugar coated the icepick too much I guess.
  
  --
  Je me souviens.
Pests? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 05:12 · Score: 0

When we're self-flagellating over lost species we call them "biodiversity." We're were promoting up our Global Warming agenda they're "pests."
Re:frist pist by girlintraining · 2013-09-02 05:24 · Score: 1

First pest?
Damn first pest denialists... this problem has been going on for a lot longer than now, and the fact that it's just being reported is stupid. Oh, correlation doesn't mean causation! Intarwebs! Car analogy! (collapses giggling)

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Pine beetle by blankinthefill · 2013-09-02 05:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is actually believed to be one of the main culprits of the explosion of pine beetle infestations in Colorado, as the beetle is now able to survive at higher altitudes than it was previously able to due to increased warming, which has allowed it to infest species of trees which have no natural defense against the pine beetle. This in turn has driven a huge increase in the amount of standing and fallen deadwood in mountainous forests, and is believed to be one of the reasons behind the dramatic increase in the severity of wildfires in those areas.
1. Re:Pine beetle by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  Or maybe it was humans stopping all the wildfires for the last 100 years like an article right here two days ago.
2. Re:Pine beetle by blankinthefill · 2013-09-02 05:57 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  That's why I said ONE of the reasons. The forestry techniques of the last century certainly increased the amount of deadwood and undergrowth. Anyone familiar with the forest situation in Colorado will tell you that the pine beetle is ALSO a huge contributor to the large increase of deadwood in mountainous forests there. The worrisome thing about the pine deadwood, though, is that it's very often standing deadwood, which, unlike living trees, torches easily along it's whole length. This can very easily carry a fire into the crowns of trees, killing them where they may have otherwise survived. No one is denying that what the article from a few days ago said is true. But the increase in deadwood because of the pine beetle hugely exacerbates that situation. With JUST the forestry techniques, or JUST the pine beetle, we would be seeing the increase in destructiveness that we saw 30 or 40 years ago. With both, we end up with the destructiveness we see today. (Note, YES, I know there are also other factors, such as overbuilding, poor building practices, and the proliferation of unintentional fire breaks. However, those are minor issues when you consider that, without the deadwood and undergrowth situation as it is today, those fires would likely not be the problem they are today.)
3. Re:Pine beetle by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  So no warming in the last 18 years is causing pine beetles to go to warmer areas that are not warmer?
4. Re:Pine beetle by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  Or maybe it was humans stopping all the wildfires for the last 100 years like an article right here two days ago.
  NO, that is NOTHING to do with the pine beetle.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_pine_beetle
  The beetle range is expanding at EXACTLY the same rate as the temperatures are increasing. Environment Canada mapped temperate anomalies observed over the last 10-15 years and they match *exactly* with pine beetle expanding range of destruction.
  Currently the beetle is over the rockies and there is nothing really stopping it from moving into the pine forests all along Canada. Saskatchewan and especially Manitoba still have somewhat cold winters, keeping the beetle at bay, but if the weather there warms a few more degrees, the beetle will hop over the apalachians and fuck over the entire eastern Canada pine. And if it spreads across Alaska over bering strait, the entire taiga will be gone.
  If there is a danger to all pines in the world, this is IT. And this pandora's box has only been kept close by temperature which we are nicely opening up and will continue to open up for next few centuries. By then, pines could as well be extinct plant species.
  If you knew ANYTHING about the beetle, you would realize that it is not affected by fire at all. It is only affected by cold. If the temperatures don't drop to -40, the beetle lives and spreads. It's as simple as that.
5. Re:Pine beetle by sribe · 2013-09-02 06:40 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  So no warming in the last 18 years is causing pine beetles to go to warmer areas that are not warmer?
  In this case, it's not average temps that matter. It's the lack of any sustained period of very low temps. The lowest lows are nowhere near historic norms in the past decade. Now why this is, I'm not going to debate here.
6. Re:Pine beetle by riverat1 · 2013-09-02 11:21 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  One thing that has exacerbated that is the length of the warm season has grown enough in some places that the pine beetles are now able to have two generations in a year which has the effect of increasing their numbers far beyond what was seen in the past.
we should just nuke ourselves from orbit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 05:27 · Score: 0

It's the only way to be sure. Then mother earth can heal from the damage inflicted by humans breathing out toxic CO2 with every breath they take.
Riiight. Pests never spread before global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 05:30 · Score: 0, Interesting

Nope. Rats never spread bubonic plague prior to those evil Americans creating SUVs. Never happened. Nope.
Jesus Fucking Christ - if you really want something to be done about human-caused climate change, STOP THIS OVER-THE-TOP DRAMA!!!!
Why? Because it's way too damaging to credibility.
Just desserts - deserts. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 05:33 · Score: 0

You're assuming the warming stops at 'habitable'...
Thank you.
We'll also see deserts increase in size and new ones form.
We'll also see more fisheries collapse.
1. Re:Just desserts - deserts. by BradleyUffner · 2013-09-02 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  You're assuming the warming stops at 'habitable'...
  Thank you.
  We'll also see deserts increase in size and new ones form.
  We'll also see more fisheries collapse.
  Deserts have very little to do with temperature.
2. Re:Just desserts - deserts. by MightyMartian · 2013-09-02 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Um, but they do have a lot to do with rain belts, and along with warming temperatures you also see those shift, which will mean increased pace of desertification.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
3. Re:Just desserts - deserts. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 05:52 · Score: 0
  
  You're assuming the warming stops at 'habitable'...
  Thank you.
  We'll also see deserts increase in size and new ones form.
  We'll also see more fisheries collapse.
  Deserts have very little to do with temperature.
  As temperatures increase, rainfall patterns will change - increasing deserts in some parts of the World while increasing rainfall in other parts of the World.
  So, yes, there IS a link between global temperature and deserts.
4. Re:Just desserts - deserts. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  You assume that a weather change due to varying jet streams is global warming? I thought it was normal corollas affect due to spin of the planet and the related warming and coolings of day/night cycles? How do I effect that?
5. Re:Just desserts - deserts. by BradleyUffner · 2013-09-02 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  Um, but they do have a lot to do with rain belts, and along with warming temperatures you also see those shift, which will mean increased pace of desertification.
  Why assume that a shift in rain patterns would mean an increase of desertification? Couldn't a shift just as easily increase rainfall to an area that is currently a desert? In general, higher temperatures mean more water in the air, larger storms, and more rainfall.
6. Re:Just desserts - deserts. by riverat1 · 2013-09-02 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  Most deserts around the world are situated in the subtropical zones where the dry air from the Hadley cells descends, around 30 degrees north and south. Global warming appears to be expanding the Hadley cells somewhat which will move the desertified zones a little further toward the poles without necessarily shifting the other edges of those zones further from the equator thus expanding the desert area. For example there is evidence that southern Europe is getting drier but the southern edge of the Sahara Desert shows no signs of shifting northward.
7. Re:Just desserts - deserts. by BradleyUffner · 2013-09-02 13:35 · Score: 2
  
  Most deserts around the world are situated in the subtropical zones where the dry air from the Hadley cells descends, around 30 degrees north and south. Global warming appears to be expanding the Hadley cells somewhat which will move the desertified zones a little further toward the poles without necessarily shifting the other edges of those zones further from the equator thus expanding the desert area. For example there is evidence that southern Europe is getting drier but the southern edge of the Sahara Desert shows no signs of shifting northward.
  These articles seem to disagree:
  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8150415.stm
  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2811
  http://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/sep/16/highereducation.climatechange
  http://www.co2science.org/subject/d/summaries/desertification.php
8. Re:Just desserts - deserts. by riverat1 · 2013-09-02 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  I stand corrected. Thanks for that information about the equatorial sides of the desert zones shifting away from the Equator. The first part of my answer still stands though. The zone edges are moving poleward. This is not good news for Southern Europe and the US Southwest.
9. Re:Just desserts - deserts. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-03 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  During the last glacial max the Gobi and Sahara were much larger. A colder world is a drier one. Sorry that your good ship hit the rude rocks of reality but you have it all bass ackwords. More warmth releases more CO2 from the oceans, a wetter world and leads to more plants and less deserts.
Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power by MightyMartian · 2013-09-02 05:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm curious. Do you think the universe gives one sweet fuck about your political ideology. We can debate the scientific merits of these claims, but to attack them because they somehow collide with your political ideology is so fucking stupid I can only assume your either a moron or mentally ill.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'm just not happy with the name by smittyoneeach · 2013-09-02 05:43 · Score: 2

"Anthropogenic Global Warming" really had some heft.
But that sadly died, and "Climate Change" was left.
That's now dead, and what must rise from its dust is
Something like "Global Non-Constant Atmospheric Justice".

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Tell me about it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 05:43 · Score: 1

Those pests yapping about Global Warming are everywhere now, and they just won't shut up. Worse than the cicadas.
I see it coming by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 05:44 · Score: 5, Funny

Personally, I'm switching careers from IT to pest control.
Future news:
"The pest control industry is lobbying Congress for an increase in H1-Bs for pest control engineers. Stating ' there isn't enough qualified Americans coming out of school.'"
On Slashdot we'll see: ' I've been interviewing pest control engineers for years now, and I can tell yo that getting qualified people is really difficult. We get people with years of experience who can't describe how the poisons work on the pest nervous system and they can't even give a balanced equation on the compound's creation!"
"Same here! Why one guy couldn't use the sprayer properly."
And there will be ads for:
'Pest Control Engineer. MUST have 5 years of experience with the Pest Sprayer 2020 v 1.43.233, 5 years experience with the Pest sounder 3.42.11, 5 years of programming experience of the pest control API for Windows, BS/MSPE, Able to program the pest control Robot'
And there will be the "We are a Silicon Valley start-up with a new and ground breaking company that is a social media pest control company with iPad apps. There's a huge shortage of qualified people here in SF!" on Slashdot.
1. Re:I see it coming by GameboyRMH · 2013-09-02 05:52 · Score: 0
  
  LOL Mod Funny! XD
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
2. Re:I see it coming by roc97007 · 2013-09-02 06:09 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  ...and then there will be the offshore pest control operators. "You are having receiving the package? Very good. Now kindly open the package and taking out the metal canister. Very good. Now kindly place the metal canister on the floor of your cubical. Very good. Now if you would please pull out the pin being on the top of the canister. Very good. Oh, you should probably run now. Please close the ticket at your earliest convenience, and being sure to fill out our survey. Hello?
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:Riiight. Pests never spread before global warmi by pjbgravely · 2013-09-02 05:48 · Score: 1

The Black Death I believe occurred at the end of the Medieval Warm Period. This might prove their point even though most AWGers seem to not believe it occurred.

--
Star Trek, there maybe hope.
Re:Riiight. Pests never spread before global warmi by pjbgravely · 2013-09-02 05:51 · Score: 1

My apologies for responding to an AC. I expect to moded down accordingly for my mistake. .

--
Star Trek, there maybe hope.
Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power by MightyMartian · 2013-09-02 05:54 · Score: 2

Yes, like pretty much every climatologist on the planet. Certainly seems a more sensible group to turn to than some fucking halfwith AC on /.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power by killkillkill · 2013-09-02 06:01 · Score: 0

The GP was debating the scientific merits. Suggesting that there is a positive feedback mechanism in a system such that the funder would tend to get results that benefit them. Debating the bias of results is debating the core of it's scientific merit. So, please engage him in the debate and, if you disagree, argue why this bias does not exist. Only one of the two of you went on a tangent and threw profanity and personal insults into their post.
and the all time hoax continues... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 06:01 · Score: 0

Try using science instead of FUD, it works better...
1. Re:and the all time hoax continues... by Nimey · 2013-09-02 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Wake up sheeple!
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power by MightyMartian · 2013-09-02 06:05 · Score: 1

The poster I replied to wrote:
"Goverment funded study identifies new threat. Only solution is to give up more resources and liberties to said goverment.."
Can you explain how that is a critique of the scientific merits?

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The actual evidence by 0111+1110 · 2013-09-02 06:12 · Score: 0, Troll

However, the organisms can only take hold in new areas if the conditions are suitable, and the researchers believe that warming temperatures have enabled the creature to survive at higher latitudes.
I see. So the researchers believe something. How inspiring.

Dr Bebber said: "The most convincing hypothesis is that global warming has caused this shift.
Dr. Bebber finds the AGW hypothesis (his words) the most convincing explanation. Why don't I find his speculations more convincing? There can only be one reason. Nothing else makes sense. The oil companies must be paying me thousands of dollars to post this. No honest person could doubt such clear evidence as this.
Also what makes 1960 such a special year for combustion? Was it the start of the industrial revolution? It is certainly possible that human beings are solely responsible for the CO2 increase in our atmosphere during the past century and that this increase has been substantial enough to increase the average surface temperatures on the entire planet, but this study does not prove it. It doesn't even establish the ground work for doing so. At the very least I'd like to see evidence that such a spread is unprecedented and that it did not take place before the industrial revolution. After that it would be nice to see proof that temperature changes are the only possible explanation for certain species of insects spreading.

The researchers said that better information about where the pests and pathogens were and where they were moving was needed to fully assess the scale of the problem.
Sounds to me like they need some more money for further insect population studies and that if they don't get it we are all going to die and soon. Why direct surface temperature measurements are not sufficient to demonstrate increased surface temperatures is not explained. Did we uninvent thermometers and now require insects to tell us the temperature?

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power by tbannist · 2013-09-02 06:14 · Score: 2

That's a particularly ignorant argument seeing as the original post was clearly an ad hominem. He wasn't debating the merits of anything, he was dismissing something because he disagrees with the politics he assumes that the people who did research have. You should already know this. It seems that you are also allowing your politics to cloud your thinking.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:Riiight. Pests never spread before global warmi by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 06:14 · Score: 0

I you are wondering why Slashdot isn't what it used to be, there is the statement that says it all...
We live in a society where people have a misplaced feeling of self-entitlement.
Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power by 0111+1110 · 2013-09-02 06:20 · Score: 0

And every Godologist (priest) believes in his God. The fact that there aren't any atheist priests prove that He exists.

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power by MightyMartian · 2013-09-02 06:22 · Score: 2

Fallacy of the False Equivalence
It figures on top of everything else, you can't even make a cogent argument.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Next by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-09-02 06:26 · Score: 1

Easy to deal with pests, they are a minor issue. CONTINUE THE TERRAFORMING! We need the vast expanses of Canada and Siberia for farming!*
* Actually, we don't even need that.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Reality is complex by gmuslera · 2013-09-02 06:28 · Score: 0

When the first alerts of global warming started to appear, most people tough only in a bit more heat, while everything else continues the same. Then we had seasons of extreme weather hitting big cities, alerts on ocean rising, pests, and a lot more that is still coming, as everything is interconnected. Global Warming is just part of the problem, just a symtom, one where scientist can take a bunch of historical data and point a finger showing to even the dumbest persons that is happening, but our effect in the global ecosystem goes beyond temperature, changues in atmosphere, ocean and in life (specially the most abundant and invisible one). Changing the ecosystem we are taking high bets (agriculture that depends on climate being stable, cities that ties people to specific places), and a lot of people will pay those bets with their lives if the change happens fast enough (as it seems to be doing).
Meanwhile, the people behind the main human factors in the change try to convince people that nothing is happening nor is their fault, are the ones that control laws and government politics in this topics, and won't care at all as have enough money to keep living comfortably even if things get very wrong for everyone else.
1. Re:Reality is complex by citizenr · 2013-09-02 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Global Warming is just part of the problem, just a symtom, one where scientist can take a bunch of historical data and point a finger showing to even the dumbest persons that is happening
  Whats more, they can show to the dumbest person that it already happened before many times in earths history so we CANT DO SHIT ABOUT IT.
  
  --
  Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
2. Re:Reality is complex by abies · 2013-09-02 19:47 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if we cannot do anything about that, why do we need so many climatologists working on AGW problem? I can already see the papers "Please fire us, we do useless research". Not going to happen. They would lose their jobs if AGW is not what they tell us it is, so they have to be telling the truth. It is not possible for scientist to spin the story just to keep his grant intact. I mean, all this is getting peer reviewed by people who would also lose jobs if AGW is not happening, this guarantees no bias.
Re:Riiight. Pests never spread before global warmi by Boronx · 2013-09-02 06:35 · Score: 1

"if you really want something to be done about human-caused climate change, STOP THIS OVER-THE-TOP DRAMA!!!!"
Good thinking.
Heck, if you'd never heard about global warming at all, you'd probably be on the front lines for combatting it.

--
Play Command HQ online
Reality doesn't require your understanding by bussdriver · 2013-09-02 06:42 · Score: 2

You don't have to comprehend something to make it true. Reality and the Earth will continue without human "intelligence."

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
1. Re:Reality doesn't require your understanding by Rockoon · 2013-09-02 09:40 · Score: 2
  
  Reality and the Earth will continue without human "intelligence."
  Got any evidence for that?
  
  The problem with assumptions...
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
2. Re:Reality doesn't require your understanding by MightyMartian · 2013-09-02 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  Ah yes, the solipsists come out to play. How do you know I exist, or anyone else?
  Never was a more pointless philosophy put forward.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
3. Re:Reality doesn't require your understanding by Rockoon · 2013-09-03 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Is that the only way that his claim can be an incorrect assumption?
  
  Why no, no it isn't. The universe simulation may only continue to provide interesting results while humans continue to exist within it, and will be shut down as soon as humans cease to exist within it.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power by 0111+1110 · 2013-09-02 06:42 · Score: 1

Why would someone who didn't believe in AGW become a climate scientist? It just isn't going to happen. Or almost never. Does that really surprise you?

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
confirmation bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 06:46 · Score: 0

So at what point do we start to tell the folks who love these predictions that perhaps they're incredibly prone to confirmation bias?
Seriously why does every-fucking-thing suddenly relate to global warming. I'd have a lot easier time accepting it if everyone wasn't so hellbent on linking the color of my shit to AGW. Holy shit people. There's gotta be some kind of middle ground where we can accept that warming climates cause this kind of stuff but isn't portrayed as "OMG! AGW PUTS ROACHES IN YOUR HOME!!"
Yes, it's all global warming's fault by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 07:08 · Score: 0

Because obviously modern trade utilizing means of high-speed transport with lack of adequate quarantine or sanitation practices of international goods plays no role in the spread of pests and invasive species. Nobody should mind those wooden shipping pallets or forestry products from Asia or South America, whatever insects came in on the landing gear on that flight from Africa, or ships coming over from Europe dumping ballast in the Great Lakes after passing through the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Yep, of course all the pest problems are all due to global warming.
Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 07:33 · Score: 0

> your either a moron
Beautiful.
Biblical by PopeRatzo · 2013-09-02 07:50 · Score: 1

It's not "Global Warming". It's God giving the Earth a dutch oven. That's what my Bible says, and that's that.
And remember: "If it ain't King James, then it ain't Bible"*.
(*that last line is an actual bumper sticker seen in the parking lot of the Wal-mart on Route 66 in Rolla, Missouri, March 2013)

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
1. Re:Biblical by SuperKendall · 2013-09-02 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  The really funny thing about posts making fun of religious people is that you end up sounding far more stupid than the people who believe in religion, most of whom are quite practical and intelligent.
  You just come off as ignorant about a gigantic aspect of society.
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
2. Re:Biblical by PopeRatzo · 2013-09-02 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  What part of my post was making fun of religious people?
  The only fanciful part was the idea of God giving the world a dutch oven.
  I think you're just being overly defensive. Maybe because you see some of the humorous inconsistencies inherent in all religious belief and it makes you uncomfortable. Maybe if you had more faith, you wouldn't be so touchy.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 08:19 · Score: 0

You're right on. Wish there was a way to screen for -1 comments. Sometimes it's the only way to see an unbiased opinion with Groupthinkdot.
global warming conspiracy nuts are the real pest by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 08:30 · Score: 0

i'm tired of seeing this crap on slashdot
Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power by MightyMartian · 2013-09-02 09:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

Um, because they want to study climate? Oddly enough, people enter scientific fields to do science.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"Stop with the global warming..." by rabbin · 2013-09-02 10:01 · Score: 1

"Stop! Just stop with the global warming news already! We were wrong, OK? OK guys?! Just because we chose to believe the "research" of our libertarian and conservative "think tanks" funded directly by the petroleum industry and its investors (or by 501(c)(3)s to conceal the donors), and then ended up falling for the same PR tactics used and perfected by the tobacco industry (e.g. front groups, industry-propped/-organized "grassroots" movements, misleading media reports, fake controversies, etc etc) doesn't mean we need to be humiliated like this! First we accepted it was real, then we accepted it was man made, and now we've accepted that it's actually a problem. Just how many more stages of denial must we pass through before you're all satisfied?! Now those same "sources" that deceived us before (but for some insane reason we still listen to) are essentially telling us that "there's nothing we can do about it anyway" and "by golly, it's actually a good thing, so burn away!"--must we concede on these obvious lies too? Where does it end! I swear to god, there's a slashdot article almost every day on the negative effects of climate change and every time we see a new one it's like a pie in the fa-*splat* oh god now yosemite is on the verge of burning..."

- The inner thoughts of a depressingly large portion of slashdotters
1. Re:"Stop with the global warming..." by SuperKendall · 2013-09-02 10:49 · Score: 0
  
  Just because we chose to believe the "research" of our libertarian and conservative "think tanks" funded directly by the petroleum industry and its investors
  Said by a man who choses to believe the "research" funded directly by large government organizations who benefit by government control over industry, and have profited massively over propping up the alternative energy industry.
  The only difference is that you have blood on your hands; your push to move to alternative sources has crippled the growth many third world nations. So sad that millions must die because of your own political agenda.
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
2. Re:"Stop with the global warming..." by dave420 · 2013-09-02 22:29 · Score: 1
  
  Oh dear. When someone attacks the funding of a scientific study instead of the findings of said study, they show themselves to not understand what these studies even are, or how they are conducted.
  If the study was flawed, attack the flaws. If you don't know if the study was flawed or point out the mistakes in methodology or conclusion, then you can't criticise it for being flawed. It's that simple.
  It happens - more often than you think - that studies funded by industries do not reach the conclusions the industries hoped they would. A study with sound methodology and conclusions is valid regardless of who picked up the tab.
3. Re:"Stop with the global warming..." by SuperKendall · 2013-09-04 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  Oh dear. When someone attacks the funding of a scientific study
  How odd you did not then attack the person I originally responded to, making exactly the same claim...
  It's almost as if you have some kind of bias that makes you ignore the sins of those you believe in, while chiding ideological opponents at the same time.
  And we should believe you why again, when your attacks are wholly partisan?
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:frist pist by flyneye · 2013-09-02 11:04 · Score: 1

What , you mean all the GMO Monsanto and Cargill horseshit still fall to pests?

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Hrm... can't we just summarize what's happening? by erroneus · 2013-09-02 11:26 · Score: 1

Global warming (climate change) means the water in the air [weather] changes the way it behaves. We're in flux right now so it's pretty impossible to make long-term predictions, but it is safe enough to say that some places will get more rain while other places get less.
This shift in where water goes will also make a shift in where and how well plants grow. Some plants will die while others will begin to thrive and flourish. The animal life which depend on the water and the plant life will also shift, die and surge in different areas depending on how things go. Larger animals which depend on water, plants and other animals will also experience serious changes. Humans, conscious and observant of these changes, will be able to adjust to these changes in some ways (while others will not be able to adjust due to resource limitations). The value of some lands will decrease while others land values will go up.
Have I missed anything? Suffering? World wars? Food shortage?
You can't (usually) have it both ways. by argStyopa · 2013-09-02 13:40 · Score: 1

So wait, warming is allowing "pests" (ie creatures we don't like) to spread and flourish, while reducing/eliminating the ranges for the "beloved" creatures (like corals and polar bears). Never, apparently, helping the spread of beneficial or favored animals or confining/killing things we don't like?
That's rather amazing synchronicity, don't you think?
The only possible conclusion is that there is, in fact, a God and he hates us.... ....or, the mendacious reporting of "Global Warming" news concentrates solely on "sky is falling" terrible things and cheerfully fails to report any consequence that might be perceived as positive.
You pick.

--
-Styopa
1. Re:You can't (usually) have it both ways. by dave420 · 2013-09-03 01:07 · Score: 2
  
  Sure - if you don't want to think about it. Or, maybe, the climate change is affecting different species differently. Polar bears are losing their hunting ground due to warmer seas, and corals are dying because of the ocean acidification, just as pests in temperate climates are spreading with their spreading temperate areas. No need for God or assuming climate change doesn't exist - just basic reading comprehension and a willingness to learn.
2. Re:You can't (usually) have it both ways. by argStyopa · 2013-09-03 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Missing the point, stoner Dave.
  The point is that - at least according to news reports - the only thing that Global Warming does is BAD things, when in reality for every species LOSING some of its range, another species is GAINING range. And it's logically not just "good" animals dying and "bad" animals thriving - that's just inane.
  My point is that yes, if all you're looking to report is that the sky is falling, that's all you're going to see.
  
  --
  -Styopa
scammers by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 15:05 · Score: 0

They are trying hard to con people into believing their false global warming propaganda.
Show me group think! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 20:08 · Score: 0

Re:Pests (Score:5, Insightful)
what to I win?
Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power by dave420 · 2013-09-03 01:11 · Score: 1

That is trivially easy to identify, which makes me wonder why no-one has done so already. If the funding perverts the science, the papers would be full of errors, and easy to spot. I take it you're not aware of the reports funded by an entity which turn out to directly harm said entity, otherwise you'd not be making these ridiculous assertions.
scientific journal? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-03 03:32 · Score: 0

Given the name of the journal, it should not be categorized scientific. Settled science is an oxymoron,
What global warming? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-03 04:29 · Score: 0

What global warming? Depending on the dataset you use there has been no statistically significant warming for between 17-23 years. This while CO2 has gone up 8-10% during the same time.
In fact for the last 7 years show a slight downward trend in temperatures.
Okay one more time. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures until you admit that CO2 does not control the climate? 30 years? 40? 50? Never?
Re:Riiight. Pests never spread before global warmi by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-03 04:34 · Score: 0

Contributing factor was a pope who hated black cats which lead to a purge of cats and surge in rodents. Funny thing this world is.
Biological systems evolve spatially to adapt... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-03 04:38 · Score: 0

Really, say it's not so. Then again those who are most likely to deny climate change are also most likely to deny evolution.
I also take issue with "pests". This is a term like "weeds" - an arbitrary human economic definition. To nature they simply "are" a current system state without greater or lesser value.
Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-03 05:46 · Score: 0

Maybe they should study succession too. How fast are grasslands expanding. How is forest succession proceeding. And for those who think habitable lands are only those which are occupied (Mighty Martian)....habitability will also expanding north and south where two great land masses exists, replacing all that equatorial ocean (some times called a wet desert)..
This is not new information. by rhalstead · 2013-09-03 09:21 · Score: 1

We had a beautiful row of pines across the North edge of our property. Then the Beetles got into them. Huge stand across the road. All gone. Lots of Elm trees for shade. All gone. Millions of pines in Alaska gone because the cold weather no longer lasts long enough to kill the beetles. We've seen disease and pests moving hundreds of miles North to affect crops for some time.
Recursion by hawkfish · 2013-09-04 08:32 · Score: 1

Do denialists count as pests?

--
You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates