Global Warming Spreading Pests Far and Wide According To Study

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.'"

Comments

Re:frist pist

[PPH]

First pest?

Generalized Hypothesis in a Generalized World

[Anonymous Coward]

Human population is expanding similarly. Uh, yes, you did say crop pests...maybe they count too.

Re:Generalized Hypothesis in a Generalized World

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearing forests to grow crops should be more than enough to get humans classified as a crop pest.

Re:Generalized Hypothesis in a Generalized World

[MickLinux]

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.

Re:Generalized Hypothesis in a Generalized World

[Genda]

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.

Re:Generalized Hypothesis in a Generalized World

[MickLinux]

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".

Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

No their knot! La La La! I can't here you!

ClimateChangeDenialBot37

Re:Wrong

[Mashiki]

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.

Pests

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, them hippie environmentalist pests are especially bad since global warming started.

Re:Pests

[lightknight]

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!

Re:Pests

[Genda]

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.

Re:Pests

[oreiasecaman]

Are you ClimateChangeDenialBot38?

Re:Pests

[abies]

"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"

Re:Pests

[Optali]

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".

Still want it?

[GameboyRMH]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[roc97007]

Personally, I'm switching careers from IT to pest control.

Re:Still want it?

[professionalfurryele]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[wbr1]

Personally, I'm switching careers from IT to pest control.

It is an easy career change. You deal with bugs in both professions.

Re:Still want it?

[0111 1110]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[GameboyRMH]

It's not a fictional bogeyman, it's a real opinion I've heard from real people including Slashdot users.

Re:Still want it?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[MightyMartian]

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."

Re:Still want it?

[roc97007]

Isn't that the same career path?

There is quite a bit of overlap.

Re:Still want it?

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Still want it?

[PPH]

Yes. In IT we call them users.

Re:Still want it?

[MightyMartian]

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."

Re:Still want it?

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[mcgrew]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[jovius]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[harvey the nerd]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[Nimey]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[cusco]

Are you suggesting that the fossil fuel companies are headed by aliens? That would explain an awful lot . . .

Re:Still want it?

[GameboyRMH]

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?

Re: Still want it?

[alen]

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

Re:Still want it?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[symbolset]

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?

Re: Still want it?

[otterpop81]

"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.

Re:Still want it?

[lightknight]

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...

Re:Still want it?

[MightyMartian]

So because international cooperation is really hard, climatologists aren't worried? That's just about the most tortured logic I've ever seen.

Re:Still want it?

[Richy_T]

Maybe volcanoes are aliens?

Re:Still want it?

[Aonghus142000]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[Genda]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[riverat1]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[Flere Imsaho]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[dryeo]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[dryeo]

Like the mountain pine beetle as well as many other pests that are controlled by freezing?

Re:Still want it?

[dryeo]

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?

Re:Still want it?

[riverat1]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[lightknight]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[bane2571]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[dryeo]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[jmhobrien]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[professionalfurryele]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[dave420]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[WGFCrafty]

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.

Re:Still want it?

[Aonghus142000]

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.

Why not, if other things can flourish also?

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also?

[pixelpusher220]

You're assuming the warming stops at 'habitable'...

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also?

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also?

[symbolset]

Never the mod points when I need them.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also?

[innocent_white_lamb]

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.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also?

[Arker]

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.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also?

[Burz]

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.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also?

[pixelpusher220]

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?

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also?

[32771]

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.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also?

[cusco]

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.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also?

[Arker]

Didnt say it would be easy. Said it would not be 'uninhabitable.'

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also?

[rts008]

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.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also?

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also?

[Richy_T]

It's OK. It's all owned by Monsanto anyway.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also?

[Richy_T]

Now I'm conflicted whether to go with a "series of tubes" or a "Whoosh" reply.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also?

[RespekMyAthorati]

Northern Canada and Siberia are pretty big, and would hold a lot of people.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also?

[MightyMartian]

And what if Canada and Russia don't want a bunch of foreigners living on their territory?

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also?

[oreiasecaman]

Some people wouldn't understand irony even if it was hammered in their faces, HARD

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also?

[riverat1]

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.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also?

[rts008]

I still don't see anything stuck to my magnet.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also?

[delt0r]

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.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also?

[Trogre]

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.

Re:Why not, if other things can flourish also?

[32771]

I sugar coated the icepick too much I guess.

Re:frist pist

[girlintraining]

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)

Pine beetle

[blankinthefill]

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.

Re:Pine beetle

[blankinthefill]

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.)

Re:Pine beetle

[sribe]

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.

Re:Pine beetle

[riverat1]

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.

Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Just desserts - deserts.

[BradleyUffner]

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.

I'm just not happy with the name

[smittyoneeach]

"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".

Tell me about it

[Anonymous Coward]

Those pests yapping about Global Warming are everywhere now, and they just won't shut up. Worse than the cicadas.

I see it coming

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I see it coming

[roc97007]

...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?

Re:Just desserts - deserts.

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Riiight. Pests never spread before global warmi

[pjbgravely]

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.

Re:Riiight. Pests never spread before global warmi

[pjbgravely]

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

Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power

[MightyMartian]

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

Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power

[MightyMartian]

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?

Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power

[tbannist]

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.

Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power

[MightyMartian]

Fallacy of the False Equivalence

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

Next

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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.

Re:Riiight. Pests never spread before global warmi

[Boronx]

"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.

Re:and the all time hoax continues...

[Nimey]

Wake up sheeple!

Reality doesn't require your understanding

[bussdriver]

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

Re:Reality doesn't require your understanding

[Rockoon]

Reality and the Earth will continue without human "intelligence."

Got any evidence for that?

The problem with assumptions...

Re:Reality doesn't require your understanding

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Reality doesn't require your understanding

[Rockoon]

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.

Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power

[0111 1110]

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?

Biblical

[PopeRatzo]

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)

Re:Biblical

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Biblical

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Re:Reality is complex

[citizenr]

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.

Re:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power

[MightyMartian]

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

Re:Just desserts - deserts.

[BradleyUffner]

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.

"Stop with the global warming..."

[rabbin]

"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

Re:"Stop with the global warming..."

[dave420]

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.

Re:Just desserts - deserts.

[riverat1]

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.

Re:frist pist

[flyneye]

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

Hrm... can't we just summarize what's happening?

[erroneus]

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?

Re:Just desserts - deserts.

[BradleyUffner]

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

You can't (usually) have it both ways.

[argStyopa]

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.

Re:You can't (usually) have it both ways.

[dave420]

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.

Re:You can't (usually) have it both ways.

[argStyopa]

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.

Re:Just desserts - deserts.

[riverat1]

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.

Re:Reality is complex

[abies]

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:All roads leed to Rome/more goverment power

[dave420]

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.

This is not new information.

[rhalstead]

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

[hawkfish]

Do denialists count as pests?